December 5, 2004

In his maiden televized address to the nation, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz didn’t pull any rabbit out of his hat. The spiel was predictable, replete with promises that have often been dished out to the public by the Muslim Leaguers. It also gave credence to the view that the ruling party has no qualms about General Pervez Musharraf’s one-man rule in the country

THE PML government has completed two years in office. In these 24 months, Shaukat Aziz is the third prime minister picked by President Musharraf to continue the policies that he has been pursuing ever since the general overthrew the Nawaz Sharif government in October 1999.

After about three months in power, Shaukat Aziz made his maiden address to the nation, elaborating on the agenda he would follow.

Normally, head of the government unfolds his programme immediately after taking charge, and the opposition starts monitoring his performance in order to put him on the spot whenever he makes a mistake.

Perhaps, it took Mr Aziz three months to decide about what he should be telling the nation, simply because he had no new ideas. He had been finance minister for five years, and in his much-awaited address as the country’s chief executive he said the same things as he used to in his budget speeches.

The only new thing that came from him was the invitation to opposition parties for talks on various issues facing the country. But a good initiative remained a non-starter as he told opposition parties that the issue of President Musharraf’s staying in uniform had already been settled by parliament. He advised the critics of the uniform to respect the bicameral legislature’s verdict and adopt what he called a “forward-looking approach”.

What opposition parties regarded as the core issue was declared a “not-negotiable” matter by the prime minister. The reaction of opposition parties was pretty quick and predictable. They unanimously rejected the offer for talks and began preparing for their anti-Musharraf movement.

The MMA kicked off its campaign with a public meeting in Karachi on Nov 28, and the ARD is scheduled to hold one such meeting in the NWFP on Dec 6.

Some opposition leaders are trying to bring the ARD and the MMA closer to each other, while the government is trying its best to tear them apart. The release of Asif Ali Zardari after eight years in prison and contacts with Benazir Bhutto are being seen in the same light. Some people in the ruling party think that many changes are expected to take place on the political horizon in the next few months.

There are reports that Chaudhry Shujaat Husain told an important opposition leader that he was trying to get PML-N President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi and PPP’s Syed Yousaf Reza Gilani released from prison.

The information regarding Shujaat Husain’s efforts has already reached families of the two leaders. Their supporters are hoping that Mr Hashmi and Mr Gilani would be released as a result of a judicial process.

In this respect the question that springs to mind is: How will the two-year performance of the PML government be rated? And to what extent the ruling party is adhering to the commitments it had made in its election manifesto?

Another very pertinent matter to discuss would be whether the PML is working to strengthen the parliamentary system or only playing in the hands of a general just for the sake of holding on to power.

An analysis of what the government has done so far shows that the ruling PML will not be able to play any significant role in the remaining three years of its term and President Musharraf will continue to call the shots. He is perhaps the most powerful president of the country ever, while the status of the prime minister is just like that of the premier of Egypt or Jordan.

It can be said without any fear of contradiction that President Musharraf’s options for the solution to the Kashmir dispute are a departure from the ruling party’s manifesto, no matter how good they are.

One supports the initiative taken by the president in the changed global environment. But this doesn’t give the ruling party any justification to change its stand on the Kashmir issue.

Before changing its stance on what was described as the jugular vein of Pakistan by the Quaid-i-Azam, the party would have to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.

Also, policy decisions on the subject should have been taken by the cabinet and announced by the prime minister. It was not fair on the president’s part to outline options on such an important issue at a meeting where the prime minister was present — but only to listen to what his “terrific boss” would say. (Unfortunately, if former prime minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali called Gen Musharraf his boss, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz went a step ahead and described him as a “terrific boss”.)

Regarding the Kashmir issue, the PML manifesto says: “The party pledges to support the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir in securing the right of self-determination of their people in accordance with relevant UN resolutions.” The issue of who drafted the seven options President Musharraf came up with for the solution to the Kashmir problem is still shrouded in mystery. At least, parliament and the cabinet were not kept in the loop.

Similarly, nowhere in the party manifesto was there any room for a body called the National Security Council (NSC). It was introduced by Gen Musharraf, and obediently accepted by the ruling party. The president argued that the NSC would introduce into the country a system of checks and balances. The president, the prime minister and the army chief, he asserted, would work within their respective jurisdictions and no one would be able to trespass into the territory of the remaining two members of the ‘troika’.

Gen Musharraf has said it over and over again that after the formation of the NSC, the army chief would not play any role in the political affairs of the country, nor would the political leaders have to seek his help in difficult times, as was the case in the past.

But the president contradicted his own argument when he insisted that he must remain in uniform even after Dec 31, the deadline set by the 17th amendment for him to take off his military robe. The justification he put forward in support of retaining two offices was his continuing role in the international war against terrorism, and the recent change in the global scenario.

In other words, what the president is saying means that if he appoints a new army chief, he will not confine himself to the duties mentioned in the Constitution. He fears that the new COAS may create problems for what he plans to do in the future.

Does not the president’s insistence on retaining the two offices go against his arguments that he gave in favour of the NSC? It certainly does. If he wants to keep on wearing two caps, retaining the NSC will not be justified. Parliament, the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, or even the Council of Common Interests could effectively discharge the duties assigned to the NSC.

Interestingly, during the past two years the government did not call a single meeting of the CCI, and none seems to be in the offing. It is not clear whether it, at all, has been constituted.

But who, in the ruling party, can dare tell this to the president? It’s a party of self-servers who would support every step taken, or to be taken, by the president — no matter if it’s justified or not.

Through the NSC the armed forces have been given a role in governance. The National Security Council can be disbanded by a simple majority of the two houses. But is the ruling coalition expected to dissolve it? No way.

Now let’s examine what the ruling party has done to itself and the country by allowing the president to retain both offices. It has given its destiny in the hands of the general.

Under the Constitution, parliament, through a procedure laid down for the purpose, can impeach the president in certain situations. If the ruling party and the opposition are not satisfied with the performance of the president, they can join hands to come up with the required two-thirds majority to oust him. But will they be able to impeach the president? No, because if they impeach President Musharraf, they will have to face the very man, Gen Musharraf. And a general is, certainly, a much more powerful person than a president.

Thus, for all practical purposes the article concerning the impeachment of the president will remain “suspended” as long as Gen Musharraf is in his uniform. And only the ruling party can be held responsible for it.

Highly placed sources say that Gen Musharraf had been persuaded by some people that he should honour the commitment he had made in the 17th amendment and shed his uniform. He was told that unless he took such a step, the PML would not emerge as a real party. But while the general was persuaded, the ruling party was shaky. Party leaders told the president that in the absence of the umbrella provided by him, the PML would disintegrate and would crumble in no time.

Having listened to such arguments Gen Musharraf concluded that it would still take the PML a long time to become a political party, ignoring what he had earlier committed himself to.

These arguments are sufficient to convince everyone that by retaining the two offices, Gen Musharraf would be the strongest man of the country, facing no threat from any elected house. This means that all elected houses would be at his mercy.

Has the ruling party ever thought, what if Gen Musharraf seeks a re-election after completing his term in 2007? Will he still be allowed to stay as army chief?

If the same system is followed in the future, there is little hope of any improvement in the most vital sectors.

The party manifesto says: “All major policy decisions of the government shall be made on the floor of parliament or respective provincial assemblies.

“Limits shall be prescribed on the number of ministers and advisers that can be appointed in the federal and provincial governments.”

It is an open secret that the government has not set any limits and perhaps the existing cabinets are larger in size than the council of ministers in the past. More and more people are being given ministerial status to avert any threat to the government, especially in the Centre where the ruling party has a thin majority.

The manifesto commits the ruling party to withdraw all discretionary powers. But anything like this is yet to be seen.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)