Who can forget the high hopes among Pakistanis on the morrow of Feb 18 election? It seemed that democracy and representative government will soon visit Pakistan and the long night of dictatorship shall end. But in three weeks, the old fear have reappeared: Would there be a transfer of power from the army-establishment to elected representatives? There is no certainty.
Contrarily, a new confrontation is brewing between an entrenched President, Pervez Musharraf, and the newly elected victorious parties: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Awami National Party.
Will the victorious parties be able to undo the mischief Musharraf’s emergency wrought the last November 3 when he, as army chief (not as President) bestowed new powers to the President, i.e. himself, to issue a new Provisional Constitution Order and quickly ended the state of emergency and began to rule once again as a President untrammelled by parliament, got himself elected till the year 2012 and ordered the general election that took place in February. His other actions were: (a) saved his presidency from the expected adverse Supreme Court judgement by sacking all High and Supreme Courts that started becoming too assertive and reconstituted them with pliant judges. He sacked 60 superior judges, arresting most of them and some nine of them, including Pakistan’s Chief Justice, are still under house arrest. He also went on to tighten laws to gag the electronic media and the press.
Backdrop of tumultuous year of 2007 needs being focused: there was the sharp rise of Taliban militancy, the Lal Masjid affair bringing much blame and ridicule on Musharraf administration and then there was his gaucheries he committed vis-à-vis Chief Justice of Pakistan: He tried to force him to resign, failing which he arrested him, made him “non-functional”, and later sent him on “forced leave”. A raging and tearing campaign by legal fraternity followed; lawyers could not stomach such degradation of the superior judiciary that was beginning to act like independent judges.
The last word on November 3 actions was Musharraf’s own: extra-constitutional and illegal. The reason why he acted illegally was to stay in power, come what may. Five months down the line, he is still determined to remain in power – and with the powers that he conferred on himself in two successive coups of 2002 and 2007. But then a new election has taken place. National Assembly will meet on March 17. A grand confrontation impends: The new victorious parties are publicly committed to undo his November 3 actions and restore the judges he fired last November, nine of whom are still locked up in their own homes.
Musharraf is clearly conspiring with his supporters and is expected to take the extreme actions, if required to stay in power. The other side murmurs that if they are thwarted, they will be left with no option but to impeach him that they do not really want to.
Musharraf has strength and is no pushover. He is supported by much of landed gentry, captains of industry and finance, big business and successful professionals; army was known to be his constituency that, in a crunch, would not let him down. More important is the US government’s and its allies’ support. The west wants Musharraf to stay and lead a government with a democratic face to wage the “war against terror” more efficiently.
The Arab states that have a strange sway over Islamabad are also under American influence and echo the Americans. They are pushing the PML (N), while the west is pressurising PPP leadership into keeping Musharraf as the leader who would lead Pakistan with renewed vigour into “war on terror”. This is not an ordinary confrontation that can be resolved amicably through political negotiations. The basic question is: would there be a transfer of power from the military to the elected representatives? There is no clear answer.
Which is where one hears the faint echoes of 1970-71 when another army chief held a fair election that produced loud and clear results just as has happened recently. But results were against military domination of political life. Question recurs: would there be a transfer of power from the military to the “bloody civilians”? Everybody remembers the travails and trauma of the year 1971 that involved a civil war in East Pakistan which grew into a revolt against Pakistan and finally India Pakistan war took place in which Pakistan army was definitively defeated. Issues are similar. Would the results be similar now or later?
It depends on two power centres: the US administration and the Pakistan army itself. What would the new army chief do when confronted with a stark choice of letting down Musharraf, a former chief, or the newly elected democratic parties? In this the critical factor is General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.
It is possible that the people’s might and determined will can overwhelm the security forces and the government, army and Americans notwithstanding. But only if the people remain organised and non-violent. Violence means the army’s firepower can be brought into play and a bloodbath can follow. Democracy succeeds through determined peaceful campaigning.
