12
THE last few days suggest that at least one form of honour is still intact around here: the honour among thieves. Musharraf insists that the treason trial is tantamount to rubbing the army’s nose in the dirt. The khakis have chosen not to clarify that this trial is none of their business. The Sharif government seems stuck indecisively between a rock and a hard place. And if that isn’t bad enough, Sharifuddin Pirzada has been dusted and brought back from the morgue.
The wily old Pirzada and the ethic of unscrupulous success that he epitomises is a poignant reminder that the more things change the more they stay the same. Musharraf may well have developed heartache. Here is an arrogant, reckless man who ruled Pakistan absolutely for almost a decade, saw his departure in 2008 as caused by betrayal by his own, returned with the expectation to receive a hero’s welcome only to be ensnared in legal troubles that no one can rid him of easily.
Surely this is enough to cause a remorseless, conceited dictator heartache if not heart attack. No decent man would wish ill health upon Musharraf. But watching his minions publicly peddling lies and deceit with perfect ease and without qualms is painful. But then every ruler no matter how he assumes power is a benefactor of many. Isn’t standing by a benefactor in need the honourable thing to do in a culture wherein loyalty trumps principle?
The problem with dictatorship is that illegitimate incidence of birth is hard to cure with panache or performance. We seem divided over Musharraf as a society for we have no agreement over what constitutes our Grundnorm. There is a constituency in Pakistan that believes that the Constitution embodies the Grundnorm or at least it should. And the desirability or legitimacy of any action is to be judged in accord with the provisions of the Constitution.
There is another lot that believes that the Constitution is no Grundnorm, but more akin to a traffic light: it is helpful for the most part for ordinary folk, but can be shut down for VIP movement or simply ignored in an emergency. This remains the crux of our Musharraf debate. Should a progressive dictator be punished if democracy isn’t delivering? If law cannot be enforced to undo one wrong, should it be enforced to undo another? Two wrongs make a right, right?
Here is as wayward as the argumentation gets. Isn’t it unjust to punish a killer for homicide if he has successfully gotten away with murder? If the Taliban hate Musharraf and the Taliban are evil, mustn’t we embrace Musharraf? If the dollar was at 62 when Musharraf ruled and is now at 106 under Sharif’s watch, how can Musharraf be charged for breaking the law? Can a general who commands an army that keeps this country together ever be charged with treason?
If Musharraf’s crime was that he chucked out a chief justice, can he be considered guilty of wrongdoing if the chief justice later turned out to be no good? If Musharraf’s actions divided the country into two lots — those who believe he was right and those who believe he was wrong, aren’t those trying him for breaking the Constitution (which he admittedly did) disqualified from doing so because they have picked a side and are inherently biased?
Legally speaking Musharraf’s isn’t a hard case. He subverted the Constitution. He failed to get away with it the second time. He should be tried for treason. A military court shouldn’t try him because this isn’t a matter of internal military discipline. There is a special law (and court) meant to deal exclusively with treason and special law overrides general law. Due process is crucial, but process is meant to be a stepping stone towards justice, not a stumbling block.
Musharraf’s is a hard case for it is about things that divide us as a society: need for democracy; rule of law; and khaki sense of entitlement. Looking at the bright side: we seem to have made incremental progress. Notwithstanding seething contempt for democracy and rule of law evident in the words of those who made hay under Musharraf, the main argument on paper has moved to whether the treason trial will strengthen or threaten rule of law and democracy.
This is where the khaki sense of entitlement comes in and there is nothing sophisticated about it. It is about bravado, hubris and impunity touted as professional honour and esprit de corps. We are not talking about leaving men behind in enemy territory. We are not talking about standing up for the vulnerable or the destitute. We are talking about defending usurped privilege, about protecting turf that doesn’t rightly belong.
Musharraf’s trial is marked with damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t type hesitation by the Sharif government. No one is gunning to rush him to the gallows and the khakis know that. The safe exit option is not meant to guard against a general being punished, but to pre-empt the ghastly precedent and ignominy of a general being tried by a civilian court.
The civil-military divide is not a figment of imagination of the civilians (silly villains, lovingly). It is an unfortunate consequence of how our national army has chosen to define its identity and professionalism and we are a divided nation because of it. There is no honour in protecting wrongdoing, whether it involves an army chief or a chief justice’s son.
The writer is a lawyer.
Twitter: @babar_sattar
