| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| GeneralÂ’s defence |
| 2007-11-07 |
| By Ayesha Siddiqa The fear of what might happen in Pakistan has come true. On November 3, 2007, Pakistan’s General Musharraf imposed martial law in the country again. Government functionaries had been making statements over the past week about the possibility of an emergency. But although the action is termed ‘emergency’, the fact is that the 1973 constitution is now held in abeyance and the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) is issued by the army chief and not the president, who is the only office-bearer with the power to impose an emergency. According to Pervez Musharraf, he was forced to impose emergency due to the threat of terrorism and the irresponsible behaviour of the judiciary. He accused the supreme court judges of siding with the terrorists. The superior court’s decision to hand the management of the Red Mosque to the previous management was cited as a case in point. Furthermore, the supreme court had been forcing the government to free people who were picked up by the intelligence agencies and held without any trial or explanation. This judicial activism, according to the president, denotes the self-serving attitude of the judiciary, which has also been accused in the past of having ties with India. Indian diplomats and journalists stationed in Islamabad have been accused of supporting judicial activism in the country. Finally, the judiciary was accused of threatening economic development in the country. But was Musharraf successful in selling his arguments to his country? Certainly not. No one is willing to believe that the general was moved by the state of affairs in the country and not by his own interests. That he wished to retain maximum political power as well as his uniform was the message that emerged from his recent actions. In any case, the supreme court’s proceedings in the missing persons’ case — which pertains to all the people picked up by the intelligence agencies for involvement in terrorism or other unexplained reasons — are in public interest and not to strengthen the judiciary. What is even more interesting is the fact that the judge who decided in favour of the Red Mosque, Justice Nawaz Abbasi, has been sworn in under the PCO. So the issue is not of the judiciary supporting extremists, but Musharraf using this as an excuse. There is also no evidence that economic growth was threatened. The growth figures were stable, and there was no real negative movement in the stock exchange. The only issue that the president could possibly be referring to is the steel mill case. The government was hell-bent on selling an expensive state asset to some parties who were reportedly close to the banker prime minister, Shaukat Aziz. The judiciary can certainly be accused of blocking such a deal and pulling up the government for disposing of state assets through a process which lacked transparency and accountability. Since the government has cited the threat of economic downturn as a reason, it will now make all efforts to stop the stock exchange from crashing on Monday and convince investors not to withdraw funds. It may even try to inject funds to prop up the stock markets. There can, however, be no denying that the declaration of emergency does not bode well for the country, its institutions and society. Talk to people on the streets and they will tell you how this is just an act of self-protection on the general’s part and a move to protect the interests of the armed forces. However, growing public resentment against the military would indicate a wrong reading of the situation: the bulk of the officers and soldiers do not benefit from this decision. Members of the armed forces are conscious of the impact this decision will have on their own reputation. According to one unnamed source, Musharraf stands alone in this decision. Indeed, he looked very shaky in delivering his speech on television on Saturday night. Therefore, although he claims to have made this decision in “national interest”, there aren’t too many takers for this argument. What might now prolong his rule a bit further is the lack of political activism of the political parties. Despite Benazir Bhutto’s statement to launch a movement, there is no sign as yet that the PPP leadership will bring its supporters out on the streets. It is hoped that Benazir Bhutto does not eventually settle for continuing her partnership with the general. The other pillar of Musharraf’s support is the US, which has been strategically less vocal on the development. Except for a show of concern, nothing substantive has been said by Washington. They might not have supported this decision to impose an emergency, but the US government is still not willing to abandon their man in Islamabad. After all, the political deal between the PPP and Musharraf would have benefited the US and enabled it to fight the war on terror with the help of a civil-military partnership in Pakistan. As for Pakistan itself, it faces yet another critical moment in its history. The writer is the Islamabad-based author of ‘Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy’ |
| Posted by:john frum |