Why Musharraf’s trial is almost impossible

Despite the Supreme Court’s July 31, 2009 verdict declaring the proclamation of emergency by the then president and army chief Pervez Musharraf unconstitutional, the Pakistan Peoples Party-led coalition government is reluctant to institute high treason proceedings against the retired general. This is hardly surprising if seen in the context of the PPP’s relationship with the establishment and the text of Article 6 of the constitution, which deals with high treason.

Contrary to the popular belief and the party’s own profession, the PPP is no longer an anti-establishment outfit. Like other mainstream political parties, the PPP politics aims at securing or preserving power. It may be Pakistan’s single largest political party. It may have a nationwide appeal. In a proper democratic dispensation, such characteristics are all that a political party needs to get power. However, this hardly applies to a cosmetic democracy like Pakistan. If the past is any guide, the quest for securing or preserving political power in Pakistan is doomed to end up in failure without a nod from the establishment — the power behind the throne. The PPP’s own experience bears out this unpleasant and hard fact.

Probably none knows this better than the top leadership of the PPP, and that too by personal experience. In 1988 general elections, the PPP, despite all odds, had emerged as the single largest party and the only one which won seats from all the four provinces. But that was not enough for the party to form the government. The PPP had to reach a compromise with the establishment — that it would support the then acting president Ghulam Ishaq Khan in presidential elections which were due a couple of months later — before its chairperson Ms Benazir Bhutto was appointed prime minister.

The decision to support Ghulam Ishaq Khan must have been a very hard one for PPP leadership, because he was an establishment icon with which the party had been at loggerheads during the past decade. But then that was the price the PPP had to pay to enter into the corridors of power. The party leadership preferred power to principles and paid the price soon. In August 1990, when the PPP government headed by Benazir Bhutto was four months short of its second anniversary, the establishment felt that as the baby was trying to stand on its own feet, it was high time to strike its head. Through presidential orders, parliament and the prime minister were dismissed. That was the end of the second PPP and the first Benazir Bhutto government.

In 1993, Nawaz Sharif, the erstwhile blue-eyed boy of the establishment, fell out with his mentors and had to pay the price in the form of his dismissal. Nawaz Sharif’s fall from grace once again forced the establishment to court friendship of the PPP, which itself was desperately trying to get back in the saddle. Elections were held, which the PPP won. The election of the PPP’s own stalwart Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari as president couple of months later strengthened the party’s position and the government seemed to be well set to complete its five-year term, which had never happened in Pakistan before. But that proved an illusion. In reality, the establishment was as strong as ever before. And when it decided to strike, President Leghari dismissed his leader’s government.

Since November 6, 1996, when the PPP government was sacked until its victory in February 2008 elections couple of months after the assassination of Ms Bhutto, the party remained in opposition. Ms Bhutto herself remained in exile for eight years and returned home only in October 2007 after striking a deal with the establishment in the shape of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) giving amnesty to the top party leadership from corruption charges. To the good fortune of the PPP present leadership, Mr Musharraf was weakened by the lawyers’ movement and desperately needed the support of a popular political party. A deal with Mr Nawaz Sharif, whom he had ousted from power in October 1999, was out of the question for the military ruler. Hence, Ms Bhutto’s PPP was the only choice. The deal with the establishment was a clever move on the part of the PPP leadership. The party knew well that notwithstanding all its powers and clout, the establishment needed strong political support to get things moving. Whether there is a military regime or a civilian government, the establishment needs to have a political constituency. That explains why every military government in Pakistan cultivates relations with some political forces and tries to cobble together a political arrangement to further its interest. This also explains why military governments do not live up to their promises of an across-the-board accountability. The very people who have to be made accountable for their acts of omission and commission are needed to provide political support to the regime.

Moreover, the views and policies, particularly those pertaining to foreign policy, of Mr Musharraf and the PPP converged in many respects. Both were pro-West, especially pro US, and had a liberal outlook. With war against religious extremism at the top of its foreign policy agenda, the least the US wanted was a conservative government in Pakistan. When the PPP negotiated the deal with the establishment, it wanted two things in the main: One, fair elections. Two, permission to the PPP leadership to take part in the political process without hindrances, which included withdrawal of cases against them. The establishment accepted both demands. Why and by whom Ms Bhutto was killed is still a mystery despite the fact that her party is in power for last sixteen months. May be on the part of the establishment, the deal was with the PPP and not Ms Bhutto per se.

The PPP won the February 2008 elections and formed the government. But courtesy the seventeenth amendment, effective powers are vested in the office of the president. By that time Mr Musharraf had been so much discredited that his erstwhile supporters agreed that he may be shown the door. The needful was done. However, that was done on certain conditions, the foremost being that the retired army chief would not be tried for his unconstitutional acts. If the PPP leadership breaches the pact, it may also be shown the door.

The foregoing makes it clear why the PPP has linked the trial of Mr Musharraf on high treason charges to a unanimous resolution of parliament despite the fact that constitutionally (Article 6 of the constitution) and legally (High Treason Punishment Act, 1973) this is not required. There cannot be unanimity when there is a single dissent and it is inconceivable that in the entire parliament there is not a single voice opposing the trial of Mr Musharraf. Both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani know this and so does the opposition leader Mr Nawaz Sharif. For the latter, however, it is the most convenient political stick to beat the PPP government with.

It does not mean that the PPP is against Musharrf’s trial. There is no love between them. But the party does not want to bell the cat. May be it wants the judiciary, which it was forced to restore a few months back, to do so and come into conflict with the establishment.

Coming to Article 6, it consists of three clauses or paras. Clause (1) states: ‘Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.’ Clause (2) expands the definition of high treason by stating that ‘Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in Clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.’ Clause (3) enjoins upon parliament to make a law to provide for punishment of a person found guilty of high treason. Accordingly, the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973 provides that high treason is punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment.

Thus when high treason proceedings are instituted against Mr Musharraf, it is almos
t certain that those who abetted him, which definitely would be a fairly long list, in his unconstitutional acts would also find themselves in the dock. The trial of one person may turn out to be that of an entire institution.

Source: DAWN

Posted via email using Posterous

PML-N Sucks!! *A MUST WATCH*

This is a must-watch program!!! Watch the complete talk show but if you’re in a hurry just fast forward 20min and watch the through the end. This goon from PML-N was even made a minister in the initial stages.

Click Here To Watch: In Session 29th January

The point here is that if someone hated the Musharraf era and the ministers of that time, is this the way to talk to them? Is this the fuckin democracy they all wanted? I absolutely loathe the Sharif Bros and Co. and this man has given me yet another reason to do so. The way he speaks shows his true colours and intentions. Right now they are talking in this manner to their opponents and if (God forbid) they get the government, they will talk to the people (awam) like this.

Democracy is all about listening to others and being tolerant. So why can’t these assholes do so? Have they forgotten the attempt to make Nawaz Sharif the ameer-ul-momineen?

And since they are so democratic, they should also know that there is a large population in Pakistan that loves Musharraf, and speaking in this manner they are indirectly insulting those people. If they think that Musharraf is to be blamed for all the problems, then the blame goes to Sharif who forced Jahangir Karamat to resign and brought in Musharraf as the COAS. So who is to be blamed? And then tried to fire him (while he was onboard) to bring another change in army leadership. Why was he so desperate? Obviously for that chair! So who’s to be blamed?!!!!!

Welcome Back To 90's

It didn’t take long for Nawaz Sharif to declare an open war against PPP. This was the script of the show with the departure of Pervez Musharraf, the reason PML-N stayed in the coalition for so long. Now that Pervez Musharraf is out, they had to oppose PPP to continue their politics, mostly that of confrontation.

The ground is all set for the battle in Punjab, which is the most important province to conquer if one is to sustain a government in center. The appointment of Salman Taseer was a key indication of PPP’s foresight.

Nawaz was quiet all along and kept hanging on just to jam all ways of PPP’s alliance with Pervez Musharraf. Now that his agenda is fulfilled, it didn’t take him long to part ways with his bitter enemy.

Many bloggers predicted this the day Musharraf resigned. Ammar talked about the start of a cat-fight, which is precisely what is happening between the two parties.

The stage is set for the next showdown in Punjab. PML-Q will play the role of kingmaker, as their alliance with any of the two parties will decide the fate of the government.

Its neither the issue of judiciary nor the choice of president that have caused this coalition to break but the imprudence and incompetence of this lot of politicians has resulted in the failure of this coalition. They were never sincere with the issues of the people, all they wanted was to get rid of Musharraf and get a share of power to fill their pockets. The provincial assemblies are busy criticising Musharraf and endorsing Zardari, completely ignoring the issues of the people of Pakistan.

This has always been the real face of these political parties and those who believed in a certain change of betterment after 18th Feb were living in a fool’s paradise.

The parties are busy playing the dirty game of politics with the camouflage of democracy. This should remind us the last few words of our former President:

Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz

Welcome to Demon-cracy!

The man responsible for unifying the two diametrical political parties in Pakistan has resigned. Rejoice as you may and call it the victory of democracy if you deem fit.

Alas, it had to end one day, a tearful departure. Dramatic, yet expected. No blame games. No leg pulling. None of that old crap. No reference to NRO, not even a hint of regret. This was the end of one of the most developing era of Pakistan, economically, industrially and socially. Pervez Musharraf, bowed out, exuding confidence, with certainty that no charge sheet can be proven against him. That’s how one speaks to the nation, live (even if your notes get lost ).

So long for dictatorship.

The power is now completely transfered to the elected representatives. Welcome to so-called democracy.

The economy will show an upward trend immediately. The investors will return soon. No more flight of capital. The law and order situation will improve. The army will stop its operation in tribal areas. Baluchistan will no more be a deprived province. Corruption will cease. Media will never be victimised. The army will never interfere in the politics. The influence of US on our foreign policy will be history. All policies will be formulated in the Parliament by the elected members. The poverty rate will begin to decline. Power plants will be setup and the shortage will be overcome by the end of 2009. Will the constitution be revived to a position of 12 Oct 1999, removing the NRO from it and the increase of women’s and minorities’ seats?

If ANY of the above does happen, I’m ready to run around naked!

I can’t even imagine to believe that Zardari and Nawaz, the demagogues, will ever do anything for the benefit of the nation.

Now since Musharraf has resigned, the charge sheet that was being prepared against him must be put forth and the former president must be hauled to the courts. All charges including the Kargil issue must be looked at if there is really some evidence the nation deserves to see it. Otherwise, the whole drama of the past few months will be nothing more than a political act. If Musharraf’s heroic claims are incorporeal, as the political parties have said, then the man must be given a fair trial.

The coalition of devils and buffoons have a further job at hand of chosing the next president who will retain the power of 58(2)b unless the constitution is amended. Will the PPP trust someone other than their own party to have that power, given the reputation that they don’t even trust their own stalwarts like Amin Faheem? I dobut that. Bilawal Zardari (no Bhutto!) and Asif Zardari have already said that the president will be from PPP. I bet that will be the next source of stories for the news channel soaps.

Amidst the imminent crisis, the role of army will be monitored with a magnifying glass. How long will the army resist power? The readings of history does provide an insight.

Is It POSSIBLE to Impeach Musharraf, Legally??

The Constitution of Pakistan allows the elected members of the Parliament and Senate to impeach the President, but on what grounds?

Article 47(1) states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.

This is the only article declaring clearly the grounds on which the President can be removed from the office. The four factors given here are physical incapacity, mental incapacity, violation of Constitution and gross misconduct. How does this apply to Pervez Musharraf? Let’s analyse the four factors one by one.

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY
Pervez Musharraf is completely fit physically so this factor is discounted immediately.

MENTAL INCAPACITY
This doesn’t apply as well because apparently the President’s brain is working overtime these days.

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION
This is what most people consider to be THE most important factor that can be taken as a case against Musharraf. The extra-constitutional actions of Oct. 12 and Nov. 3 can be easily mentioned here and the case is straightforward. Is it so? Not exactly. The emergency and the coup of Oct. 12 was ratified by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (including Iftikhar Chaudhry, for the record). It is now a decision that features prominently in all the law books which the judges and lawyers refer to when making decisions in the future. An act or a set of actions which has been validated by the Supreme Court cannot be used as a case against the President. On similar grounds, the Nov. 3 actions were also validated by whatever Supreme Court that is functioning. Technically, the violation of Constitution cannot be used against the President as a reason for impeachment.

GROSS MISCONDUCT
This is a vague term and can be taken to mean a lot of things. The prominent allegations against Musharraf are the Lal Masjid Operation and those in tribal areas. Now, there was a government sitting at the time all such operations took place. It was a democratically elected government and the fact that its control was with the President is not a legal claim. So, these actions are attributed to the PM and not the President. Using gross misconduct as a reason for impeachment can easily go to the higher courts for interpretation.

Meanwhile, if the coalition still goes for an impeachment without a sound legal reason, the Supreme Court may use its right to interfere in the matters or an appeal filed by someone can cause the proceedings of the House to stop until the Supreme Court deems it right.

From a legal point of view, impeachment can be really tough. The legal experts of the political parties (if there are any) will definitely look into the matter with a magnifying glass because the repercussions of a failed attempt of impeachment can be devastating for the ruling coalition and will strengthen the President to an unimaginable extent.