Shahid Masood does it – AGAIN!

Posted via email using Posterous

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

In The Aftermath Of Lahore Shootout

I couldn’t muster the strength to express my feelings yesterday following the Lahore attacks. I felt absolutely terrible after looking at the images of the bodies of poor policemen who sacrificed their lives to save the Sri Lankan cricketers. I was disappointed, angered and terrified. I still am. These policemen and the driver deserve to be saluted for showing the derring-do at a time of chaos and terror.

Now that almost 2 days have passed since the incident the people of Pakistan deserve to know who are responsible for killing the sport of cricket in Pakistan. Immediately after absorbing the news I expected the two mainstream political parties to try and win points over this incident. The Lanka-Pak match was called off, but another new match had already started. I will talk about the political side later but first I’d like to commend the Sri Lankan team for their cool response to such an enormous attack of terror. They remained calm with Sangakkara going to the extent of saying he had no regrets coming to Pakistan. While the Sri Lankan players demonstrated a magnanimous response, some other cricketing captains who were not even involved in the incident chipped in with disappointing comments. No surprises as the FM of the neighbouring country came out in the media, and instead of expressing grief, used the opportunity to blast Pakistan. Again, I don’t blame him, but it was disappointing.

There were some hints of foreign hand expressed in non-official statements. But what exactly is the official statement? Assume, for a minute, it was India who was behind the attacks, or any other country/organization for that matter. Where was the law-enforcing agency? What is the job of Interior Ministry? Wasn’t the SL team promised presidential-level security? Does the president travel like this? Obviously, if there is an impending attack, it is our country’s job to stop it. If the relevant department fails, it should accept the responsibility? And how many times will this department fail? In September, the same department failed to prevent Marriott attacks, and no one was tried or brought to justice. I did plead for the resignation of Interior Minister at that time, and I do so again. Isn’t it time to accept the responsibility now and step aside? If not now, then when? (more…)

Will Muslim Leagues Unite? Will We See A New PM?

The imposition of governor rule in Punjab has prompted the factions of Muslim League to realise that this is an attempt of PPP to encroach in their territory. In fact, the PPP has already advanced in the PML zone and this act may just backfire with the unification of PML-N and PML-Q. Can this really happen? There are two important questions that need to be answered.

1. Will the Chaudhrys trust Zardari, given his recent history to break promises and his long-term animosity with them?

2. Will the Chaudhrys and Sharifs patchup?

Any one of these two WILL happen, and that will decide the future direction.

Given the fact that PML-Q has been humiliated in the elections for standing by Pervez Musharraf, there wwill be reluctance among their ranks for supporting PPP, which is widely believed to be following what is touted as Musharraf’s agenda. There have been rumours that Chaudhry Shujaat is asking for the position of Chairman Senate for himself, and the seat of CM Punjab for Moonis Elahi. Again, this may not be popular in their own party primarily because the members were earlier not happy with the leadership of Chaudhrys. And any such deal will directly affect the Chaudhry family rather than providing any benefit to the PML-Q, the party. Then comes the issue of trust. Why will PML-Q believe that PPP will not try to interfere in the politics of Punjab even if CM belongs to PML-Q. It is not a secret that Punjab is the key to rule the center and PPP will try to tighten its grip in Punjab. If a deal is struck between PPP and PML-Q agitation in Punjab will not cease.

The second, and more plausible, option is the (re)unification of PML. Or atleast, support in the assemblies. This can even lead to the overthrow of PPP’s government in center. Since Shahbaz Sharif is now disqualified to be the CM, and Nawaz disqualified to be the PM, it is clear that the future PM from PML-N will be Shahbaz Sharif (an amendment in the Constitution is unlikely in my view). Can PML (N and Q) agree on power sharing formula such that one of them gets the center while the other enjoys Punjab? Certainly possible with the increase in meetings between the members of both the parties…BUT..what about Sindh? Any such government changes will lead to agitation in Sindh! Will MQM join hands with them? They have enjoyed good relations with PML-Q but not with PML-N. Obviously they can join anyone under the banner of national interest.

The second option does look good on paper but the bigger problem is that a change in the leader of House (PM) can easily be resisted by the all-powerful President!

The situation is very complex and conflicting. PPP and PML(N and Q) have a tight hold over one province atleast. In case of any elections, I don’t see them losing grip in their stronghold. In fact, the grip will be tightened. This, sadly, means that whoever forms a government in center will have atleast one large province out of control. Punjab is important from strategic point of view in running the government, while Sindh (read Karachi) is important from economic point of view. The only way out is a harmony, trust and reconciliation. Given the history, this is next to impossible.

Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz

Can Zardari Call Checkmate?

In a game of chess there are three possible ways of getting out of a check:

• Capturing the checking piece, with either the king or another piece.
• Moving the king to an adjacent square where it will not be in check.
• Blocking the check. This will only work if the checking piece is a queen, rook, or bishop and there is at least one empty square in the line between this checking piece and the checked king.

So far in the political chessboard of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif has managed to exercise the second option to get out of Asif Zardari’s incessant and clever checks.

There exists an agreement among the analysts, journalists and the people of Pakistan that Asif Zardari is not governing the country but playing pure politics. There also exists the agreement that this is necessary for someone who was sidelined in the party by the chairperson and his own wife and that the best way to avoid threats from within the party and the aggression from opponents is to attack them. And there exists no doubt among all that Mr. Zardari is playing his cards, or making his moves, flawlessly.

I don’t intend to praise Mr. Zardari in this post for his masterful strokes, nor do I plan to vilify him with charges or corruption (despite the synonymous nature of the words Zardari and corruption). (more…)