open Democracy News Analysis - Pakistan: inside the storm, Salman Raja - Comments

pakteahouse on "Pakistan: inside the storm"

pakteahouse — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:44:12 +0000

This is a well written piece - the attack on the Constitution and Judiciary is deplorable but this tendency of Pakistan's intelligentsia to malign (to the the extent of excluding) the political parties is alarming. Essentially,Pakistan's power/interest groups are now battling for power. Historically this has been significant in bringing change - but we are not sure if this might yet result in another takeover. Please do visit this post: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/rebirth-of-street-fighting-days-politics-return-to-pindi/ I will quote a para here: "Pakistani Media Empire is doing what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent” for a legality-obsessed, over bureaucratized non- political regime of professionals that takes over the corporate interests of Pakistan Army. This is a clash of Pakistan Army’s corporate interest with the emerging business and professional class. Both despise the people who are the legitimate masters of this land. So politics has to be destroyed."

aeionline_1 on "Pakistan: inside the storm"

aeionline_1 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:58:47 +0000

Granted, Mullah is bad! But who we are to question if people like and follow them? Why instead of fighting them intellectually the world is coercing to deny democratic rights of Mullah and their followers? Doesn’t this mean that leaders choosen through power of money and vested interest instead of popular voluntary vote lack in argument vis-a-vis egalitarian teachings of Islam and support and oppose Mullah out of vested interest and not for the sake of democracy and benign human values: - Mullah was good when was working on contract for providing cannon fodder in Afghanistan against Soviets in (1979-1989?); - Mullah was good when agitated against Bhutto in 1977; - Mullah under oil-rich kings and shaikhs is always good but - Mullah is BAD when he asserts and say Mush is serving foreign interests rather than that of Pakistan. WHAT A NAKED ADMISSION OF SHAMELESS DOUBLE STANDARDS! Thanks God, USA has come open in recognizing his need of Pakistan; But why they consider Mush as 'indispensable'; is he their paid agent? If not the powers in west/north must rely on their bona fide and trust on 160 million Pakistanis includding Mullah who, after all, is also a human being with human sensibilities. How long the feudal-military elite in Pakistan, a parasite sustaining life on commission, kick-backs and bribe from international military-industrial complex and pharma barons, can control 160 million Pakistanis? It is time that better sense should prevail everywhere, and not just only in Pakistan; listen to President Lula who said, "real WMD are 2.8 billion wretched people in the world who have to live on one or less dollar a month". In this information era, the world statesmen/women and enlightened citizenry need to think beyond scarcity theory, 80:20 rule of Pareto and must improve ratio of control over wealth and resource - now only 14 per cent of the world population controls over 84% of wealth/recourse through the barrel of Gun. They must not kill sparrows with heavy guns! Kindest regards. Sadiq

aeionline_1 on "Pakistan: inside the storm"

aeionline_1 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:21:47 +0000

S. Lance, Please let me correct you. It was not the Hamaz which brought a particular type of Democracy in Gaza but in fact it were the people of Gaza who brought Hamas to power over there through free and fair election. If they elected Hamas, they know it better but instead of recpecting their choice, Hamas government was booted out. Do you mean the later action is in line with democracy? As for Pakistan, what right have people and governments of other countries to dictate us to live under the tyranical shadow of dictatorship? Why cannot the governments in USA and UK can see that Mush has proclaimed Martial Law in Pakistan in the garb of emergency? Would they and their people approve of their generals to put their Constitutions in abeyance on any pretext? Kindest regards. Sadiq

jaagpkpk on "Pakistan: inside the storm"

jaagpkpk — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:01:37 +0000

As a lawyer,author tries to twist facts about Judiciary, partner of forces of status co since Mulvi Tamiziudin Case in early 50’s. before commenting on Lawyers movement one should analyze the reasons behind the breakage of 54 years Holy alliance ? its still a big question mark and one can smell it by looking at cases picked for immediate decisions and by ignoring some important cases. The author wrote” Only judges with known affiliation to the military junta have lined up to take a fresh oath of office under the PCO, in violation of their original oath to defend the constitution. Independent-minded judges have not been offered the fresh oath and if offered would not have taken it.” But he did not mansion that all the judges( including those who are now removed) took oath previously under PCO by the same janta. Then the author further proceeds his case and wrote” The second case concerned the validity of an amnesty that the general had granted through an amnesty ordinance of which the main beneficiary was Benazir Bhutto” but we want to inquire, is it first time in history of Pakistan.what about Nawas sharief amnesty in 2000? Why you did not mansion that courts have not prove anyone guilty in 11 years. Everyone knew about the finance minister very well, its his nationalization policy which ruined whole Pakistani economy in early 70s. To whom he is supporting by joining hands with ghanwa bhutoo is a clear example of his commitment. If one really need to address corruption issue then start it from 1947 property frauds. Then author wrote” The third case is a contempt-of-court petition filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif who has been forcibly kept out of Pakistan by General Musharraf despite a clear supreme-court judgment saying that he has a fundamental right to return to Pakistan” for this Mr.Lawyer should read again supreme court detail order in which she clearly accept that Nawas Sharief has signed an agreement. No one can support marshalla and should fight for restoration of democracy which is the necessary issue but one should state facts straight and not according to one’s wishes. Rule of law and supremacy of constitution is essential but for this lawyers movement should not indulge in power politics. Trespassing of any institution from its constitutional duties should be stopped but it is true for bar, bench and media too. Lastly, institutions are developing in Pakistan gradually with more power and money then before that’s why this political scene is unprecedented but more care and responsibility is needed before reaching to a New Social Contract. Instead of over criticizing popular politicians one should try to develop an alternative agenda for sustainable democratic system. thanx

S. Lance Silver Sr. on "Pakistan: inside the storm"

S. Lance Silver Sr. — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:19:23 +0000

The only issue is whether the Democracy wanted in Pakistan and by the USA, England and other wetern nations is not the same Democracy as what Hamas brought to Gaza. Is it a Sharia free law structure or is it a Sharia inspired society governed by Sharia based laws? Lance

Pakistan: inside the storm, Salman Raja

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:23:24 +0000

What is happening in Pakistan is unprecedented. It the first case of a coup in the country's history - and possibly the first in the world directed specifically at the judiciary and the independence that it had started to display. All Pakistani citizens have been directly affected by the events of 3 November 2007 - many of them in the most direct way possible; I myself, a lawyer in Pakistan, was arrested by the police the day after the imposition of martial law, before being released on bail on 8 November.

Salman Raja is a lawyer in Pakistan. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

He was detained under the emergency decree of 3 November 2007, and held for five days before being released on bail

Pakistan's constitution and the key fundamental rights guaranteed by it have been made inoperative. The tension between the regime and the judiciary had developed during the year in the wake of the lawyers' movement against General Pervez Musarraf's attempt on 9 March 2007 to oust the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who had started to show signs of independence unacceptable to the military.

A flawed appeal

The United States and the European Union have made some noises about the restoration of the constitution and the holding of free elections at the earliest opportunity. This is not enough: it must be emphasised that any call to hold elections without the restoration of the judges who have been ousted plays directly into General Musharraf's hands. Twelve out of sixteen supreme court judges, including the chief justice have been ousted pursuant to the provisional constitutional order (PCO) issued on 3 November by General Musharraf in his capacity as the chief of the army staff. This order has no constitutional validity and is simply an assertion of military power. Only judges with known affiliation to the military junta have lined up to take a fresh oath of office under the PCO, in violation of their original oath to defend the constitution. Independent-minded judges have not been offered the fresh oath and if offered would not have taken it.

As a consequence, apart from the decimation of the supreme court, nearly 50% of the judges of the provincial high courts have been stripped of their office. This is a virtual demolition of the judiciary in Pakistan. The US and the EU are not talking about it. Elections without the restoration of the sacked judges will amount to throwing a cloak of ratification over the general's assault. A true demand from outside, one consistent with the democratic ideals these states profess, would be "no elections without the restoration of the judiciary". It is very clear that there can be no free elections under General Musharraf's watch with a handpicked docile judiciary looking the other way.

The legal context

It is important to understand the legal - and thereby political - context in which martial law has been imposed. The action of 3 November 2007 was inspired by three cases before the supreme court that were likely to be decided in the next few weeks.

The first pertained to the constitutionality of General Musharraf's election as president on 6 October for a further term of five years, even though at the time of the so-called election he was, and remains, the army chief. There is a clear bar in the constitution against an army officer engaging in politics. It had become increasingly clear that the supreme court would declare his election invalid.

The second case concerned the validity of an amnesty that the general had granted through an amnesty ordinance of which the main beneficiary was Benazir Bhutto. This amnesty affects not only the corruption cases before the Pakistani courts that Bhutto has been evading for the past eight years but also the cases before courts in Switzerland and Spain. A Swiss judicial authority has already convicted Bhutto of having received illegal gratification during her term as prime minister for government contracts granted to Swiss companies.

The matter is under appeal with original decision automatically suspended. The Swiss authorities decided at the end of October 2007 to continue to press charges of aggravated money-laundering against Bhutto. However, after General Musharraf's amnesty ordinance the Pakistan authorities had declared their intention not to participate in proceedings in Switzerland. It is clear that this failure to participate will make it exceedingly hard for the charges against Bhutto to be established. The amnesty ordinance was challenged before the Pakistan supreme court by one of Pakistan's most respected elder politicians, a former finance minister and a founding member of the Pakistan People's Party (founded by Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto). Needless to say he has moved away from the PPP in disgust at Benazir's politics.

Among openDemocracy's many articles on Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf:

Maruf Khwaja, "The Islamisation of Pakistan" (12 April 2006)

Shaun Gregory, "Pakistan on edge" (25 September 2006)

Ehsan Masood, "Pakistan: the army as the state" (12 April 2007)

Anatol Lieven, "At the Red Mosque in Islamabad" (4 June 2007)

Paul Rogers, "Pakistan's peril" (19 July 2007)

Maruf Khwaja, "The war for Pakistan" (24 July 2007)

Irfan Husain, "Pakistan's poker-game" (14 September 2007)

Shaun Gregory, "Pakistan: farewell to democracy" (29 October 2007)

Irfan Husain, "Pervez Musharraf's desperate gamble" (5 November 2007)

Ayesha Siddiqa, "Pakistan: the power of the gun" (7 November 2007)

(A declaration of interest: I am the lead counsel in this case and argued the matter for two hours before the supreme court on 12 October. The case was then admitted to regular hearing from 5 November and the court passed an order to the effect that all actions pursuant to the amnesty would remain contingent upon the ultimate decision of the court. This order and the alacrity with which the supreme court had taken up the matter were heavily criticised by Benazir Bhutto in threatening tones).

The third case is a contempt-of-court petition filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif who has been forcibly kept out of Pakistan by General Musharraf despite a clear supreme-court judgment saying that he has a fundamental right to return to Pakistan. In its last hearing, conducted a few days before the imposition of martial law, the court had declared its intention to punish all involved - including possibly the present puppet prime minister, Shaukat Aziz - in the flouting of its earlier orders directing that Sharif not be prevented from returning.

The world and Pakistan

These three cases are now unlikely to amount to much. The case against the amnesty order rested primarily on Article 25 of the constitution, which assures equality for all. This article has been suspended. The common impression is that this has been done with Benazir Bhutto's approval.

Herein lies the rub. No matter how much Bhutto decries martial law - and even in the contest of her "house arrest" on 9 November - she is its chief beneficiary. It is for this reason that Bhutto has hardly squealed about the restoration of the judges even though she joins the daily US demands for fresh elections. General Musharraf generously agrees, daily, that elections must be held soon. There is no talk of the restoration of the judiciary.

Nawaz Sharif's case depends on Article 15 of the constitution, which assures freedom of movement and the right of residence to all citizens. This article has also been suspended. As for the general's eligibility, the recomposed supreme court is likely to hear the matter and throw out the challenge soon.

It is critical to the future of Pakistan and the volatile region it belongs to that the outside world understands what has happened. The cause of the independence and restoration of the Pakistani judiciary is at the centre of this crisis. It is important also that Benazir Bhutto not been seen and heard - as she is too often in the United States and the European Union - as the main representative of the pro-democracy, secular-minded civil society of Pakistan. The Pakistan Bar Council and the other lawyers' associations are united in opposing elections without the restoration of the judiciary. They must be heard.

Average rating

(2 votes)