Plain Words
Betraying justice for what?
CLEARLY, none of the bigger political parties cares a hoot for the deposed and purged judges of superior courts who are still under detention, except Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. PPP and even PML (N) leaders have joined the US project to strengthen the hitherto Pakistan army chief's cause. One directly and the other through the Saudi King.
The two buddies, Gen. Musharraf and US President George Bush, have shown that they consider the sword to be mightier than the law, reason and pen. Most others have been overwhelmed or bought. Most parties look like participating in the January 8 polls for the success of America's and the Pakistan army's cause.
Yet, most Pakistanis acknowledge the PCOed judges and the legal fraternity led by the shining galaxy of Justice Wajihuddin, Munir Malik, Aitezaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmed Kurd and so many famous or work-a-day lawyers as their heroes. They continue to blaze a trail for the people to follow. They want respect for all human beings as being equal and valuable, for whom rule of law is a must. That requires judges and lawyers who value human freedoms, and who refuse to bow before autocratic rulers' unending, deceptive falsehoods.
The judges led by Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and the 60 or more judges (who resigned in protest) constitute the true Supreme and High Courts in which legitimacy of law resides. They need to be saluted every day -- and their lead followed.
This great betrayal of rule of law and human freedoms -- the heart of democracy -- was spearheaded by the JUI chief and the PPP chief, each wired to Gen. Musharraf and the US administration respectively. They will legitimise the army chief's actions of imposing the state of emergency (Martial Law really) and issuing a PCO to change and distort the constitution whenever he felt like doing something the constitution forbids, by participating in the January 8 elections.
Everyone knows that all the shots will continue to be called by the COAS behind the make-believe screen of caretakers, and elections will be "managed" through secret agencies. Aware citizens expect these polls to produce Musharraf-desired results. Hitherto, the PML (N) chief had refused any kind of deal with Musharraf and supported the old judiciary's restoration.
One fears that the US may have forced him to climb Musharraf's bandwagon. He had been firm in demanding the withdrawal of emergency and PCO, and restoration of the purged judges. One will wait for a few days, before tarring him with the same brush as Benazir, to know what exactly transpired at a putative meeting where the American Ambassador was also present.
It is too late to remonstrate with major parties about why they want to participate in an election held under emergency restrictions and in which agencies will do their mischief, or to make futile appeals to Gen. Musharraf's conscience. The former, in fact, had only minor differences with Musharraf, and have removed them. The latter is likely to think that his grand strategy has succeeded and he is home and dry for the next five years.
Yet, the November 3 emergency, PCO, and media laws will deepen all the faultlines, indeed fissures, in the polity. All those who are participating in such an election are obliging the US and strengthening Musharraf so they can supposedly fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda better. But they should still think about what another five years of an unreformed Musharraf's rule will do to Pakistan's body politic.
Have the methods employed by Islamabad under the COAS rule for seven years curbed the growth of Taliban and assorted militants? Or they have led to an increase in their sway and influence? Nor has Balochistan shown any normality after big Bugti's unwise murder. Are rivers of milk and honey flowing in Sindh? How many Pakistanis are happy in this victory of brute power over the civil society and law?
Look again. What we Pakistanis have today are two contending causes, each claiming legitimacy. One side is led by the army chief, carrying with him platoon after platoon of rich sycophants, time servers and turncoats. The other side comprises the intelligentsia and common folks; they believe in human values, the law and its majesty, and the power of truth. These are irreconcilable; it is the old contention about which is mightier, the pen and its products or brute force. The current political contest has gone in favour of brute physical power. Is this defeat of law, learning, and values definitive?
Some victories can be Pyrrhic. This is one, too, if only the upholders of the law's cause shed their limitation of being non-political. It was popular support for the cause represented by Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his lawyers that catapulted them into a political phenomenon. Chaudhry commanded no troops, yet the common people -- that too of Punjab -- showered their love and support on him and the lawyers; the whole country supports them. They are the new and authentic heroes and icons. Their political potential is unmatchable.
It is a polarisation in which the two causes, politics and lawyers, neither in conflict with rule of law and libertarian philosophy really, can usefully come together to reinforce what the Bar and the legitimate Bench stand for. The other side is entrenched anti-democratic power(s). It is a line-up of a civil war. However, a civil war is best avoided. Pakistan is externally vulnerable, perhaps for the first time.
There are two reasons why Pakistan invites the ire of many in the west, led by the US and Nato powers: the Taliban and assorted Islamic militants with their influence on the one hand, and nuclear weapons on the other. Look at the potential of a civil war(s) in view of these vulnerabilities. It is too scary to contemplate.
Civil war begets economic meltdown. Not that Pakistan's economy is in the pink of health. Its vulnerabilities have multiplied in recent years, official propaganda of achievements notwithstanding. Economic collapse can precede, accompany, or follow a civil war. Economic progress requires stable politics -- of a democratic kind. There is no way anyone can combine civil strife and economic progress.
What Pakistan needs urgently is national consensus over how, and who, to run the polity: by a man on horseback, or by the people through their fairly elected representatives under unadulterated law (democratic Constitution). Musharraf's Islamabad is likely to remain under attack from many sides: assorted Islamic extremists, al-Qaeda and the Taliban (who combine an extra-austere Islam with Pushtoon nationalism), and the secular nationalism of Pushtoons, Balochis and Sindhis. There is also the potential threat from the dirt poor; should they be mobilised, they will pose a serious threat to the elitist politics.
But there can be a sane, democratic national consensus seeking to promote peace, law and democracy, with an equity-based approach to economic matters. It can seek democratic, not military, solutions to not only NWFP's problems but also to those arising in and from Afghanistan. Democrats can find a solution to the Balochistan problem without too much difficulty. Pakistan needs a democracy that can control the military services, and not vice versa. People's true representative will also know how to tackle foreign powers, big and small.
But where is such a democratic leadership? With the major parties having disappointed so bitterly, there are only the judges and lawyers, who sustained a six months long glorious agitation, who are continuing to lead. They now have the additional task of mobilising the people to establish rule of law and democracy, and to uphold all human rights, including people's right to social security. Are they up to it? Will Wajihuddin or Aitezaz et al rise to the occasion?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments