Black mark against the White House

AS American presidential scandals go, it doesn’t seem like much. Although the liberally inclined sections of the press in the United States have been parading the inevitable comparisons — Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, Monica Lewinsky — the hype does not quite measure up to the available facts.

Perhaps much the same could be said about the Lewinsky case: conservatives who couldn’t stand Bill Clinton employed evidence of his sexual indiscretions in a concerted attempt to discredit and depose him. Remarkably, given that Christian morality is deemed to be higher on the American agenda than is the case in most other western nations, Clinton’s popularity kept rising for as long as he remained under fire. There are not many indications that George W. Bush will be so lucky. It must be conceded, though, that there was somewhat more meat in the allegations of Slick Willie’s libidinous excesses than there is in the charge-sheet against the man known as the brains behind Dubya.

This doesn’t mean Karl Rove is not guilty, let alone that he’s a nice guy. What it does mean is that perhaps he — and his boss — should be facing a different, far more serious, charge-sheet.

The story thus far goes something like this. In the aftermath of 9/11, some documents came to light suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s regime may have been trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger. The US administration, already desperate for a casus belli that would appear to justify an invasion of Iraq, was casting around for any scraps of evidence that could validate its claim that Baghdad was pursuing a nuclear (in Bush-speak, noo-killer) weapons programme, wanted to know more. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office suggested to the CIA that it should despatch someone to Niger to check out the reported transaction.

The request made its way, logically enough, to the Agency’s counter-proliferation division. Among the employees there was Valerie Plame, whose boss apparently asked her whether her husband, a former ambassador to Niger (and, before that, a senior diplomat in Baghdad) would be interested in the assignment. She said yes, he would. Thus it was that Joseph Wilson travelled to Niger in February 2002.

And what did he find there? Zilch. Nothing at all to suggest that anyone related to the Iraqi government had sought to purchase yellowcake. He returned to the US and reported as much. A one-page briefing based on his findings (or lack thereof) was duly circulated by the CIA. It turned out, meanwhile, that the documents on which the suspicion was based were crude forgeries.

Fast-forward to January 2003. In that year’s state of the union address, Bush stuck mainly to the theme of how Iraq simply could not be allowed to get away with its arsenals of mass destruction. Among the “evidence” he cited as proof of Saddam’s perfidy was — yes, you guessed it — the recycled claim that he had attempted to get yellowcake from Africa. He attributed this discovery to British intelligence, despite the fact that his nation’s own primary intelligence-gathering agency had tested the theory and found it baseless.

Wilson was gobsmacked, and beginning to get angry. How could that particular allegation have made its way into the president’s speech, he wondered, after he had conclusively proved it to be false? And if this was the level of fact-checking at the White House, what did that say about Bush’s other charges against Baghdad?

Wilson says he tried to get in touch with Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser at the time, but she made it clear that she had no interest in anything he had to say. Eventually, in July 2003 — a couple of months after Iraq had been invaded — he contributed an article to The New York Times in which he explained his side of the story. That was just the sort of information the White House did not want to see publicized as it tried to sustain the myth that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be discovered sooner or later.

Barely a week later, conservative columnist Robert Novak quoted two unnamed “senior administration officials” as saying that Wilson was an untrustworthy source, not least because his trip to Niger had been authorized by his wife, who worked for the CIA. Novak mentioned Plame by name, which caused something of a furore. It is not terribly clear whether she was a covert operative at the time, but she evidently had been at some point — and it is a federal offence, punishable by up to 20 years in prison, to blow an undercover agent’s cover.

From the outset, the suspicion was that the leak had come from the White House, with Rove the prime suspect. Time and again presidential spokesman Scott McLellan insisted that Rove had nothing whatsoever to do with it. In recent weeks, he has refused to comment on the matter. Bush, under pressure to take action, instituted a federal investigation and announced that if any member of his administration was found to have been responsible for the leak, that person could expect to be relieved of his responsibilities. Lately, he has taken to saying that given the size of the administration, the culprit or culprits are unlikely to be ever identified.

However, as the investigation approaches its conclusion, much of the circumstantial evidence points in the direction of Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The latter is Cheney’s chief of staff. Rove is now Bush’s deputy chief of staff; at the time of his probable indiscretion, he was a presidential adviser. He has been close to Bush since the 1970s, and is widely viewed as the architect of the latter’s two presidential victories, as well as his earlier gubernatorial triumphs in Texas. Among his many responsibilities is the duty of liaising between Bush and socially as well as religiously conservative groups, and it was his strategy of mobilizing Christian fundamentalists that facilitated last year’s re-election.

The saga entered a dramatic phase earlier this month when The New York Times’ Judith Miller, who had been briefed on the Plame affair by an administration official but did not write about it, was imprisoned after refusing to divulge her source. That aspect of the matter, viewed as an assault on journalism, has consumed a great many column inches (despite coinciding with the London bombings).

There can be little question that a significant number of journalists rely on anonymous sources for valuable — and sometimes invaluable — pieces of information. It is equally true that sometimes the information obtained from such a source is closely related to the informant’s agenda, which may be covert or open, malicious or benign. Miller knows all about this: throughout the build-up to the war against Iraq, she filed reports that bolstered the neo-conservative agenda. Her source, it eventually turned out, was a well-known Iraqi imigri crook by the name of Ahmed Chalabi.

Beyond that, it has emerged that Rove, according to his own testimony, did indeed speak to Novak before the latter published his column in July 2003. He claims, however, that he was at the time unfamiliar with Plame’s name as well as her undercover role. At around the same time he fed the same story to another journalist, Time magazine’s Matt Cooper — who escaped imprisonment because Rove formally permitted him to divulge his source.

The fact that Rove — and quite possibly Libby as well — did not reveal Plame’s name is pretty much irrelevant: they brought her into the story as Wilson’s wife, whereupon the recipients of the information didn’t need to be inspired investigative reporters to dig out the details. But then, it could certainly be argued that the whole affair is, at best, peripheral to the vile deeds for which the Bush administration indeed ought to be taken to task. And undoubtedly would have been in a less petrified democracy.

If Rove and Libby wanted to get back at Wilson for challenging the neo-conservative narrative, why should anyone be surprised? If, in their vindictiveness, they played dirty, why should anyone find that particularly shocking? Such tactics are hardly new in American politics. If they wanted Plame’s “outing” to serve as a warning to her colleagues, is that really such a big deal? Sure, if an administration begins to look upon the CIA — which has traditionally been associated with undemocratic regime change in every corner of the world — as a liberal opponent, that tells us something about the nature of that administration. And if such an administration can be undermined via a storm in a teacup, well and good — but what, realistically, are the chances of Rove going to jail or being dismissed by his pupil? Close to nonexistent.

Next Saturday, meanwhile, marks the third anniversary of the infamous Downing Street Memo, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the US and British governments conspired to wage war against Iraq despite knowing it posed no serious threat to anyone.

The memo, incidentally, came to public attention a few months ago via a leak — a rather more important leak than the one Rove and Libby are accused of. There are those who think it constitutes grounds for impeachment.

Why is it then that so many of the American liberals baying for Rove’s blood have either ignored it altogether or addressed it only in passing? The assault on Iraq was not only a monumental error of judgment, it is an ongoing crime against humanity. The identity of the chief culprits is no secret. Why aren’t there enough American voices calling out for punishment? What makes Wilson’s reputation and Plame’s career more important than the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans?

Issues of industrial expansion

INDUSTRY in Pakistan needs to be greatly diversified to accelerate its growth. That is all the more so in Sindh which has not seen the emergence of a major industrial estate for the last 20 years. That has happened despite the steady inflow of persons from upcountry seeking employment in Karachi.

The Nooriabad Industrial Estate in the interior of Sindh, not far from Karachi, never really took off. Fear of kidnapping of investors and gross infrastructural inadequacies stood in the way. At the same time, Site, the largest and oldest industrial estate in the country, had gradually withered away, although there do still exist some islands of competence or excellence.

Up in the north Gadoon Amazai in the NWFP did not fulfil its promises and the generous commitments it made to investors were either not honoured or partly acted on. The Hater Industrial Estate did not evoke much interest among investors despite its proximity to the federal capital.

Karachi had, only a few years ago, about 2,000 sick industrial units, out of a total of 4,000 in the country, which were defaulters to the banks to the extent of Rs250 billion, according to an estimate. In fact, because of the varied fears and handicaps, the Karachi investors began investing outside Sindh, particularly in Punjab when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister. But they could not make much headway there either.

In such a situation, the Punjab government came up with a breakthrough. It set up an industrial estate at Chuniyan in the past and is now promoting the Sundar Industrial Estate. Sundar follows a Thai model which has been a success in Thailand. It is also setting up a value-addition industrial estate in Faisalabad for producing high-value goods. In fact, increasing value-addition should be the goal of the units in the new industrial estates. It is a folly to spend foreign exchange for import of energy and industrial raw materials and then produce shoddy or substandard goods.

It is imperative now that most of the industrial products should be export-oriented, more so when we are raising our export targets constantly and are aiming to achieve an export target of 16 billion dollars this year — from 14 billion dollars last year. And since imports are projected at 22 billion dollars, that leaves us with a large trade deficit of six billion dollars — almost the same amount as last year. This needs to be reduced as quickly as possible through larger exports. Reducing imports can be difficult excluding consumer luxuries. But in a period of merry consumer banking that may also be very difficult. In addition, the world oil prices are too high. And despite the frequent rise in domestic POL prices their consumption went up last year by 10 per cent and the projection for a current year is a five per cent rise due to the increase in the number of vehicles using imported energy.

The large deficit in balance of payments is partly covered by the rising home remittances, which last year touched 4.16 billion dollars. But we cannot be sure the home remittances will always be as high as these were last year, considered as peak performance. We should not, as a matter of policy, use imported raw materials for industry and imported energy for making substandard goods. In the world of WTO regimes, we have to manufacture more and more value-added products so that they can acquire a competitive edge in the world markets.

Sindh has been lagging behind in the setting up of new industries. Hence unemployment has been on the rise both in its urban and rural areas. That gap has to be filled as fast as possible. The Sindh government has been talking of a new industrial policy. But it is yet to come up with a comprehensive policy which reduces its tax demands on the industry and gives it more facilities. We know only of the new industrial estates announced by President Musharraf.

Any new industrial policy in Sindh has to be truly comprehensive. It should provide tax incentives to the investors, have modern labour policy and not the one ignored by half the industries and grossly violated by the other half. It should eliminate the possibility of corruption in the departments dealing with industries. And the policy should be debated publicly for some time before it is finally adopted.

Meanwhile, the president has announced the setting up of two industrial estates and one large industrial park to facilitate the growth of industry in the province. The first estate will be at Landhi, near Karachi city, with 250 acres for small and medium industries. The development of this estate will be watched with keen interest by the country which wants more of such estates for the SMEs all over the country.

The second will be a 1,500 acre industrial estate around Pakistan Steel, which, too, is to be expanded to produce three million tonnes of steel more apart from its present capacity of 1.1 million tonnes. Developing together, they can become a major industrial hub of the country. The third project will be an industrial park near Port Qasim at an area of 2,000 acres to be developed through public and private sector partnership. The private sector will develop the park according to international specifications. The ground breaking ceremony of these projects will take place in September, says the president. Problems which arise in the process of developing these projects would be solved on a war footing, he says. The president and the prime minister are promoting the private sector in a big way through liberal grant of development loans to investors. The president has also announced Rs2.5 billion for effluent treatment plants at the Site, Landhi and Korangi industrial estates. The government will set up the plants and the private sector will operate them.

In addition, the Karachi Port Trust and Port Qasim Authority are to set up two desalination plants for the use of industry and to provide drinking water. He also took the unusual step of sanctioning gas to 143 industrial units which had been pending for too long.

The PQA is also to accommodate a textile city which according to the textile minister will increase exports by two billion dollars and employment by two million, which seem to be exaggerated figures. Will the textile city be part of the industrial park or outside it? Anyway, it will be a valuable addition to the industrial set-up of the province.

Following prime minister Shaukat Aziz’s visit to Germany and his meeting with the Daimler Benz Chief he has announced that a truck and bus assembling plant of the famous company will be set up in Pakistan by a UAE investor. Will it be in Sindh or elsewhere in the country is not clear at present. Daimler Benz has been assembling its Mercedes trucks in India for long time, and now they manufacture the luxury limousine there, which cost far less than the imported Mercedes in Pakistan despite the recent duty reduction.

And following Shaukat Aziz’s visit to Italy, investors from that country are more interested in making investment in Pakistan, and they have agreed to make a bid for Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. when it comes up for privatization. We do need larger foreign participation in the energy sector. And it is indeed heart-warming to see 35 proposals for participating in the three power projects to be set up in the country.

While the foreign direct investment last year touched 1.52 billion dollars, 60 per cent improvement over the preceding year, and a record investment so far, that will be exceeded this year because of the investment coming for the PTCL following its privatization.

Nevertheless the increasing foreign trade deficit is a matter of concern for the country. It is not only due to the high world prices of oil but also the large machinery imports for the industrialization of the country and modernise the existing industry.

But it is essential that we make full and proper use of the costly machinery and the imported inputs for manufacturing. We have to seek optimum production and not work the factories far below the capacity. We have to reduce the cost of production which means that we reduce the cost of exports and get a larger share of the export market.

That means we have now to provide jobs to not only two million of the unemployed in Karachi but also 1.5 million in rural Sindh. To achieve the best results from the new and old industrial estates we have to provide adequate transport links between them and have a well developed and well maintained road network, and not narrow over-crowded streets. Along with that, the SMEs have to be promoted actively and sustained in a highly productive order.

We would need far more technical training institutes and high technology institutions. Germany has an excellent apprentice schemes which is a source of its economic success. It is worthwhile to adopt that. But the private sector has to join that scheme enthusiastically to make a success of that. The scheme provides the training as well as jobs.

We are negotiating more and more Free Trade Area agreements with economically advanced countries like the US. We are expected to have such an agreement with China soon. If that can provide access to our exports to those countries their goods will also come in plenty into Pakistan. We have to ensure that our products are more and more competitive in foreign markets, and we do not lose our market share in those distant countries.

China will provide an open door policy for our exports, but we have to make our products more and more competitive which can be an arduous struggle.

Meanwhile, the State Bank of Pakistan is to follow its liberal credit policy with an addition of Rs. 330 billion bank credit to the private sector this year. That is an increase of 13.5 per cent in monetary expansion. Higher economic growth — seven per cent this year — means larger bank credit and that is readily forthcoming.

No credit — stolen

IT all started when I was in a restaurant in Washington for dinner. I had a companion and we had a wonderful meal.

Then, I asked for the cheque.

My companion asked, “Is it very expensive?”

I laughingly said as I threw my Visa card down, “It’s only plastic.”

I gave my card to the waiter and he disappeared. I told my companion, “The great thing about America is that you don’t have to carry cash around anymore. We can have a meal like this, and pay for it weeks or even months later.”

We seemed to have a long wait. Finally two men approached the table and flashed their wallets. One said, “We are from the Homeland Security Plastic Card Division. We just had a call that you were passing somebody else’s credit card.”

“That is not true. It’s my credit card.”

“How do we know who you are?”

I said, “Ask my companion. She knows who I am.”

The agent turned to her and said, “Well?”

My companion said, “I thought I did, but I have only known him for 18 months.”

I said, “Someone has stolen my identity. I can tell you my date of birth, where I was born, what my Social Security number is, and when I had my tonsils out.”

The agent said, “They’re stealing everybody’s name.”

“Who are they?” I asked.

“We don’t know who they are. They could be Nigerians or Ukrainians or Colombians. They do this by either stealing the records or hacking into the credit card computers.”

“Why would a Nigerian or a Ukrainian want to use my card?” I asked. “They never go to American shopping malls.”

“They don’t use it. They sell it on eBay to someone who wants to use it at Macy’s.”

“But if I went into a store, wouldn’t they know it was me?”

“That’s why there’s so much mail order catalogue fraud,” he replied. “The crooks order by mail and have their package sent to their relatives.”

I said, “I hate someone who is pretending to be me.”

The heavy-set agent said, “On the other hand, they might be a better person than you.”

“Isn’t there some way I can stop people from using my name?”

The agent replied, “You can cancel your credit cards.”

“I don’t want to do that. I would feel naked if I didn’t have them in my wallet. I couldn’t buy gasoline or groceries or stay at hotels. What you are describing to me is plastic terrorism.”

“You could always use cash.”

“What’s cash?”

“That’s a joke.”

“Look. Now that you know who I really am, will you let me pay for this meal with my credit card?”

The heavy-set one said, “We have established who you aren’t, but we’re still not certain who you are.”

I yelled, “I’m me! Everyone knows I’m me.”

“You’d better come down to the Homeland Security office. We’ll put you in the lineup, and if someone picks you out, we’ll let you go.”

My companion was in tears, and as they took me out she said, “And all this time I thought you were Mr. Right.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

A new nuclear era

THE Bush administration is known for gambles, and Monday’s about-face on nuclear cooperation with India qualifies as such. By declaring that it would help India build nuclear power plants and import advanced weapons, the administration has made good on its statement that it wants India to become “a major world power in the 21st century.”

But it has simultaneously set aside the principle that countries refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be denied civilian nuclear assistance and, in many cases, face a weapons embargo. The gains from this shift could be considerable, but so too could the risks. Much will depend on the administration’s skill in assembling support for its new stance, in Congress and internationally.

Start with the potential benefits. India, with a population of just over 1 billion, is already the biggest democracy in the world and will eventually overtake China as the most populous of all nations. Its economy has grown rapidly in the past decade, and it has become a global player in software, computer services and pharmaceuticals.

As an emerging Asian superpower, India may serve as a counterweight to China. As home to a large and tolerant Muslim population, it may serve as an ally against Islamic militancy. The standoff over India’s nuclear policy, which grew serious when India tested nuclear weapons in 1998, has been an obstacle to closer ties with this dynamic and like-minded democracy. Understandably, the administration wants to address that.

It’s fair to ask what “closer ties” may mean in practice. Although India’s rising power may constrain China in a general way, India does not share the U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan and would probably stand aside in other potential U.S.-China rows that do not affect Indian interests.

Equally, cooperation on terrorism or economic relations will take place when it suits the interests of both countries and not otherwise. India’s noisy democracy tends to feature coalition governments that include anti-American voices, just as America’s noisy democracy features protectionist members of Congress who blame India for the loss of U.S. jobs. So the Bush administration is right to want close ties with India, but these will have limits.

India does promise some concrete concessions in return for nuclear cooperation. It will commit itself to abstain from further nuclear tests, to open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspections, and to withhold nuclear technology or material from illegal proliferators.

The importance of these promises is qualified by the fact that India had already chosen unilaterally to forgo nuclear tests and to safeguard its nuclear material. But the Bush administration, which has sometimes argued that treaties and protocols don’t reliably constrain national behaviour and are therefore of limited worth, rightly sees some value in converting India’s voluntary good behaviour on nuclear proliferation into a more formal obligation.

Now consider the risks in the administration’s gamble. Pakistan, India’s neighbour and rival, will seek a similar de facto blessing for its nuclear status. Given Pakistan’s record as a nuclear proliferator, the United States ought to refuse this. A rebuff could help to turn Pakistan’s anti-Indian nationalism into an anti-India-and-America nationalism; pro-Western secularists may lose ground to militant Islamists. If so, the upside of a stronger relationship with India will have to be weighed against the potential downside of a jihad-minded nuclear Pakistan.

The administration’s efforts to contain the nuclearization of Iran and North Korea may also suffer. Help in building civilian nuclear reactors is a carrot for countries that agree not to build nuclear weapons. If India can build such weapons and then munch the carrot anyway, why should others not aim to do likewise?

The Bush administration can answer that India has earned its exceptional status. Unlike Iran and North Korea, India was never a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore never broke its word; unlike Pakistan, it has not sold its nuclear secrets to others. But this argument may not prevent other nuclear powers from asserting exceptional status for their own friends.

Russia may sell more weapons to Iran. China may refuse to get tough on North Korea. Both of these bad outcomes seemed probable anyway, but the administration’s new stance has made them likelier.

Monday’s US-India communique is only a declaration of intent. To clear the way for US assistance to India’s civilian nuclear programme, the administration will have to ask Congress for legislation. To salvage something of the nonproliferation regime, the administration will need buy-in from other nuclear powers. In both cases, the administration will need to convince a skeptical audience that the gains from its proposal outweigh the risks. As the Bush team has discovered before, announcing a bold new policy is easier than implementing it.

— The Washington Post

Defacing the Basic Law

IN its recent judgment on the issue of General Musharaff’s uniformed presidency and the 17th Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment as well as another act, 2004, which empowers General Musharaff to continue to hold the office of chief of army staff.

More importantly, the Supreme Court has also rejected the proposition that any provision of the Constitution can be nullified by the court on any ground, including inconsistency with the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court observed that while the superior courts of Pakistan have consistently acknowledged that there may be a basic structure to the Constitution and while there may be limitations on the power of parliament to make amendments to such a basic structure, such limitations are to be exercised and enforced not by the judiciary but by the body politic the people of Pakistan. The remedy lay in the political and not the judicial process.

The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ was evolved by the courts in the subcontinent, particularly in India, in a number of cases to nullify even constitutional amendments which in the court’s view were violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has discussed the doctrine of basic structure in a number of cases but has never nullified any constitutional amendment on the touchstone of the doctrine of basic structure.

It is not difficult to appreciate the reluctance of the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction to strike down provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and represents the will of the people. The Constitution itself contains mechanism for amendments. Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution provide for a two-third majority of the members of each House of the parliament for amendment.

Article 239 (6) further provides that for the removal of doubt, there is no limitation whatsoever on the power of the parliament to amend any provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has taken the view that the jurisdiction of the courts is restricted to the inquiry as to whether the procedure prescribed for amendment in Article 239 has strictly been followed in amending the Constitution.

Moreover, the doctrine of basic structure has been controversial from the beginning. There has been much discussion and disagreement on its scope. It is virtually impossible to develop a definitive definition of what constitutes the basic structure of a particular constitution. Indeed, even judges of the Indian supreme court have strongly disagreed over the scope and applicability of this doctrine. Our courts do not wish to enter into this controversial and uncharted territory and leave the matter to be settled politically.

In a country where the political process is still evolving there may be much to commend such a cautious approach. The political process takes care of aberrations as it contains self-corrective mechanisms. The court should indeed be reluctant to question the constitutional amendments approved by the duly elected representatives of the people in keeping with the procedure prescribed for amending the Constitution.

Are these arguments really applicable to our country? Most of the amendments to our Constitution have been made by military rulers and not by the elected representatives of the people. General Zia secured the ratification of his constitutional amendments by manipulation and threat of dissolution while General Musharraf proved even cleverer and did so by stealth. In both cases, the people and their representatives had nothing to do with these constitutional changes.

Though the country has been independent for over half a century, our Basic Law still remains in a state of flux. Half of the country’s existence was virtually without a constitutional framework. Ultimately the representatives of the people framed a constitution in 1973. Since then it has twice been suspended by the military and subjected to numerous distortions. Today, Pakistan is the only country, besides Myanmar (Burma), which remains under some sort of military rule. This is our misfortune.

Repeated military interventions have not only subverted the democratic process in the country but each intervention has left its scars on our constitutional edifice. The Constitution has never been revived in its original form. Our military rulers have not only inserted provisions in the Constitution which indemnify their past deeds but have also altered the basic constitutional scheme in order to entrench them in power. The Constitution has since been amended beyond recognition. Today it is parliamentary only in name but presidential in substance. The office of the president is occupied by the army chief who refuses to give up his uniform despite a public promise.

Though parliament is a sovereign legislative body, the fact is that all vital decisions concerning the country are made outside it. We cannot even pretend that parliament has any role in such policymaking as is not even required to rubber-stamp the decisions taken by the military leadership on all vital national issues. It cannot even discuss the defence budget. The office of the prime minister has been rendered virtually redundant by the president acting as the chief executive rather than the prime minister.

The Constitution had envisaged a limited role for the military. Article 243 provides that the federal government shall have control and command of the armed forces. Contrary to the provision of the Constitution, the control and command of the federal government rests with the armed forces. A large part of the economic resources of the country, which belong to the people, remain under the exclusive control of the military and the bureaucracy. The establishment has co-opted a selected group of civilians to share the national bounty. The rest of the population remains poverty-stricken and completely disillusioned.

Are we really at a stage of our political development and maturity where our courts can take a detached and objective view of the situation leaving the political process to correct the constitutional and systemic distortions by normal political means? The sad truth is that there is no political process and distortions have become the norm.

Ironically, the judiciary has never been a stumbling block to the ambitions of the Bonapartists. Indeed, the courts not only legitimized military takeovers repeatedly but military rulers were even granted powers to amend the Constitution even though in some cases they did not ask for it. The present military ruler held a fake referendum on the basis of which he declared himself elected as president and later admitted to the rigged nature of the exercise. Yet our highest court upheld the referendum and the presidency.

After the general elections constitutional provisions were selectively revived to ensure horse-trading in the formation of the government without any check. General Musharaff is the only president who holds the office of army chief but the court finds nothing wrong with this. What more defacement of the Constitution and rule of law do we need before we wake up from our long slumber.

With political parties vying with each other to cut separate deals with the government, the courts still remain the only hope for reviving the constitutional process. The Supreme Court would, therefore, need to reconsider its view and examine whether conditions are really conducive for leaving the constitutional structure of the country at the mercy of the political process.