The devil comes out of the closet

“What’s going on?” I asked the man in a white collar, after I read in the paper about trouble in the church.

He said, “The Devil made me do it.” It was a smoking gun, so I decided to go to visit the Devil, a.k.a. Satan, and check it out.

I found him in Hades, making junk calls to earth.

“I knew you were evil, but I never believed you would stoop so low as to make junk calls.” He chortled and said, “The Devil does a lot of things that no one knows about.”

“Can we talk?” I asked. “They say you made some priests in the church do some really terrible things.”

He had a triumphant look on his face.

“This will teach the angels in Heaven a lesson.”

“But why attempt to destroy so many fine men?”

“It was a quiet day, so I thought I would cause some mischief.”

“That’s not enough reason. Do you realize you’ve cost the church millions of dollars in hush money?”

“They should have thought of that when they made a pact with me,” Satan said.

“You made a pact with the priests?”

“Only those who were tempted in the first place. They were heading straight to hell anyway.”

“What if the church decides to let priests marry? Would you try to stop that?”

“No, because the Devil can break up any marriage he wants. I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again.”

“You have no pity.”

“Why should I? I am the king of the underworld. Anyone who messes with me better fasten his seatbelt.”

“What’s in it for you?”

“All I’m trying to do is raise hell. If I can’t, who can?”

“Are you sure you are not picking on innocent clergymen?”

“I only pick on one when I’m sure the church is paying off a young man for something the priest did, and then the bishop moves him to another parish. I know I haven’t made a mistake.”

“I hope you get caught and punished for all your sins.”

“They wouldn’t dare.” “Can they exorcise you from those people in trouble?” The Devil laughed. “They keep trying all the time, with little success. I am the Prince of Darkness, and the root of all evil. That is why I’m giving Rome such a bad time.”

“I better go,” I said. “It’s getting too hot down here.”

He said, “I hope you write about me. I need all the publicity I can get.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Posing a fair question

WRITING in these columns on March 3, I had suggested “.... President Musharraf might consider legitimizing his appointment and agenda in a manner that none of his predecessors have dared to do.

“.... A general election normally attracts around 40% of the voting public. A vote of confidence, if obtained by the president from the nation, can be the only possible sanction for Musharraf’s vision. .... A free and fair referendum in secret ballot, under the eyes of the world, will give the president a legitimacy that none of his military predecessors had. The president should offer to resign, if the electorate rejects him...”

Of last Saturday’s press conference, two remarks are selected, which appear to sum up the presidential intentions.

Dawn reported on March 31:

“In his opinion once he (the president) had the mandate from the people he would have an upper hand over the elected Parliament and “they would not be able to blackmail me as they did to General Zia.”

The News reported on the same day:- “I will not follow Ayub or Zia models, he added... When asked how would he ensure ground support for ensuring respectable turnout in the proposed referendum, the general said: “Nazims and union councils will bring voters.”

The President’s men are inclined to subsume a positive vote in the referendum will not only be a vote for continuance in office for five years but also an approval of the president’s constitutional agenda.

This could be a legal hornet’s nest. For once the ultimate magician of the courtroom, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, may be daunted by the enormity of the task ahead. To deliver President General Musharraf of the pitfalls of sanctioning basic constitutional change by referendum in the high courts is like climbing the vertical south wall of Nanga Parbet.

I do not think President Musharraf has the guile and political adroitness of General Zia-ul-Haq. And thank goodness for this. When a soldier in khaki turns politician, better that he be guided by the ethics of his profession.

President Musharraf does not like comparison with his military predecessors. But like it or not, he faces exactly the same problems of legitimacy as his three predecessors in khaki. Two of them lived long enough to see the Pakistan of their dreams collapse in their life times; the third simply vanished in thin air. There is something to be learnt from the past.

Let us pause for a moment on the constitutional requirements of a Referendum. Article 48(6) declares ‘that if it is desirable that any matter of national importance should be referred to a referendum the President may cause the matter to be referred to a referendum in the form of a question that is capable of being answered either by a “Yes” or “No”.’ Therefore, by a long legal shot, the president can seek his affirmation to office by referendum for it is a matter of ‘national importance’ and ‘capable’ of being answered by a “Yes” or “No”.

What arises from a plain reading of Article 48(6) is the fairness of the question. The acceptance of a referendum verdict depends on the level of voter participation and the absence of unfair means.

Here the president shows a streak of political naivety; if he thinks the nazims can bring in more than 5-7% of the voting population to the referendum booths, he is mistaken. The voters, as we well know, have to be pampered to be brought to the booths by politicians who have a vested interest in getting elected. All the king’s men and all the king’s horses cannot do that.

Meaningful participation is only possible if the referendum is simultaneous to the general election. And the earliest that a general election could take place is probably this July before the monsoon. The president’s most credible option would therefore be referendum-cum-general election as a single day same booth event. In sum, a referendum won but marred by low attendance or allegations of fraud will present a more negative image for the president than simply being an un-elected military ruler as present.

Courage is required on the part of President Musharraf to submit himself to what would then be the nearest thing to an election to the presidency. A moth-eaten legitimacy will put the president on the defensive internally and externally for his period of rule. Let the voter take the risk of removing one who has indeed served the nation honestly these past two and a half years, if not always brilliantly.

A more vexed and complex a question is the constitutional “baggage” that the president desires to carry with his affirmation. I, for one, am persuaded to change my mind on this issue.

On March 3, I had stated in these columns:-

“The President should clearly spell out his constitutional deviations e.g. the composition and power of the National Security Council for he intends this Council to be an apex body with power to dissolve assemblies and decide on vital matters affecting the state.”

A multiple loaded constitutional amendment agenda posed as part of a referendum question is against the letter and spirit of Article 48(6). Besides, it could create a precedent for future abuse. However, I enter a single caveat in the interest of practicality.

In our system power does not reside in the office