|
Presented below is the analysis of the events of the past week for their
impact on the prospects of Democracy and Free and Fair Election in
Pakistan by PILDAT led by its Executive Director, Ahmed Bilal Mehboob.
This analysis was written before the terrorist bomb attack on Ms. Benazir
Bhutto’s procession on the night of October 18, 2007 at Karachi.
The selection of Engineer Shams ul Mulk as the caretaker Chief Minister of
NWFP may indicate how General Pervez Musharraf’s government plans to go
about the appointment of caretaker governments at the centre and the
remaining three provinces when the terms of the governments come to an end
in November 2007. Apparently, the key parties in the NWFP like the MMA and
the ANP were not consulted as these parties strongly protested the
selection of Mr. Shams-ul-Mulk as the Caretaker Chief Minister.
Pro-Government leanings of Shams ul Mulk are beyond any doubt as he has
been a member of the un-elected NWFP cabinet which was put in place after
General Musharraf took over the Government and dismissed the elected
governments in October 1999. Mr. Shams-ul-Mulk is generally regarded as a
plain-speaking, competent technocrat with clean record but he is not
expected to put up any effective resistance to any effort to influence the
coming election one way or the other. One may expect that the coming
caretaker governments in the centre and other provinces will consist of
non-political persons, mainly technocrats, who may not have any formal
political affiliation but will not be politically neutral either. If the
appointment of the NWFP Caretaker Chief Minister is any guide, Gen.
Musharraf’s government does not intend to undertake any meaningful
consultation with the opposition parties while selecting members of the
caretaker governments. Although, General Musharraf is under no
constitutional obligation to consult anyone while appointing caretaker
governments, it may be helpful to build some degree of confidence among
opposition parties by taking their views into account while appointing
caretaker governments. However, current state of relations between most of
the opposition and the government indicates that such a consultation may
not be possible in the first place and even if opposition parties are
consulted, they may find the exercise futile since Gen. Musharraf will
most probably continue to call the shots irrespective of who is in the
caretaker governments. Since General Musharraf is partisan, even a neutral
caretaker government may not instil confidence among the opposition
political parties.
Many days after Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s public announcement that she would
return to Pakistan on October 18, 2007 to lead her party’s election
campaign, General Musharraf publicly advised her to delay her arrival
until the Supreme Court decides about General Musharraf’s qualification as
a Presidential candidate. Despite the fact that there is no legal or
constitutional bar on the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to come
back to Pakistan (though she may have to face court cases or even arrest)
efforts were being made by the government to manage her itinerary. It is
quite unusual for a head of the state in Pakistan to publicly engage in
this sort of discourse and difficult to comprehend the real reasons why
General Musharraf and his Government feels uncomfortable by the return of
a political leader with whom he has recently entered into an
understanding. Although Ms. Benazir Bhutto refused to accept Gen.
Musharraf’s advice, the Government move indicates its desire to manage
every political move in the country. It may also indicate that the coming
election may also be a carefully stage-managed affair in which major
political players would be on a rather tight leash. Another possible
explanation is that Gen. Musharraf may be contemplating certain moves in
response to an adverse Supreme Court judgment and the arrival of a dynamic
and popular political leader may not fit well into those moves from Gen.
Musharraf’s point of view. Whatever the explanation, efforts to discourage
free movements of political leaders is not conducive to democracy and the
atmosphere to hold free and fair election.
During the week preceding the resumption of hearing by the Supreme Court
of the case challenging the qualification of General Musharraf as a
Presidential candidate, a number of senior Government officials made
unnecessary but significant and suggestive remarks about the outcome of
the case. Attorney General Malik Qayum said that the case would most
likely be decided in favour of General Musharraf as the judges of the
Supreme Court are Pakistanis after all and they know what is in the
interest of Pakistan; Dr. Sher Afgan Niazi, Federal Minister of
Parliamentary Affairs, said that he did not rule out Martial Law if
Supreme Court ruled against Gen. Musharraf; Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Federal
Railways Minister said that he could not dispute the understanding of Dr.
Sher Afgan Niazi meaning that he also does not rule out another Martial
Law; Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Khalid Maqbool, Governor of the Punjab also
considered necessary to comment that a decision of the Supreme Court
against Gen. Musharraf will usher instability and disruption in the
country. Information Minister Mr. Muhammad Ali Durrani’s statement ruling
out the Martial Law paled before a barrage of suggestive remarks by other
senior government functionaries. These remarks may also be interpreted as
not-so-veiled attempts to influence or ‘impress’ the Supreme Court. The
outcome of these cases and the reaction by the Government and the
opposition will have a direct bearing on the prospects of free and fair
election in Pakistan. There had been continuous references by senior
Government functionaries to the possibility of a Martial Law or a Martial
Law-like step by General Musharraf during the past few weeks. General
Musharraf himself sounded ambivalent when an interviewer asked him about
his line of action in case of an adverse judgment of the Supreme Court. He
said he would decide after the court delivers its judgment. Promulgating
Martial Law may be a very unlikely and difficult possibility but all these
hints indicate that the possibility has probably been or is being
discussed at some level. Recent erosion of the credibility and public
trust of key political parties and political leaders through a series of
acts of omission and commission may come as handy pretexts for any such
step. The mere talk of a Martial Law in this day and age indicates a low
level of commitment to democracy, and rule of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PILDAT will welcome feedback and comments by the readers
and recipients of this Monitor. Please e-mail your comments and feedback
at info@pildat.org
If you wish to
unsubscribe, please e-mail at
unsubscribe@pildat.org |
