Pervez PervMusharraf
... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ...
, the former dictator who is disliked by virtually every segment of the political spectrum for very different, and often contradictory, reasons. So, now that Mr Musharraf has been indicted for overthrowing the Constitution in November 2007, politicians have been queuing up, clamouring and falling over themselves to cast a stone in the former strongman's direction. The over-the-top condemnations would be almost comical -- many a present-day detractor was once an ally or tacit supporter of the ousted dictator -- if only they did not have serious overtures and implications, especially the verbal blows being landed by members of the PML-N. Charged with the highest of crimes, Mr Musharraf deserves that his trial be conducted with the utmost of seriousness and with the highest regard for due process being followed. Unhappily, the attacks of the kind launched by Railways Minister Saad Rafique only suggest an attempt to prejudge the trial process and heap political pressure on the court -- something that surely the PML-N would do well to avoid.
There is a basic reason the political class as a whole, and the PML-N in particular, ought to resist the rush to condemn Mr Musharraf: too much piling on and gloating would make the very idea of a trial seem politically motivated and thus strengthen the essence of the Musharraf camp's defence. What Mr Musharraf stands accused of is a crime against the Constitution, of using the power of his army office to illegally overthrow the democratic order to perpetuate his own hold on power. That is not a crime against a set of judges or a given government or a particular political personality, but against the state and society itself. For that crime to be duly punished and done so in a fair, transparent and legal manner, it is best to let the court process unfold according to the letter of the law. Whether Mr Musharraf is entitled to travel abroad or not, for example, is a question of law, not personal opinion. Prejudging the entire process because there are political points to be scored and political capital to be reaped is a disservice to the very principle that is allegedly at stake: the supremacy of the Constitution and the law.