Democracy in Pakistan: The Missing Link?

By democracy, we usually mean a government elected / selected by people and if necessary, kicked-out / destroyed by the people. Both of these actions need certain rules and regulations to avoid anarchy. Unfortunately Pakistani civilians need to undertand that stability is prime for the people. If they fail to deliver on that, army will be the plan B.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Generals at bay

Feb 15th 2001 | LAHORE

From The Economist print edition

AFTER over two years of relative oblivion in self-imposed exile, Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister of Pakistan, has jumped on to the front pages of the country’s newspapers. She has done so, as it happens, on the basis of a report in a British newspaper. The report claims that the former government of Nawaz Sharif leaned on some judges to convict Miss Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, for corruption in 1999. The evidence for this is said to be in the form of taped conversations between senior government officials and a judge at Miss Bhutto’s trial. The tapes were made by a member of Pakistani intelligence who decamped to London and has now, so the story goes, been pricked by conscience.

Miss Bhutto’s footprints seem to be all over the story. After her conviction in 1999, she claimed that she had not had a fair trial. But the Supreme Court routinely postponed hearing her petition for one reason or another. Last December, when Mr Sharif was exiled to Saudi Arabia by the present military government of General Pervez Musharraf, Miss Bhutto sensed a political vacuum in the country and considered returning to Pakistan and taking on the generals.

The Musharraf regime said it would arrest her if she set foot in Pakistan and dig up more evidence of her corrupt activities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear her 1999 petition on February 26th. This led pundits to speculate that the military regime, having got rid of one prime minister, was gearing up to finish off another. But the tapes have compromised the judiciary, whose credibility is already low after decades of battering by generals and politicians. The Supreme Court will be under pressure to acquit Miss Bhutto or order a lengthy retrial which would give her lawyers a chance to air her grievances.

This may be just the beginning of General Musharraf’s troubles. Disgruntled opponents of the regime have asked the Supreme Court to strike down an “accountability” law under which hundreds of politicians and bureaucrats have been imprisoned or sidelined from politics. Lawyers’ organisations across the country have banded together to announce a national strike on February 27th, demanding an early restoration of civilian rule. And the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy—comprising supporters of Miss Bhutto and Mr Sharif, along with several other parties—is planning a demonstration on March 23rd, Pakistan Day.

Worse, the religious parties are beginning to suspect that General Musharraf may not be too kindly disposed towards them, despite his reliance on religious militants to fuel the insurgency in Kashmir against India. The government is worried by a sectarian conflict that has claimed dozens of lives. It is embarrassed by outpourings on alleged blasphemy and immorality. Last month, bearded mobs burnt down the offices of the Frontier Post, a Peshawar newspaper that had inadvertently printed a blasphemous letter. Last week, the home minister, Moinuddin Haider, a retired general, was in Afghanistan, asking the Taliban regime not to provide sanctuary to “religious terrorists” from Pakistan. Extremists are now accusing the generals of acting at the behest of “super-Satan America”. An exaggeration, surely.

The following article exposes the malaise that has set in the political system of Pakistan (with the full cooperation of all agencies of the state). However, there still remains hope, for as long as such incidents keep getting exposed, there remains a chance for redemption:

The Friday Times, Editorial by Najam Sethi, Feb. 15, 2001

The Sunday Times of London has recently published a story that damns politicians and state institutions alike in Pakistan. The report suggests that an official of the Intelligence Bureau was ordered in 1998 by the head of the Accountability Bureau, Mr Saif ur Rehman, to tap the telephones of Justice Abdul Qayyum of the Lahore High Court (illegal order by politicians, illegal implementation by IB). The IB official later pocketed the tapes and decamped to London, eventually handing them over to the British newspaper. If true, the conversations between Justice Qayyum and Saif ur Rehman, Khalid Anwar (then law minister), Mrs Abdul Qayyum and others are fascinating because they reveal the political bankruptcy of the system and those who are elected or nominated to make it work.

The tapes suggest that Justice Qayyum was bullied by the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his minions into convicting former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her spouse Asif Zardari for corruption in 1998. This means that - irrespective of the substantial evidence laid against the two accused - the trial wasn`t conducted entirely in a free or fair manner as required by law. Ms Bhutto shrieked as much during and after the trial but critics, including TFT, dismissed her allegations against Justice Qayyum as inconceivable. Hence when the review petition comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court on February 26, the court will be hard put to choose between acquitting the couple or ordering a fresh trial. If it clings to a third option - upholding the verdict - it risks being tarred by the same brush.

The role played by each of the actors merits comment. Nawaz Sharif ordered Saif ur Rehman to bug the judge and Mr Rehman had no qualms in barking compliance to the head of the IB who did likewise to his subordinate staff. Everyone acted illegally down the chain of command. Mr Rehman, in particular, stands out like a sore thumb. He is earlier known to have boasted that the ``judges were in his pocket``. Apparently, Mr Sharif also leaned on the then chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Rashid Aziz, to advise Justice Qayyum to do the needful or else. The Supreme Judicial Council needs to take a careful look at this allegation.

The law minister, Khalid Anwar, acted in a deplorable manner. What is wrong with asking a judge to hurry up, he asks. Nothing, if this is done in open court and in a transparent fashion. But it is immoral it if it is done amidst dire threats brandished by officials at the Prime Minister`s behest. Mr Anwar also claims that his government never authorised the IB to wire-tap the judges. Nonsense, says former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who reports that when a bug was discovered on his phone, Mr Anwar advised him not to make an issue of it. We might also recall that this is the same gent who, as President Farooq Leghari`s council in 1996-97 in the Bhutto dismissal case before the Supreme Court, cited phone tapping of judges by the Bhutto regime as a major justification for her government`s ouster.

Finally, there is the judge in the dock. By all accounts, a most competent and learned man, indeed one on whom undue reliance has been thrust by politicians and judges alike in politically sensitive or legally complex cases. But the tapes have compromised his position. He could try and ride out the vicious gossip or he could call it a day and quietly fade away. If he chooses the first route, the law would require him to face the Supreme Judicial Council and explain his situation.

One last matter. The timing of the revelations - just before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Benazir Bhutto`s review petition - and the dubious role of the IB Deputy Director (how has he suddenly acquired a conscience?) is thought to cast doubts about the veracity of the tapes and the allegations flowing from them. Not so. The tapes are authentic enough. If they weren`t, every one of the alleged culprits would have tripped over the others to sue the Sunday Times for millions of pounds in criminal defamation and the judges involved would have hauled up everyone in sight for gross contempt of court.

Nor should it matter whether the spook in question received a hefty cheque or a promise of some lucrative posting in the future for allowing his conscience to get the better of him. The fact is that Ms Bhutto has cunningly exploited the counter-evidence at her disposal for maximum effect like a true politician who may be down but refuses to be out.

This case could have far-reaching repercussions. It might give Ms Bhutto a new lease of life. It might stiffen the resolve of lawyers and politicians to agitate for democratic revival and accountability. And it might embolden the judiciary to redeem itself by standing up a little bit to the government.

An interesting account of how a delicate balance between the President and the Government have been reached in India over the years:

http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/stories/05162523.htm

In response to krashid (Reply # 623)
Dear K:

Yes, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr wrote a book on Maulana Mawdudi in 1996: Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism. His next book will be published by the middle of this year. It is called “The Islamic Leviathan : State Power and Islam in Malaysia and Pakistan.”

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed

Looks like you are right. Syed vali Reza Nasr.

I think he has also written one more book related to Pakistan. But I may be imagining.

In response to krashid (Reply # 621)

Dear K:

I think, you have confused Seyyed Vali Reza with Seyyed Hossein Nasr. They both are good scholars. Syed Vali Reza had published a book on the Jamaat in 1994 (entitled The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution : The Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan).

Pakistani politics requires a lot of toleration. Intolerant and oppressive solutions are not good for the health of Pakistan, whether or not their origin lies in the Jamaat or any so-called progressive/liberal party.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #618

There is a very interesting Research book on Jamat-e-Islami by some NASR (Hussain or something like that) where he stressess that Jamat-e-Islami by involving itself in democratic politics has been forced to do struggle in democratic framework

or to say it another way that Jamat-e-Islami has matured over time as far as democratic struggle is concerned.

We should give them a benefit of doubt.

(The period when Jamat got corrupted is Zia period when Jamat got a massive funding in the name of Afghan Jihad)

In response to krashid (Reply # 619)
Dear K:

A democratic polity needs to be based on sound and authentic knowledge. The issue of identity is linked strongly with the allocation of national resources. I know that the Mohajir’s have been systematically discriminated during the past forty-years or so. But, this understanding needs to be substantiated with facts. Otherwise, it cannot be treated more than hearsay and/or a limited personal experience.

Your comment about the migration of the Mohajirs has some weight. Migration to foreign lands, however, cannot be explained only in terms of discrimination at home. How about similar trend in other ethnic communities?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #615

Practically speaking Mohajirs are a seperate identity. (however we deny it). But they should consider themselves as part of Sind without necessarily sacrificing their identity.

Patriotism I was referring to in the context of East Pakistan when Mohajir wholeheartedly supported the massacre of Bengalis in the name of patriotism and would not talk about co-operation with UNPATRIOTIC SINDHIS.

As far as his corruption and co-optation before. He has collaborated with Army and ISI before with the full backing of Mohajirs to the detriment of rights of smaller nationalities and democracy (narrow ethnicity).

I don`t have a figure for the quality or quantity of Mohajirs. But considering my surroundings and relatives I think so. Massive emigration of Mohajir to other lands for opportunity also is an indicator for this. If they would have equivalent opprtunity at home why would they do it.

I agree with last part of your post that it is mutual co-operation and competition among deprived people which is desired.

Do it alone means fighting the status quo.

J I ON THE CURRENT MILITARY REGIME

It is generally believed that JI has a lot of following among the fauji jawans and relatively junior officers. Qazi H. Ahmad appears to be a pro-Army politician.

Why Qazi H. Ahmad has taken the following stand? Is this an attempt to reiforce his support base in the army? Is this a product of the need to revitalize the morale of the faujies and to provide a safe exit to the army (and to alleviate the adverse affects of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report and Benazir Bhutto’s recent attacks on the role of the military)?

Ahmad wants the military to go back to the barracks. What is his position about the political role of the military through the National Security Council, demilitarism, and a significant reduction in the proportion of national wealth spent on the military?

Sincerely, Bilal ahmad

``Army`s integrity at stake: Qazi
By Our Staff Reporter

LAHORE — Jama’at-i-Islami Ameer Qazi Hussain Ahmad has said that the integrity and honour of Pak Army has been put at stake by its deployment on the tasks other than its real functions.

“It is being done only to protect the interests of a few persons,” he added.

Addressing a central working committee meeting of the National Labour Federation at Mansoora on Monday, he said that the government, which took over to strengthen the crippled economy, had become an instrument to further deteriorate the economy which had put the country’s solidarity at risk.

Qazi said that the large-scale retrenchment of workers from the government departments and closure of industries had increased unemployment at an alarming rate.

The law and order situation in the country was also not satisfactory which was also bringing a bad name to the Army.

He said the solution of all those lay in the immediate withdrawal of Army. He said that the Jama’at was opposed to all kinds of oppression and it would continue to perform that task`` (The Nation, January 23, 2001).

In response to krashid (Reply # 616)
Dear K:

Your statement: “While Altaf was guiding the Mohajir nation before, he took them out of Islamic and Pakistani patritism . . . propagated by our ruling elite. (And that was the only positive aspect of his struggle).

My reply: So, the Mohajirs are a “nation.” Does this mean that the Mohajirs should also have a state (i.e., a nation-state) of their own? If yes, how viable would be such a state? If no, what is your conception of a political community?

Is “patritism” actually “patriotism”? If later, what is your take on patriotism? How about a sense of belonging/attachment? Please explain your position a little more clearly.

Your statement: “Now he is out of control and I don`t think will be able to take the position Army would like to give him (rubber stamp). So he has no choice but to take a pro people stand.”

My response: You may be right. But, power corrupts people. Was he ever corrupted or coopted before?

Your statement: “Mr. Mahesar is right regarding some Mohajirs in high position. But he is forgetting that they are taking care of their immediate family and majority of Mohajirs are going down into a deep down spiral.”

My response: What proportion of the Mohajirs occupy high positions? Would they maintain this situation during the next 10, 25, or say 50 years?

Do Mohajirs dominate only in a few large cities – namely, Karachi, Hyderabad, and Sukkur? How about Larkana, Jacobabad, Nawabshah, Thatta, Badin, Tando Adam, Tando Allahyar, Mirpur Khas, Rohri, Gambat, Tando Mohammad Khan, Shikarpur, Matiari and a host of other small towns? Is there any published and reliable information? What happened to the quota system? Did it not help the rural part of Sindh?

Your statement: “I hope Altaf continues in his new found path. And if Mohajirs have to do it alone, they will do it alone.”

My response: There exists a complementarity between urban and rural Sindh. The future of Sindh lies in both cooperation and competition (not in unnecessary and bloody confrontation) within and without. You said: Do it alone? What?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed#615

While Altaf was guiding the Mohajir nation before, he took them out of Islamic and Pakistani patritism bull sh-it propagated by our ruling elite. (And that was the only positive aspect of his struggle).

Now he is out of control and I don`t think will be able to take the position Army would like to give him (rubber stamp). So he has no choice but to take a pro people stand.

Mr. Mahesar is right regarding some Mohajirs in high position. But he is forgetting that they are taking care of their immediate family and majority of Mohajirs are going down into a deep down spiral.

I hope Altaf continues in his new found path. And if Mohajirs have to do it alone, they will do it alone.

IDENTITY, AUTHENTICITY AND DEMOCRACY

In an ealier post (Reply # 613), I raised the question of identity and reproduced a letter which refered to the following letter of Mustafa Mahesar. Mahesar welcomes Altaf`s move to call himself a Sindhi, but doubts the authenticity of his rhetoric. He also makes claims which need to be substantiated. But, how? Remember Roohi Allah Ditta also made similar claims about the Mohajirs in Islamabad. Can liberal democracy help resolve such difficulties?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad


Dawn, Letter, January 16, 2000
``Altaf`s lip service

INSTEAD of issuing statements of goodwill and making insipid addresses targeting the Sindhi audience, Altaf Hussain should ask his community, of which he claims to be the sole spokesman and leader, to cooperate with us: they are not. All the top royalties and offices of the government and the state, the media, the development and financial institutions, the industry and the educational institutions are manned and managed by the people of his community. Why is it so that the students of the interior cannot get admission to Karachi University? The Mohajirs came to our land, Sindh, because they found riches in it, but nothing has been given back to us.

If the Punjabi and Pathan settlers send their money to their respective provinces, the Mohajirs send it to Australia, England, Canada and the USA. And, finally, why is it so that Mr Altaf speaks like a statesman but acts like a petty trade union leader who is always ready to make a bargain with the management? We, the Sindhis, welcome his word but fear his deed.

MUSTAFA MAHESAR, Karachi``

Ahmed B#613

Do you think problem of minorities can be solved in the framework of Pakistan. Don`t you see the putting of Atomic Bomb (meaning army) to the heads of people.

Can our army afford to fight its own people.

If they have not yet forgotten Bengal or probably remember after the release of HRCR, they should stop playing their game and give minorities their long due rights.

Seeing the long history of Pakistan and particularly what is happening recently I have no trust in GOP for this. Probably time for AK47 is not far, as I am viewing it.

Sher Ki Eik Din Ki Zindagi Geedar Ki Sau Sala Zindagi Se Bahtar Hai.