A turning point?

The biggest source of controversy that has dogged their negotiations since before the Feb 18 polls has been the judges’ issue. The full restoration of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary as demanded by the PML-N was obviously a major stumbling block, since the PPP looked at it differently. It felt that the reinstatement of the judges could possibly cause the collapse of the entire system based on the promulgation of the PCO, President Musharraf’s re-election and the enactment of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, without which the PPP would not have participated in the Feb 18 polls the way it did. The issue had the potential to cause dissensions, rule out a PPP-PML coalition and cast a shadow on the new era. The two parties have now found a way out by seeking to restore the sacked judges through a resolution within 30 days of the coming into being of the new assembly. But will this reconcile the ideological divide between the two parties? It has not been made clear how the two plan to govern the country together meaningfully when their stand on so many issues is poles apart.

President Musharraf is now facing his moment of truth: the two parties have united in a move that he too should welcome, because their unity helps push “the third phase” of the transition to democracy forward. The constitutional validity of the proposed resolution on the judges is a subject unto itself. But the president has no choice but to submit to the will of the people. Popular sentiment wants the new system to succeed, and the president too has a stake in its successful working because he fathered it by means questionable at places but also laudable, like the holding of a largely credible election. It would be a pity if mutual suspicions leading to confrontation were to upset democracy’s apple cart. Ultimately, the president has to reconcile himself to being a titular head of state without the draconian powers, including Article 58-2(b), he has at the moment. Considering the problems one can expect in a coalition of parties not sharing similar political ideologies, we expect the president to refrain from meddling in national politics that do not promise smooth sailing in the new dispensation.

The enemy lies within

NOTWITHSTANDING its status as a long-standing, trusted and, above all, a key ally of the United States in the ongoing war against terrorism, Pakistan remains among the most unpopular countries in the eyes of American citizens. To be precise, a recent Gallup survey found Pakistan to be sixth on this rather unfavourable top-ten chart. The most obvious conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the findings of the survey is that the millions spent in the last few years in the name of image-building and hiring lobby firms to work on the country’s perception in the eyes of the world have basically done nothing except being a drain on the national kitty. That apart, the fact of the matter is that no amount of funds can do the trick in the face of the heavy odds placed in the way of having a positive image abroad. On this count at least, the problem lies with us, not with the Americans or anyone else for that matter. Why else would we have a low image as a nation in the brotherly Muslim countries dotting the Persian Gulf and the Middle East?

For starters, with the kind of security environment that we have in the country, can we really expect foreigners to carry positive impressions of the country? The almost constant turmoil prevailing at the level of the state machinery does not make for any confident, upbeat copy in international media either. However, in the specific context of the Gallup 2008 World Affairs Survey, which sought opinions from ordinary citizens, what should have mattered almost as much as anything else, if not more, would have been the conduct of the community of non-resident Pakistanis. The lack of

integration that immigrant Pakistanis are known to exercise in their day-to-day activities is understandably a big turn-off for the natives. This is not to suggest that they should forget their geographical or cultural roots in attempting assimilation, but just that they have to sincerely respect the social norms of that society. After all, immigration is a voluntary act and not something forced on anyone. Unwarranted criticism as well as holier-than-thou acts of condescension are not going to win them many hearts. Add to it the general reputation as lawbreakers that the Pakistani diaspora is slapped with — from credit-card fraud to piracy and even terrorism — and one can easily find out why is it what it is. A single moment of honest introspection would be enough to suggest that the enemy lies within, not without.

A children’s parliament

WHILE obviously not having legislative powers, a ‘children’s parliament’ as an advocacy group makes sense. It was an idea that was recently endorsed by a group of schoolchildren, attending a Karachi workshop. They said that they would establish such a parliament since there was no one to represent them in decision-making institutions. Our lawmakers have consistently ignored the importance of legislation to boost protection for children and to ensure that they get at least their basic rights. It is primarily for this reason that efforts for such a body should be supported so that the voices of Pakistan’s children detailing their myriad concerns do not go unheard. Poor education, corporal punishment, homelessness, child labour and sexual and verbal abuse are among the host of issues that need to be sorted out with regard to our children whose participation is required to shake politicians out of their reverie.

As in some other countries, regular sessions of a children’s parliament would contribute to instilling a sense of self-worth in the participants, preparing them for leadership roles later in life. It is no secret that Pakistan has had very few leaders truly worth their salt. Most civilian leaders have occupied positions of power because of their wealth or family background. Ordinary folk have hardly had a chance to show their merit, given that straitened circumstances and poor access to quality education have restricted the tapping of their potential. A body representing children can get those under 18 years to start taking an active interest in politics, learning more about laws, tolerance and a sense of responsibility in matters of governance. Sensitised to issues early on in life, and equipped with the knowledge of how governments are run, these young ‘parliamentarians’ will probably do better than our current lot of politicians when their time comes.

Lawyers’ movement, one year on

IT was the evening of March 9, 2007 when I was on a flight from Karachi to Islamabad that I first heard of the sacking of the Chief Justice of Pakistan by Gen Musharraf.

A lawyer was talking about it in animated tones to his neighbour. As we disembarked, I asked the lawyer whether a president could legally remove a Chief Justice. He told me exactly how such a thing was possible under the law.

But — pardon my ignorance — it did not immediately sink into my mind exactly what had happened. Within a few hours and after a cursory re-reading of the much-abused Constitution, the enormity of the president’s action struck me for what it really was — the biggest blow the judiciary had received for a long time.

And, mind you, ours is a judiciary which has received many a blow in our chequered history. Military dictators have removed judges they did not like and these were some of our bravest judges. No wonder the judiciary was cowed down. If you keep plucking out the best people from an institution every now and then you cannot expect it to grow or mature. Courage is created by security and not by throwing out anyone who dares to raise his head.

Anyway, because of this enormous abuse of the judiciary, we mostly had judges who buckled down under the might of the military. These were often called the PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order) judges. Those few who did not take the oath under the PCO were the ones to be sent off home unwept and unsung.This is where we had gone wrong as a society. We just did not care enough for our judiciary’s independence. After all, a judge is a salaried person who gets used to a regular income and perks of office and who, like other people, looks forward to a pension and playing with his grandchildren and telling stories. So, when a judge chooses to go home rather than complete his tenure, he is making a really big sacrifice.

And yet, most of us including myself do not know the names of the judges who had given impeccably honest judgements and who had chosen to go home rather than take oath under PCOs. These were — and remain — our unsung heroes. We do not tell our children these things; we still give them the names of people who kill a lot of other people (like Alexander the Great) as heroes.

But this time things were different. Within a few days the Chief Justice proved himself capable of standing up to the bullying by the strongest man in Pakistan. He did not resign as many of us had predicted and he did not get bribed. This was novel. And the other strange thing was that lawyers all over the country were up in arms against the military ruler and in support of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

Many of us, including myself (shame be upon me), thought the Chief Justice could not withstand the pressure for long nor could the lawyers keep losing money. But the balmy March turned to scalding May and there were the lawyers in their black suits in sweltering heat. The media covered every moment of this living history in the making. It seemed as if a slumbering nation had come alive.

Wherever Aitzaz Ahsan went with the Chief Justice people thronged around the vehicle. They braved police batons, tear gas, barbed wire and the terrible heat. Journeys of a few hours took days and government ministers went black in the face lying outright. In the end they ran out of lies and got the TV channels blocked and then choked off. The media was attacked by policemen acting like goons and armed men running riot in Karachi. And still the judges, the lawyers and the media — large sections of these three institutions — kept up their rebellion against General Musharraf’s arbitrary, dictatorial ways.

Then the Supreme Court restored the Chief Justice to his post. For me this was like living in a fairy tale. I had read of Justice Munir who had confessed that he had legitimised dictatorship because he was afraid that the courts would not he obeyed if he took on the mighty executive. I had looked at all the cases of the military’s taking over the country and the judges exonerating it — unless the dictator was down and out.

And I knew that most judges did not even go home when the ruling generals had imposed the PCO upon them. Some had, of course, but they were few and far between. So, for me, this was a new experience. It was so new as to be slightly incredulous. And yet it went on and on.

And then, on Nov 3, things turned ugly. A draconian order removed the fig leaf from the pretence of democracy and what we witnessed was martial law. The chief of army staff sent the Chief Justice home and this time there was no court, no procedure, no legal trappings to help him.

The lawyers of the Chief Justice — heroes of civil society by now — were put behind bars. The media was closed down and members of civil society were arrested. Instead of fighting the militants Gen Musharraf was fighting those who put hurdles between him and the presidency. The judges were incarcerated in their houses and even their children could not sit in the sun nor breath the sharp autumn air. And still the ministers kept up the mantra that the judges were free.

This was the end, I thought to myself. But no, I was wrong. Wonder of wonders the students came on the streets. And these were not the politicised students of the 1960s but the apolitical Mummy-Daddy type of youngsters from LUMS and other such places. There were the lawyers still losing out on money and these young students braving the streets and, of course, the brave human rights activists like Asma Jahangir and I.A. Rehman braving the wrath of the establishment.

I watched with horror as they arrested Tahira Abdullah and hit Aitzaz Ahsan but those who can pull a Chief Justice by his hair and brutally beat up lawyers can do anything. This was not strange; this was expected. What I did not expect was that the movement would be sustained even as bomb blasts instilled the fear of violent death in the hearts of people. The blasts killed over 1,500 people in 2007 and the most momentous assassination was that of Benazir Bhutto. But still people braved the minefields of Pakistan. Still they went out to vote; still Aitzaz Ahsan did not run after ministerships; still he talked of restoring the judiciary as did Nawaz Sharif.

And now it is the first anniversary of this historic movement. It is the occasion when one must take one’s hat off to the judges, the lawyers, the media, the students and members of civil society who did more for democracy and freedom and the dignity of the human spirit than most of us can comprehend. I myself am only an admiring bystander of the kind about whom Milton said, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” Indeed, I do not know if my admiration is service at all or not. But admiration it is. And if such people’s salutations are acceptable then I offer the lawyers’ movement my salute.

OTHER VOICES: Sindhi Press

Army pledge to stay out of politics

Hilal Pakistan

ONE welcomes Gen Kayani’s pledge at a meeting of the corps commanders in Rawalpindi that the army would stay out of politics and support the democratic process in the country. At the same time, the army chief also rejected the impression that the army had distanced itself from the president. The first…shows positive thinking that defence institutions should stand for. In the past, the army and the agencies were involved in manipulating the polls. (The army) thus earned a bad name and was considered an armed political force.

The constitutional role of the army lies in defending the borders. Unfortunately, time and again it has overstepped the constitutional bounds and has been involved in overthrowing elected governments, and then has lingered on…suspending the constitutional and fundamental rights of the people.

The top brass of the army might be aware of the situation. Thus arose the need for Gen Kayani’s statement. This need also arose because after a meeting of the army chief and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff committee, there were rumours that President Musharraf had been advised to quit. This impression was boosted by the fact that the political parties that had won the polls, the lawyers’ community and other sections of society were demanding this. It cannot be denied that the president has become controversial… It is good that the army chief has clarified the position.

…Now as a civilian president, President Musharraf’s office is linked to parliament which should take the decisions. The army or any other institution should not interfere in parliamentary matters. — (March 8)

President-parliament ties: some questions

Awami Awaz

PRESIDENT Musharraf has pledged to support the new government…

…But the Feb 18 election results have proved that the president’s policies ran contrary to his claims and when the people got the chance they rejected these policies. This fact necessitates that the president seek a vote of confidence from the Assembly... The government which will take over enjoys a two-third majority and can challenge and change the old policies… Therefore, the president’s power to dismiss the government under Article 58 (2)(b) is supposed to be debated in parliament.

This issue will be a focal point for the success or failure of the government. The situation shows that the president has become a burden on parliament. The people’s mandate demands that the elected government be allowed to work without being subjected to any pressure or compulsion. If the new government is not able to do so, then there will be little difference between the PML-Q-led government and the new one. In principle, the president should understand that if he himself is a hurdle in the working of the government that has a new and heavy mandate, then he himself should remove this hurdle in the greater interest of the country, and respect the people’s mandate.

It is unfortunate that as in the past… an individual is considering himself a necessity and hindering…a democratic government. Public opinion demands that a new government be allowed a free hand…If Musharraf wants to continue as president, he will have to reduce his power and empower the prime minister and parliament. — (March 9)

— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi