Monday, May 05, 2008
Shakir Husain

While the PPP and the PML-N dance this perverted version of political polka on native and sandy shores over the “judges” issue, the glee which is being generated in the camps of the PML-Q and the Presidency has not been seen since the first US aid package was received. Back at the farm, the plebs who came out in droves to vote the last lot out is waiting for some sort of dividend. Far from focusing on the economic mess we find ourselves in, the leadership of both parties is wasting a lot of time on an issue which should have been resolved as per the Murree Declaration. All this bickering publicly does not do wonders for either political party or its leadership.

Perhaps power has a unique way of short-circuiting one’s memory, but both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari had promised the people of Pakistan that the new government would not repeat the mistakes of the past and would work together to resolve the plethora of problems which have previously been swept under the carpet. Far from engaging in the much anticipated spring cleaning, both of them resemble two sumo wrestlers squaring off in a ring while smiling for the camera before and after the match. Sporting, yes. But efficient use of statesman-like power – absolutely not.

The longer the two sides take to resolve the matter of the judges the more hallow their claims of national reconciliation will sound to other parties and players in the political circus of Pakistan. For the first time in years people have hope and a lot of expectations which seem to wane with each day that the judicial issue remains in limbo. If this coalition is to survive and form the basis of a paradigm shift in Pakistani politics, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari will need to put their egos aside and get to work – and fast.

Pakistan faces an energy and food crisis like most of the world, and while other countries are looking for innovative ways to solve both, Pakistan is hoping for divine intervention as usual. Selling off profitable national assets like PSO will only deliver short-term budgetary relief but will exacerbate the power crisis in the long-term. Breaking out of the vise of oil marketing companies should be the government’s leading priority. Apparently, any initiative to look at alternative energy sources like wind and solar is attacked as “inefficient” by powerful lobbies bankrolled by oil companies – hence, no serious traction even though it’s the way of the future.

While everyone in Islamabad seems to be busy eating nahari, the rest of the country is facing a serious food crisis. An inefficient supply chain peppered with 18 different stages of middlemen ensures that neither the consumer nor the farmer sees any benefit. Rising fuel prices are juicing up prices like a banker on coke. And if there isn’t serious government intervention very soon, things can possibly turn very ugly for just about everyone. Playing the blame game, while cathartic, is not helpful for anyone, especially us poor sods who are at the receiving end.

Half of our elected representatives are farmers while the other half are involved with businesses of some sort – with this combination surely we should be able to come up with an effective food security program. Farming yields have risen astronomically yet Pakistan is where it was in the 1960s at the time of the Green Revolution. It seems like forty years have passed us by with everyone just sitting on their backsides waiting for divine intervention as usual. With the corporations getting ready to jump into the business of farming, the government will need to regulate the industry to ensure that the small farmers and the consumers don’t get shafted yet again, though I’m not holding my breath.

Both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have spent several years in the wilderness and I am sure are grateful to many friends overseas. Nawaz Sharif was the beneficiary of Saudi largesse while Mr Zardari made many new friends in the UAE, the United Kingdom, and North America. I hope that they don’t rush to show their gratitude to their new (and old) friends in the form of the privatisation process as Shaukat Aziz was – not that there’s much good stuff to sell anyway. I would recommend the good old shikar of some endangered houbara bustard, a cracking good Lahori meal or some sajji, and a thank you note as opposed to large tracts of land to build yet another plaza or something which belongs to the Pakistani people to begin with.

The writer is an entrepreneur andbusiness consultant. Email: shakir@ gmail.com

October 12, 1999, was the day when Nawaz Sharif’s government was ousted. If we are not suffering from selective amnesia, we would remember that there was a sigh of relief. The perception was that a political dictator had been set aside. The truth is that we all should pinch ourselves to be reminded of the realities that envelope us in the landscape of political leadership that we have to bare with.

Sick of Musharraf’ policies and the presence of the US in Afghanistan, a large number of voters opted to side with the so-called, principled stand of Nawaz Sharif in the February elections. The stand was no other than the judges’ issue, which had been mishandled by the previous government, exploited by the political parties and thus was an easy case to be hijacked by Nawaz Sharif. And so the advisers of Nawaz convinced him to keep on repeating this as an anti-Musharraf slogan not only to take all the anti-Musharraf vote for his party but also to absolve him of the greatest sin ever committed in the history of Pakistan — the 1997 storming of the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the hooligans of his party at the time of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.

A new politically correct face was in fashion at the time of these elections and both Zardari with a trimmed moustache and a well-trained look and words to utter that are not his own, and Nawaz Sharif — a pro-judge restoration policy — were able to take good advantage of it in the elections. They are indeed good politicians, but are they indeed honest enough to come to the expectations of the poor people of our country? Between the two leaders scurrying off to Dubai and hurrying back, the public is in a state of paralysis. Where do the judges stand? Are we fools to be taken in by all the discrepancies that are revolving around the two leaders. How on God’s earth can the so-called technocrat assistants of Zardari and the political wizards of Nawaz Sharif be dealing with inflation, shortage of electricity and price hike of essential commodities in a seven-star hotel facility in Dubai? Are these negotiations on the judiciary issue or is all this eyewash?

Most political leaders, because of less time for democracy to flourish in our country, are power hungry. They want absolute power, a vice attributed to dictators, but as applicable to most of the political leadership of our country. Late Benazir Bhutto wanted that in the form of a totally subservient judiciary, Nawaz also followed suit and desired a subservient COAS in the form of Gen Ziauddin, in spite of having the security of a two-thirds majority, thus destabilizing the political environment and giving way to army rule. The great criticism on the role of the armed forces in civil institutions which is absolutely justified was in fact encouraged and introduced by Nawaz Sharif in the form of recovery of bills of WAPDA at the time of his two-thirds majority.

The history of these leaders and others cannot be condensed in this one article but we need to remind ourselves that we need to learn and guide ourselves by these historic events. And may I remind you that the protagonists in this glimpse of history are none other than the present coalition. Some of us fools are forced to believe that they are changed people and better leaders after their exiles. This is indeed not our fault, since there is a serious lack of leadership in the present political scenario. However we need to strengthen our institutions for this country to be able to survive. The judiciary has already been compromised by falling into the hands of the political parties. We need to chalk out ways to enhance the functioning of all our institutions, whether education, health, or the judiciary. We need to pave a path for the restoration of the judges, not by anti-state activities but through some form of legislation that would not allow any unconstitutional steps.

Some journalists and column writers, politicians and businessmen in this country call the existing government leaders, statesmen. Vow. After pondering over the past is it naivety to announce that or is it something more dangerous? Are they shrewd enough to fool the uneducated and also the so-called great drawing-room experts or will we call their bluff? Let’s ask ourselves what has changed after the elections, the foreign policy or the price hike?

We are seeing a volley of attacks on “poor Mr Zardari” for having tried to have a “reconciliation environment for the larger interest of the nation” succeed. By the way, the same “larger interest” the people of our country hated at the time of the PML-Q and Musharraf era. He is being blamed for being cast in the same mould as Musharraf, and the same analysts are making a mistake yet again by giving credit to Nawaz Sharif for sticking to his stance.

For God’s sake let’s be realistic. The Murree accord — which has already changed names, God knows what would happen to the content of it — is still not clear. Nawaz does not seem to want to relinquish his hold in Punjab, so why break his relationship with the PPP at all levels. I smell ambition here! Isn’t it great how everyone is getting a share in the government by stating that they are desirous of keeping the spirit of reconciliation? Indeed, how convenient!

It is the responsibility of the civil society, journalists, politicians and professionals to participate in the efforts for nation building. Each one of us is responsible for this tremendous task. May God enable us to be true to our selves and this country.

The writer was a federal minister for information technology in the previous government. Email: awaisleghari @hotmail.com

Saturday, May 03, 2008
Babar Sattar

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

The Bhurban Accord has failed, as actions speak louder than words. On the anniversary of the launch of the lawyers' movement, the PPP and PML-N made an unambiguous commitment before the nation to restore all deposed judges "on the same position as they were on Nov 2, 2007, within thirty days of the formation of the federal government, through a parliamentary resolution." The PPP has chosen to renege on its commitment, thereby flouting the elementary promise made by the coalition to the people of Pakistan.

The part of the Bhurban Accord dealing with the judges' restoration had three components: one, an agreement on the principle that Gen Musharaf's actions of Nov 3 were unconstitutional and needed to be reversed unconditionally; two, the modality of restoration was to be an executive order backed by a parliamentary resolution; and, three, a timeline of thirty days. Now that the PPP is backtracking by calling for restoration through a constitutional package, or by making the resolution for restoration contingent on such a package, the disagreement between the coalition partners becomes one of principle, and not of modalities. For modalities must follow the logic of the underlying principle.

To recap, if the Nov 3 actions of the general, including the ouster of judges, are regarded as unconstitutional, they can be undone by an executive order (backed by a resolution merely to add moral weight). But if the actions and the ruling of the Dogar Court purporting to legitimise the general's second coup are treated as constitutionally binding, the deposed judges are history and can only be brought back to life through a purpose-specific, one-time-use constitutional amendment. In such event we would be accepting that the whims of the man in uniform can trump the collective will of the nation expressed through the Constitution, and regressing back to the times when rule of law was a concept no larger than arbitrary rule of men.

Let us now revisit the legal obstacles to restoration through executive order (previously identified by the general's cronies) that the PPP has suddenly woken up to. One, that the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges is 17, and will rise to 27 if the deposed judges are restored – a number not permitted under law. And, two, that the restoration through a resolution/executive order could be suspended by the Dogar Court and trigger another constitutional crisis. The answers to these questions depend on our starting point.

If the starting point is that the deposed judges are constitutional judges who have been unlawfully restrained from performing their duties since Nov 3, the sanctioned strength of the court need not be enhanced to accommodate their return. They are the legitimate judges who can only be removed pursuant to Article 209, and their resumption of duties is automatic once the illegal restraint applied on them is removed. However, should the PPP be inclined to accommodate the midnight appointees of the general that stuffed the court after Nov 3, as it is, the strength of the judges would need to be enhanced by an act of parliament pursuant to Article 176 of the Constitution to legitimise the continued presence of such post-Nov 3 judges on the bench.

Second, is there a real danger that the Dogar Court might suspend an executive order, sanctioned by an overwhelming majority of Parliament, to restore the deposed judges? Not without the PPP's tacit support. The primary instinct of the Dogar Court is one of self-preservation. That instinct led it to declare valid all unconstitutional actions of the general, as its own legitimacy was rooted in those actions. And once it is evident that the deposed judges are being restored by the incumbent executive with the parliament's support, the PCO judges will not jeopardise their coexistence with the deposed judges by attempting to block their return through a decree.

And, in any event, will the legal validity of such edict be any greater than the one already passed by them in an attempt to provide legal cover to the general's Nov 3 actions? If we begin to treat the Dogar Court's rulings as binding, then the entire debate about the judges' restoration is redundant. Thus, the Dogar Court will take its cue from the PPP, and will only obstruct the government's restoration measures if the PPP is inclined to using technical legal arguments as crutches to send the deposed judges off into the sunset. This, then, raises the associated question as to what happens to the judgments already rendered by the Dogar Court. Do they all fall with the fall of the Dogar Court?

There are at least two ways to address this conundrum. One, the restored constitutional court, headed by Chief Justice Chaudhary, can be left to deal with the issue on a case-to-case basis. And, two, a constitutional amendment can be brought in to provide cover to the decisions rendered by the Dogar Court, except those aimed at validating the Nov 3 actions of the general. The second option will obviously be preferred by the PPP, as it would also provide constitutional cover to the order validating the NRO, fears regarding the future of which is a major hurdle in the way of restoration.

In short, we neither need an act of parliament nor a constitutional amendment to restore the deposed judges, so long as our starting point is that the general lost his mind on Nov 3. But an act of parliament is needed to retain the post-Nov 3 judges and a constitutional amendment could be required to keep the revived Supreme Court from reconsidering questions addressed by the Dogar Court. But if we link the restoration of deposed judges to an act increasing the size of the court or to a constitutional package, we are yet again punishing a few good men in robes who stood up to the general's tyranny on Nov 3, in order to protect those who abetted his subversion of the Constitution. Is this the precedent of reward and punishment we wish to endorse as a nation? Should those sticking up for principle carry the burden of sins committed by opportunists?

Giving more time to the coalition partners will do no magic tricks, for the real dispute is over the principle of unconditional restoration. There are probably few issues in contemporary history that have been pondered as rigorously as that of restoration. The unconstitutional nature of the general's second coup has been in discussion for six months now. And the options for restoration available to the parties voted into power on Feb 18 have been discussed threadbare over the last two-and-a-half months. No more time or gentle persuasion will bear fruit. The lawyers and the civil society will have to brave it out in the streets if the deposed judges are to be restored unconditionally.

The reason is simple. The PPP has unfortunately positioned itself in a manner that it can no longer reap any benefit from a principled restoration of the Nov 2 judiciary. In making evasive promises to "strength the judiciary as an institution" while contriving a constitutional package aimed at easing Chief Justice Chaudhary out of office and bringing Justice Dogar back into play as chief justice, Mr Zardari has made his intentions clear. With no political incentive to restore the judges, the PPP will only do the needful if the cost of its inaction becomes prohibitive. And that will not happen in the absence of a forceful street movement that brings insurmountable pressure to bear upon the PPP-led government to do the right thing.

The leaders of the lawyers' movement have continued to respond to PPP's flip-flop on the judges' issue with patience and maturity, suspending disbelief and giving the coalition the benefit of good intentions. But the moment for reckoning is now here, and, as they say in legal parlance, time is of the essence. The issue of restoration not only hangs like the sword of Damocles over the future of the coalition but is also paralysing the existing courts with PCO judges pallid with worries about their own future. As a bipartisan interest group, the lawyers' movement can no longer afford to abide by hollow words of politicians.

It is time to end this phase of the lawyers' movement with a final push. Rather than continuing with the ineffectual weekly token strikes, there is need to boycott all legal proceedings in all courts for a month to send a clear message to the PPP-led government that the resolve of the black coats to uphold the rule of law is still unfaltering. Let us not forget that the first phase of the lawyers' movement, from March 9 to July 20, 2007, was actually aimed at ensuring that the Supreme Court does not succumb to the general's pressure. In this last phase, marked by the expiry of the coalition's self-imposed deadline, it is time to put the executive and the parliament on notice that the legal fraternity is still a vital stakeholder loath to unsavoury compromises on the issue of judicial independence.

Now that a transition to democracy has taken place, we need to start preparing for the next step forward: a progressive, enlightened and humane society. It is possible for societies afflicted by widespread poverty and squalor to surmount their dreary and dismal conditions without going to war and looting other countries. Through hard work, dedicated leadership and intelligent policies and planning spectacular success can be achieved.

I am particularly thinking of Sweden, where I lived for nearly 35 years, and Singapore, where I am currently based, as examples of successful transformation from sprawling poverty to enviable standards of living.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Sweden was one of the poorest nations, in the farthest corner of northern Europe. So poor was it that nearly half its population migrated to the United States. Today this nation of some nine million is a global leader in high-tech industries and the service sector, and its Volvo and Saab vehicles are world-renowned. It is also the fairest society on earth when it comes to the basic needs for a secure and dignified life. When Singapore became independent in 1965, it was infested with Chinese secret societies that ran gambling dens, brothels and the drugs trade. Today this nation of barely 4.5 million is the 17th richest in the world. It provides excellent services and facilities for trade and commerce, having initially made its mark in high-tech manufacturing and industrial production.

In both these countries a strong political party -- the Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti (Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party) and the People's Action Party, respectively -- led the nation forward and used state power to create conditions for economic growth and rising standards of living.

Swedish social democracy has historically been more attuned to egalitarian reforms, while in Singapore the change from erstwhile Fabian socialism to free-market principles has not meant that the state has abdicated its duty to provide cheap and good housing to citizens, excellent education and vocational training and an extremely safe and secure social milieu free from violent crime and drugs. As its economy grows, Singapore is expanding subsidised healthcare facilities for those who really need help.

Historically, social democracy was a democratic tendency within the broad socialist movement that emerged in 19th-century western Europe that, in contrast to orthodox Marxism-Leninism's theory of armed revolution and one-party rule, believed in free elections and an open society. Equally, in contrast to liberal democracy's celebration of unbridled laissez-faire capitalism and human egotism, social democracy always believed in a strong and active state with a strong social policy as a complement to the human need for solidarity and sympathy.

The question now is: how should Pakistan be transformed into a social democratic polity? There is no denying that we need a party that can organise mass support behind a social democratic programme for change and transformation.

The PPP would probably come closest to the description of a social democratic party. The late Ms Bhutto had revived the original PPP commitment to roti, kapra aur makan (food, clothing and shelter). However, it is not clear to what extent this goal is still dear to her successors. Another problem is that a social democratic party must rely primarily on the working people and intellectuals, while the PPP is dominated by landlords and other conservative sections of society, especially in Sindh.

On the other hand, the PML-N corresponds more to a liberal democratic type of party but only in economic terms of a free market. After all, liberal democracy is not only about free capitalism: it is also committed strongly to the freedom of religion and conscience, thought and opinion. Historically Nawaz Sharif has a bad record on these emancipatory aspects of liberal democracy.

Under the circumstances, one can either work towards a new party of the working people and concerned intellectuals, which holds regular elections not only at the level of state and government but also within the party or, more preferably, begin a concerted and focused campaign to propagate social democratic ideals and principles. In the longer run, if the need for establishing a new party gains wide support then one can move towards that goal. In this regard, it is important that we initially imitate the Singapore model instead of the Swedish one, because without economic growth and wealth egalitarian reforms become hollow and are reduced merely to slogans. Ownership of private property should be given proper legal coverage, let trade and commerce flourish and people encouraged to set up businesses. But the taxation system should be structured in a way that those who use the facilities of the state -- its laws, rules and regulations, bureaucratic machinery, international contacts and facilities and other such services -- pay more tax than those who do not. In such a tax regime notorious political-industrial families and other scoundrels would have no chance of tax evasion and there will be no room for contrived defaulters of bank loans. Also, the vast economic holdings and interests of the military should be brought under the jurisdiction of our tax system. On the other hand, spending on better education and vocational training would be considered an investment rather than a favour to the poor.

We need to encourage the growth of a culture of meritocracy, but with provisions for the poor and historically-disadvantaged to get out of the rut of crushing poverty and move forward. A two-pronged developmental strategy is needed that puts a high premium on hard work and talent while simultaneously developing a level playing field by undermining structures which sustain parasitical landlords and tribal chiefs.

The state must ensure the following minimum to all people: clean drinking water, a functioning sanitation system including proper toilets, reasonable housing and a basic health system and transparent government. Indeed, philanthropy and charity will have a major role to play to make Pakistan a fair and caring society, but overall societal management must rest with the state and the elected representatives of the people.

Friday, April 11, 2008
Shafqat Mahmood

If the assaults on Arbab Ghulam Rahim and Dr Sher Afgan were condemnable because they militated against one's inherent sense of decency, the violence and killings in Karachi have added a sinister dimension to the situation. These were not incidental happenings. Groups of armed men deliberately targeted buildings housing law chambers and offices of bar associations. Cars were also burnt in different parts of the city to create fear and a sense of insecurity. It was an organised attempt to intimidate in which human life was not considered of any consequence.

The timing of the Karachi killings has given a new colour to earlier happenings concerning Arbab Rahim and Sher Afgan. While sad and inexcusable, they had at first appeared spontaneous. Now many questions are being raised. Why did Arbab Rahim insist on visiting the Sindh Assembly after he had been treated shabbily a day earlier? Was it done to provoke an incident in the full glare of the media? He could have easily sat out for a week and taken oath after things had settled down. But, no, it seems he wanted an unpleasant incident and walked deliberately into it.

What followed later also seemed like a well-orchestrated plan. The MQM immediately boycotted the Sindh Assembly session and Q League leaders descended on Karachi. Press conferences followed with rapidity from all and sundry with the purpose to make the PPP government look bad. But this was not enough for those who were plotting against the revival of democracy. The lawyer's movement for the restoration of the judiciary also had to be made to look wicked and evil. And it was here that the Sher Afgan incident became handy.

It is difficult to say whether the good doctor deliberately walked into the lion's den which for him, given the current state of tension, must be places where lawyers congregate. At the very least, he could not have expected a favourable response from the law community given his open support to the dictatorial actions of the-then Gen Musharraf. But let us say that it was not a conspiracy and he had genuine legal business and had to go to a law chamber. Yet, what happened later creates huge misgivings.

He was locked up inside for nearly five hours and, thanks to live coverage, the event was visible to everyone in the government. Yet no attempt was made by the police to rescue him. By all accounts, there were not more than two hundred people at the scene. Was it so difficult to disperse them and take Sher Afgan out? Anyone with even a little experience of law-enforcement will tell you that it could easily be done. Yet, Aitzaz Ahsan had to go there and try to use his moral authority to calm the situation.

Aitzaz only realised later that he had been put in an untenable situation. If the gathering was entirely of lawyers, he could have handled them, despite some black sheep, because they have immense respect for him. It is clear now that some other elements, possibly sent deliberately by interested parties, were determined to make an incident. Thus, a small situation in law-and-order terms became potentially big. Police was unwilling to use force, and without force, the agent provocateurs were not ready to leave. They did their business on live television. The lawyer's movement was tarred with a black brush.

The Karachi situation is also being orchestrated essentially in the context of the judiciary's restoration. The MQM and the PPP may have differences over issues of power sharing and distribution of ministries, but the real situation is different. The PPP is being told that if it goes ahead with the restoration of the judiciary, as demanded by its coalition partner, the PML-N, there is going to be serious trouble in Sindh. The MQM is the only party aligned to Musharraf that has muscle, and it is showing it. The message to the PPP is that it can have either a smooth time in Sindh or a coalition with PML-N. The issue hanging in balance is restoration of the judiciary, which Musharraf sees as his ultimate defeat.

There is little doubt that these conspiracies – and there is no other way to describe it – are coming from the Musharraf camp. Time is running out on him and he knows it. He is fighting a rearguard battle in which he is using his remaining allies in the political sphere to create a split between the PPP and PML-N, and thus scuttle the restoration of the judiciary. For this purpose, he is using the MQM to put pressure on the PPP. But the sad part is that some in the media have also become a party to this sinister game.

This is visible from the commentary that is coming out after the disgraceful incident with Dr Sher Afgan. Those who are inherently opposed to restoration of the judiciary and covertly and overtly support Mr Musharraf are using this as a stick to beat the lawyers' movement and their leadership. The fact that the presidents of the Supreme Court, the Lahore High Court and the Lahore District Bar Association actually tried everything to save Dr Sher Afgan is given short shrift. The secondary agenda is to tarnish the PML-N, because it is also being dragged into this incident.

I have been saying repeatedly that we cannot move forward as long as Mr Musharraf holds the presidency. He will just not allow the political situation to settle down. Some people justify this by saying that a drowning man will do everything to save himself. While this may be true in a philosophical sense, in this case the future of the country is at stake. The nation is bigger than one individual or his continuance in a particular office. The problem is that this man or those whose future is directly or indirectly linked to him, are not willing to recognise it.

But the political forces should have no such illusion. They must realise that he will not in any circumstances allow them to take genuine control of power. He will continue to create roadblocks and hope that enough trouble is created so that he can create a justification for using 58 (2) (b) to sack all the assemblies. They should be ready for more troubles like the ones visited on Arbab Rahim and Sher Afgan. It is an orchestrated plan to scuttle democracy.

What this means is that the political forces need to cut the nonsense and focus their entire attention on Mr Musharraf. All this talk of him being a national asset amounts to digging one's own grave. They should get ready to impeach him. There is no other way out. If they get distracted and allow dissentions to occur between them, they should prepare for a short and unhappy stint in power.

Friday, April 11, 2008
Dr Masooda Bano

The beating up of Sher Afgan Niazi by a group of lawyers in Lahore and the recent clashes between rival groups of lawyers in Karachi, one representing the MQM, which have resulted in eight deaths are of course a cause of concern. Aggression of any form, whether a result of genuine frustration or deliberate design, is not going to help the fragile political situation in Pakistan. The concerns of the critics are thus understandable. But there is also a need for caution that the acts of a few lawyers or those linked to specific political parties are not used to paint the entire lawyers' movement black. It must be remembered that the contribution of the lawyers' movement in reconfiguring the civilian-military dynamic in Pakistan that has resulted in the post-election optimism is so phenomenal that a few cases of improper behaviour should not be allowed to tarnish the entire movement.

One thing is obvious. The lawyers' movement does not benefit from such incidents. The question then is that what has caused the Lahore and Karachi episodes. Of course, both cases need to be explored in detail before specific claims can be made. It does seem, however, that a conscious effort is afoot by vested interests to sabotage the movement by such incidences. The fact that MQM lawyers constituted one of the rival groups in the clash in Karachi highlights the fact that there are certain political interests at play. The MQM has after all been a pro-Musharraf party and, given that Gen (r) Musharraf refuses to let go of the presidential office even if the only power he still retains is to plan intrigues.

Similar forces could have been behind the thrashing of Sher Afgan Niazi in Lahore. On the other hand there is also a slight possibility that some lawyers thought that Mr Niazi had to be punished for his sins of being such a vocal defender of Gen (r) Musharraf. That the Musharraf regime has tested people's patience to the limit is obvious. It is a government that manipulated, embezzled, lied, and killed blatantly. So the public anger against the representatives of that regime is clear. Imagine Gen (r) Musharraf is left amid a crowd without his protective barriers and few would be able to visualise a rosy scenario. However, despite this it appears unlikely that the lawyers' will deliberately attack anyone as any lawyer truly committed to the movement realises that such actions only have a negative impact on the movement. As for Sher Afgan Niazi, one has little sympathy for him.

When analysing these cases, it is critical that analysts and the public do not let these isolated incidents defame the entire movement. Everyone needs to remember that the current sense of optimism and change is all due to this movement. If Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary had not taken that stand, and if the lawyers had not come out to stand behind him, there would have been no return of Benazir, Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. The entire political space for their return was a result of this movement. Without this movement we would even today have Sher Afgan Niazi and the lot running the show under the over-confident Gen (r) Musharraf. Is not the mere thought enough to send a shudder down one's spine? It was the lawyers who protested against the regime under the scorching sun of the last summer, it was the lawyers who took severe beatings after the Nov 3 emergency and now again it is the lawyers who are keeping alive the pressure for the reinstatement of the disposed judges. These few incidents of improper conduct have no weight as opposed to the grand contribution of this movement to bringing structural changes in Pakistan.

These incidences, however, highlight that vested forces are still trying to derail the lawyers' movement and subvert the demand for reinstatement of the judges. The pressures on the movement's leadership are thus enormous. It is therefore extremely disturbing to see Aitzaz Ahsan plan to resign as president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. He is critical to this movement, now that it is at the climax. He has been giving the movement the perfect leadership, adopting that defiant tone in all his speeches since his release. His leadership has been critical in keeping the pressure on the political parties to stand by their promises and reinstate the judges. He must not quit now. This is the time the movement needs him the most. He must rise to the challenge and not give in.

Finally, the PPP should put its house in order. It has already started to test people's patience by giving conflicting statements on methods of reinstating the judges. The PPP has yet to prove that it is actually not playing a double game of appearing independent yet working with the establishment. The reinstatement of the judges without any conditions is its main test.

Friday, April 11, 2008
Ayaz Amir

These are charged times and people are desperate. The vote on Feb 18, the verdict of the people, was not for things to remain as they were. It wasn't a vote for the status quo. It was a vote for change.

Pity the people therefore if the choices available to them fall far short of their expectations. To state the obvious, the PPP and the PML-N are status quo parties, no doubt capable of tinkering with the system but wholly incapable of changing it. The political elite, whichever party it purports to represent, is not just a product of the status quo but its beneficiary, speaking the language of populism but desperately lagging behind popular aspirations. Thus the supreme anomaly of today: the vast disconnect between the masses and those who profess to lead them.

Charged times give birth to desperate actions. The roughing up of Arbab Ghulam Rahim and Dr Sher Afgan Niazi are pointers to the public mood. Anyone associated with the Musharraf regime becomes a legitimate target of public wrath. And public wrath, almost by definition, carries within it the seeds of anarchy.

No one can condone such behaviour but that is not the point. The important thing is to understand why seemingly normal people behave the way they do when they see a symbol or representative of the near-defunct Musharraf order (although people around the beleaguered president still seem desperate for some magic potion that could give a fresh lease of life to their discredited champion).

Why was Naeem Bokhari roughed up? Why the anger against Arbab Rahim? Why the madness (and it was madness) which overcame lawyers and members of the public when they got wind of Sher Afgan's presence at a lawyer's office near the Lahore High Court?

Because eight and a half years of Musharraf, eight and a half years of his ruinous policies, have distorted the psyche of the Pakistani nation. We weren't like this when Musharraf arrived on the scene. But we have become like this after eight and a half years of tinpot disaster: economic policies serving the interests of the rich, a foreign policy at the service of the United States, sundry military operations on our own soil against our own people, leaving a trail of blood from the mountains of Balochistan and Waziristan right to the heart of Islamabad.

An extended dance of death staged against the backdrop of some of the worst arrogance and bombast the people of Pakistan have had to endure. They have also had to put up with a constant stream of lies from some of the greatest monuments to mediocrity (and hypocrisy) this country has ever seen.

The people's cup of patience was full but what could they do? So they bided their time. When Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry defied Musharraf the people made Chaudhry their hero. When they got a chance to express their pent-up feelings on Feb 18 they did so in a manner which effectively spelled the end of Musharraf's long and disastrous dictatorship. He remains president, but as a shadow of his former self, universally mocked and derided, whether a burden to himself we don't know but certainly a burden to the nation.

That he still wants to cling to whatever semblance of authority he has is understandable. Several rings of security guard his person, the inner-most cordon made up of men from the Special Services. Without this security where would he be and how would he fare? He dare not move into the presidency and leave the safety of what used to be Army House because he is a prisoner of his own fears, which is worse than any form of impeachment.

But the question is: what hinders the leadership from heeding the voice of the people? The people did not vote for the PPP and PML-N so that Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi should be accompanying Musharraf to China. They did not vote the way they did so that Ahmed Mukhtar should be extolling Musharraf's virtues as a commodity to be cashed in the outside world. They voted for conciliation between the two major parties but not for conciliation with forces that until yesterday gyrated to the sound of military music.

If peace can be made with the MQM, if Maulana Fazlur Rehman for little rhyme or reason can be taken aboard the coalition battleship that passes for the government at the centre, why are those who matter in the new order of things so allergic to the judges' issue?

Lahore's lawyers may have gone a step too far. Rawalpindi's lawyers went a step too far when Naeem Bokhari was roughed up. This is not the way how such matters should be handled. We are an emotional people, more at home with slogans and the beating of drums than rational discussion. The lawyers' movement has turned the legal community into a 'hyper' lot, ready to do battle at a moment's notice. This is not how it should be but, sadly, this is how---thanks to Musharraf's obduracy on the judges' issue---it has become.

We have had enough of agitation on this issue. Time to calm surging passions so that the government can concentrate on the other problems the nation faces. But to do this we have to get the judges' issue out of the way. Without going into the rigmarole of committee-forming, the National Assembly should pass a simple resolution condemning the assault on the constitution carried out by Musharraf on Nov 3. Then quietly the deposed judges, without fanfare or the blowing of horns, should be ushered into the judicial corridors from where they were dislodged.

After the Sher Afgan affair, the perspective surrounding the lawyers' movement has dramatically changed. Now it is not just a question of restoring the deposed judges but of ensuring that the re-born judiciary we all want should be able to go about its business calmly without lighting the fires of any further controversy.

Some of Chaudhry's recent actions may not have been all that well-advised. Should he have gone calling on Asif Zardari even if it was for condoling with him on the death of Benazir Bhutto? There are other ways of offering condolences. And should he have gone to Quetta, there to lead another slow-moving procession? The politburo of lawyers which has led the lawyers' movement (all of them my friends, incidentally) may have erred on these two counts.

There are forces which would be all too happy to destabilize the new democratic order. Look what's happened in Karachi, almost a replay of the events of May 12 last year. Who has the ability to unleash arson and violence on this huge a scale in Pakistan's largest city? We know the answer to this question but our lips are sealed because that is what discretion dictates. Anyhow, the most suitable response to what's happened in Karachi is to restore the rightful judiciary.

And another thing: there should be no question of retaining the new recruits to the higher judiciary. They have tainted themselves and their calling by taking service under Musharraf. They should all be out. I say 'new recruits' because the old judges who sat in the Chaudhry Supreme Court may have to be retained in the larger interests of conciliation and drawing a line over the past. With the exception of course of My Lord Dogar who having collaborated with the Nov 3 assault on the constitution may like to excuse himself from the bench for having become a divisive figure, thus doing the nation a service.

But for Asif Zardari to do the right thing on this issue he will have to deal with his three legal musketeers: Law Minister Farooq Naek, Senator Lateef Khosa and Senator Babar Awan. All three have some kind of prejudice against both Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and Aitzaz Ahsan. Asif Zardari has so far not visited the shrine of Hazrat Bari Imam. Let him do so in the company of these three gladiators and there urge them to have some mercy on this sorely-tried nation.

As for Sher Afgan, he deserves the legal community's unqualified apology. What kind of chivalry is this to beat up an old man? If Sher Afgan was a Musharraf apologist so what? At least give him credit for being an unrepentant and honest apologist who stuck to his guns until the last. It's a poor democracy if people are not entitled to their opinions.

The intensity of the political reaction maybe perceived to be an over-kill by the opposition. Pakistani politics and our cities have seen far more intense scenes of turmoil, violence and bloodshed in the past but never was the situation described as 'total anarchy', as many political leaders are now doing. The cold reality is that the new political governments have not even settled down in their jobs. Cabinets have not been formed, new administrations have not been set up and technically the executive control is still with the same officials and administrators as before the Feb 18 elections. But the chorus of anarchy has been raised to such a pitch as if the new governments have totally failed to perform their duties or have adopted sinister policies in total negation of democratic rights and values. This is not only unfortunate but may prove counterproductive because if, according to the new opposition, beating up of a couple of politicians by unruly individuals is anarchy, then what would they call May 12, or October 18 or Dec 27-like situations.

Everybody should take a step back and think. The growing perception is that the pro-Musharraf alliance wants a quick kill or a sudden death to the new setup, possibly before the PPP-PML-N alliance can take control of the situation and starts to formulate and implement policies which may not be liked by the presidency. The opposition has blamed all the incidents, including Karachi, on their political opponents, without waiting for a second. Live and instant projection by the media has helped them overshadow the new governments, busy in finding their feet in their new roles of governing a difficult polity. Probably the opposition is trying to provide the presidency some justification to crackdown on the new setup or to create fissures in the coalition.

If the presidency takes the bait, the consequences could be catastrophic because the huge mandate against the old setup cannot just be wiped off the slate before it is allowed to work, and fail. It has to be given a chance to translate the wishes of the people into policies and actions. Any precipitate action by the presidency would simply be cancelling the results of the Feb 18 elections and going back to the autocratic and authoritarian system, backed by rejected elements. The government has to step up and take effective control of the situation. The opposition has to stop in its tracks and think about what it is trying to achieve. It has to accept that after its defeat in the elections, it cannot subvert the system by using petty excuses or a couple of odd incidents and then asking the president to use his powers against democracy.

Earlier, another blot on Pakistani politics had appeared when Tuesday evening in Lahore saw a mob pummelling, pulling, kicking and otherwise humiliating former minister for parliamentary affairs Dr Sher Afgan Niazi. Coming only a day after almost equally unruly scenes at the Sindh Assembly, it suggested a regrettable descent into uncivilized behaviour. Of course, it is easy to read conspiracies into these events. Certainly, the possibility of events being stage-managed has been raised, especially given the almost eerie similarities between what happened in Karachi and then Lahore. It, after all, takes little to provoke angered and frustrated people against those whom they regard as oppressors and, for some, all members of the previous regime fall into this category. Lawyers' leaders have already alleged that agencies were involved in the incident and have also asked why police failed to take command of the situation. But this can be no excuse for what happened. Those who have so far been regarded as heroes by civil society must beware of the tendency that similar movements could turn into mobs. It would be sad if a truly genuine movement for rule of law and supremacy of the constitution was marred by such incidents destroying the norms of decency. There is as such an urgent need to take command of the situation, before it is too late. Lawyers, political parties and other democratic forces must take steps in this regard. All these groups need to ensure that there are no further episodes of this nature, for they serve only to weaken democracy, and by doing so add to the many dangers that Pakistan currently faces as it begins its journey to what many hope will be a new future.

Some questions must, however, be answered. One is the strange absence of any administrative authority in Karachi (to stop uninvited people coming into the Sindh Assembly) and Lahore, where police and authorities had hours to mobilize themselves and mount a rescue operation to release Dr Afgan and other hostages. Why did it become necessary for Aitzaz Ahsan to intervene? Why did police not use force when no party or group had owned the siege? Why were large parts of Karachi engulfed in flames after a minor clash between lawyers? Whose interests are being served by this chain of tragic events and who is the target? Likewise everyone must see who, if anyone, is benefiting from the turmoil.

With former chief minister Pervaiz Elahi, in a speech made to welcome new assembly members outside the house, again condemning the attack on Ghulam Arbab Rahim and blaming Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif for the violence inflicted on Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, the situation in the Punjab will see the intense rivalry between the Chaudhrys and the Sharifs being played out on the political arena. A tussle is already underway for the control of the historic PML house, while Shahbaz has pledged to cut administrative expenses and lashed out on the lavish budget under the Chaudhrys. There are already rumours that the district nazim of Lahore, sensing the changing tide, may soon switch over to the PML-N. Given the bitterness of the past years, such demonstrations of rivalry are inevitable. But at the same time the people of the province must hope that this does not detract from the urgent need for good governance, so that problems which include worsening law and order and a renewed atta crisis can be resolved swiftly and effectively.

Corruption and nepotism had been so pervasive that many in our society had given up hope of this evil being curbed, and despaired whether those who thrived because of this twin-headed monster would ever be brought to book. From a standing start the NAB not only fought corruption fairly successfully, bringing credible evidence to bear to send a number of accused to prison and recover enormous amounts of looted money.

In the words of the NAB's Brig (Retd) Farooq Hameed Khan, "Our major achievements include the recovery of Rs223 billion, Rs116 billion in bank default loans, Rs25 billion recovered through voluntary return/plea bargain, Rs9.2 billion through indirect recoveries, Rs60 billion through restructuring of bank loans and Rs12 billion through court fines. Substantial recoveries have been made in respect of public fraud involving financial scams, Rs8.6 billion repaid to 234,000 affectees of 102 infamous Cooperative Finance Companies scams, and dozens of public frauds are being presently investigated and many references filed in Accountability Courts. Many top executives, directors of forex companies and other private sector companies are in jail for having cheated the public at large."

Farooq Hameed further says, "for the first time we have established an institutionalized infrastructure for accountability in Pakistan. No organisation is perfect, there is always room for improvement. Institutions are not made overnight, it takes years to build them. There is need to strengthen organisations like the NAB whether you name them "Independent Commission against Corruption" or "Independent Commission for Accountability." Corruption is too deep-rooted and threatens the basic fabric of our society. It is linked to poverty, social injustice and unequal distribution of wealth. Terrorism thrives in a corrupt environment. If we do not eradicate corruption and its causes, it will have disastrous implications for the future." The facts as stated cannot be contested.

The National Reconciliation Order (NRO), the blackest of black laws, negates the very basis of Pervez Musharraf's presence with respect to his original agenda. The NRO has set the country back many years. There was certainly a need to compromise with major political forces in a country where political reconciliation remains a dire necessity, but blanket amnesty for corruption is unprecedented in world history. Since we applied accountability selectively maybe we could have applied amnesty also selectively.

Pakistan's existence depends upon democracy functioning to its full potential, many of us reluctantly conceded that the NRO was necessary for political reconciliation, that without the involvement of the major political parties there was no credibility about governance in Pakistan. The imminent maturity of the cases abroad in Switzerland and UK put focus on Ms Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari without fully realising that amnesty would give many others, some of them profoundly guilty, a fresh lease of life within Pakistan. Now the chickens have come home to roost, dozens of people accused of nepotism and corruption have come back, or are in the process of doing so. The tragedy is that they are all being appointed to the portals of governance. Our society may enter the stage of what the NAB's Farooq calls "chaotic corruption," a free-for-all without any accountability. What is the message here, but that both nepotism and corruption pay? What is the message here, but that we will now have more of the same?

Many returnees will be able to clear their name, indeed many went into self- exile not because they were guilty but to escape the NAB's prosecution and incarceration and the persecution and public humiliation that go with it. The NAB was not always right, some were victimised wrongly. Many lived lives in penury abroad, eking out a meagre existence or living on someone's dole. Those who remained long years in self-exile need to be rehabilitated, and it is right that Asif Zardari seeks to rehabilitate them. But it is wrong that those who were known to be corrupt be given high office, the perception of the hapless millions is that their welfare and contentment is far less important than those being put into the governance structure to rule over their lives. Asif Zardari must put into balance this equation. For the last three months one has seen nothing but maturity par excellence from this man, nothing as important as bridging the ethnic Sindhi-new Sindhi gap and efforts for genuine national reconciliation. He should not throw all this away by becoming hostage to the loyalty factor and lose public perception about the sincerity of his motives.

One wishes the PM well, but his announcement about closing down the NAB was extremely disappointing. If the personnel of the NAB are guilty of persecution for political and/or individual gain they must be prosecuted. There must be (and have been) black sheep in the NAB who were using the mechanism for political purpose and/or personal gain. They should be investigated and prosecuted, getting the same punishment they sought for those they targeted. However, closing down the NAB would have enormous repercussions, the dire consequences of which are unimaginable for our society and for the nation. Even as democracy has taken its first uneasy steps in Pakistan, one fears for its continued existence. While concerned citizens will fear about corruption becoming rampant again in society and will write and speak about it in the media, what about the frustration and anger of those who have the capacity and potential to reverse these abominations?

According to a recent survey, more than 50% of the people of Pakistan are on the borderline of starvation, even when the new wheat crop comes in "atta" (flour) prices will go back up beyond Rs24-25 per kg from the present Rs17 per kg. Moreover, it will be in short supply. When the people start to get hungry, when the summer heat goes up and the electricity failures become more frequent, and there is shortage of water, whom do you think they will blame, fairly or unfairly? How long before the masses are swayed against democracy because of the presence of this corrupt handful? Public opinion can be very fickle in the face of hunger and need. The "Bangladesh model" can always be improved upon and applied in Pakistan.

Asif Zardari needs to immediately replace those who cannot stand the acid test of integrity in public opinion. It is not only for his good but that of the nation. More important than recovering money is bringing people to justice, I have therefore never believed or accepted the NAB's plea-bargaining. However, the NAB is a useful anti-corruption mechanism that must continue, albeit in a different name and with more public confidence in its even-handedness and purpose. What requires abolition is not the NAB, it is the NRO. Accountability should not be lost to the people of Pakistan. White can become grey and then black, black may well be whitened to become grey, it cannot become white. Black will remain black!

The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: [email protected]

"In a dark room it's hard to catch a black cat, especially, if it is not there".-- Confucius. Last year witnessed an upsurge of terrorism and suicide attacks throughout the country. There are no signs of any letup even this year so far. Law-enforcing elements appear to be visibly handicapped and incapable of dealing with the situation. Resultantly, the Frontier province and its tribal areas are totally destabilized and the rest of the country is in the grip of fear and insecurity. People are scared of going to the public gatherings, mosques, markets and even recreational places. The movement on the roads and thoroughfares is perceived to be risky and hazardous. Business and economy are adversely affected while the scope for foreign investment has diminished. The main targets of these attacks were either some key personality or the personnel of security forces; although rallies of some political parties were also hit. For most part, the victims were the innocent people who were not involved either way. What could be the aim and objectives of these terrorist and suicide attacks? It could be a demonstration of defiance and a resolve to give ultimate sacrifice of human lives for the attainment of selected aim and objectives. It could also be an expression of taking revenge on those who are fighting this proxy "war on terror" against their own people for the sake of the US. Recent pattern shows that, perhaps, both the elements are present in the ongoing terrorist activities.

The war on terror is definitely perceived to be an American agenda, which has been vigorously pursued by Pervez Musharraf's government. It was, therefore, natural for the anti-Musharraf political parties to distance themselves and rally the crowds on their side against the prevalent policy on terrorism. Anti-American and anti-Musharraf sentiments have played decisively in the recent elections.

Voters have totally ignored the claims of the previous government with regard to economic progress and development works. Public sentiment now is for seeking peace with the terrorists. Seeking peace is a very noble aspiration indeed. It is even nobler when the strong side is keen to look for it. But, is it peace per se that the new government should look forward to or should there be certain conditions attached to it?

As a short answer, it must be a conditional peace. As a minimum, the government should declare a general amnesty for those involved in terrorist attacks anywhere in Pakistan; provided they surrender their arms and explosives; shutdown their recruiting and training centres and give a solid pledge that terrorist activities inside Pakistan as well as across the border in Afghanistan or India will cease permanently. Of course, adequate safeguards and peace-monitoring mechanisms will have to be evolved and mutually agreed in the intended peace deal. This appears to be a tall task. It is like asking the leopard to change its spots.

Jihadi organizations particularly Tehrik Taleban-e-Pakistan have responded positively to the peace overturns. But their message is also loud and clear. They are willing to cease terrorist activities inside Pakistan provided they are allowed to wage jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In other words, tribal and adjacent areas like Swat and Bajour should be treated as their sanctuary where their own laws and code of tribal ethics should prevail. Recruitments, training and stockpiling of weapons should go on unrestricted. Their base of operation in FATA and Swat/Bajour areas should be accepted as a "state within a state" where these misguided ideologists -- further reinforced by "revenge seekers" -- should have a free band to conduct their jihad in any direction and manner they feel appropriate. Should the new government opt for peace on these conditions? It would have two serious implications: Firstly, fresh terrorists and suicide bombers will be recruited from all over Pakistan (and even abroad). After training and provisioning necessary material for attack, they will be sent back and spread over the major urban centres throughout Pakistan to remain dormant for as long as the peace lasts. We will find ourselves in a terrible and unmanageable crisis as soon as the bubble of peace bursts. There may be dozens of suicide attacks, happening simultaneously, in all major cities creating catastrophic effect. I may not dwell further on this horrible possibility.

Secondly, Pakistan will come under as sharp a focus as Taliban-ruled Afghanistan at the time of 9/11 even more so as we are a nuclear-armed Muslim country. We need to seriously assess the US interest in the region. If the American presence in our region is based on their national interests, then a change of government in the US will not make any difference here. If Pakistan is perceived to be the gateway to Central Asia; if Iran needs to be watched (and attacked); and if the Gulf states' oil wealth needs to be protected, then disappearance of George Bush from the helm of American policy will amount to nothing. However, if American interest in the region is exclusively restricted to the war on terror, then we can indulge in the wishful thinking that a reversal of American policy in our region, on the lines of Vietnam War, may occur after a change of government in the US. I think that American interest in the war on terror is not temporary. Our new democratic government will have to bear with tremendous pressure from the US while it strikes a peace deal with the Taliban and jihadi elements. We have to charter our course prudently and realistically.

"We cannot rein in wild horses with silken braids," John William Kaye, an influential nineteenth century British civil servant wrote of "the troublesome tribesmen" of the North-West Frontier of British India. This line of thinking formed the basis of a unique political system and special legal codes enforced soon after the British occupation of the area that crystallised in the form of the Frontier Crimes Regulation in 1901. It took the Pakistani government sixty years to realise that the wild horses, now being reined in through Hellfire missiles, were in fact countrymen who could be treated like human beings.

After annexing the Sikh empire in 1848, the British divided the NWFP into two kinds of zones: the Tribal Areas (roughly the mountains) and Settled Districts (the plains). The British interest in the tribal areas was limited, as there was not much scope for revenue generation and these areas were difficult to rule directly due to their sparse population, difficult terrain and a hostile population. The tribal areas were not only left semi-autonomous and untaxed, substantial "subsidies" were also paid to the tribes in exchange for their remaining loyal to the government and keeping the peace. In contrast, the British dismantled the tribal structure and jirgas in the settled areas, where their interests were stronger, and incorporated them fully into the administrative and legal framework of the Governor of Punjab.

Since the tribal areas were seen as the frontline of the Raj, all political activity was banned in the area and the draconian FCR was introduced. The British did not tolerate any attempt to initiate political gatherings and organisations in the tribal areas. An effort was also made to minimise communication between the settled and tribal areas in order to prevent the emergence of "pan-Pathan solidarity."

The FCR is not a penal code, as the name suggests, but an instrument of subjugation meant to discipline the tribals and to establish the writ of the government. In drafting the regulation, the British made use of some customs and traditions prevailing in the tribal areas, but these were distorted to suit the government's plan of securing convictions at will.

The British designed the FCR to enable themselves to rule through a class of handpicked local notables loyal to them. The area was to be ruled through the jirga, the traditional mechanism for dispute resolution, but its members were to be handpicked by government officials. This "small intervention" was a substantial cultural distortion in an egalitarian society where mashars, or elders, had been nominated by people and were answerable to them.

The FCR denies people a proper judicial system, equality before the law and equal protection under the law. Worst of all, the accused have no right to appeal to a higher court of law even if the punishment breaks all norms of fundamental human rights. Innocent men, women and children often become victims of this black law. Children as young as two years old have been convicted under the FCR. Family members of the accused are handed a jail term for no crime of their own but for the alleged crimes of their blood relatives. The government can also raze the houses of alleged criminals and their relatives as punishment.

Following the doctrine of collective responsibility, authorities are empowered to detain fellow members of a fugitive tribe, or to blockade a fugitive's village, until his surrender or punishment by his own tribe in accordance with local tradition. The FCR is contrary to the Constitution and international human rights conventions.

The FCR and the colonial system of governance followed in the tribal areas is justified in the name of culture. Interestingly, it is the only area in the country which is supposed to have a culture that is worthy of being the fountain of law and governance. However, it is not any contemporary anthropological or sociological understanding of the tribal areas that defines the riwaj (custom), but more-than-a-century-old stereotypes of the people of an area developed by an alien empire. This view of culture considers society as a static entity where people keep following the same riwaj century after century.

A closer look, however, reveals that it is not the people's or the government's commitment to riwaj that keeps legal and political systems in the area frozen in time, but strong vested interests of the people living in Peshawar and Islamabad. If the Pakistani state were so committed to the cultures of the land, our children would be educated in their mother tongues.

During the last three decades FATA has become a centre of a black economy of billions of dollars, and a tool for realising a geo-strategic paranoia that goes by the name of strategic depth. During the Afghan jihad in the eighties, the area was turned into a garrison for Afghan resistance and a haven of holy fighters from all over the world. During the same period, the tribal areas also became a centre of large-scale smuggling and drug trafficking, winning the unenviable distinction of being the world's largest exporter of heroin and the largest market of illegal arms. What kind of economic interests can be attached to the "special status" of the area should not be hard to imagine.

The "special status" of FATA is maintained at a horrible price for the rest of the country. It is common knowledge that drugs emanating from the tribal areas have destroyed lives of people whose number is many times the population of these areas. The smuggled goods coming out of these areas have seriously damaged the national economy, and weapons manufactured and smuggled from there have made Pakistan one of the most insecure and violent places on earth. Almost every Kalashnikov that a terrorist wields and every gram of heroin that an unfortunate addict puffs at comes from this area. Now the region has also got the distinction of being the capital of global "jihad."

As coco farmers die without ever tasting chocolate, an overwhelming majority of the people of the area have never enjoyed the economic benefits of this huge illegal economy in their midst. Economic disparity in the tribal areas is staggering and human development indicators abysmally low. The social fabric of the society has been torn apart as drug barons, smuggler and religious terrorists now enjoy enormous power and prestige. The writ of the state is non-existent.

Revocation of the FCR will not serve any purpose unless the governances in the area are addressed simultaneously. A process of political reforms should be initiated that leads to full integration of the area into the NWFP and Pakistan.

Thursday, April 10, 2008
Kamila Hyat

It has been only days since the new coalition was formed, and there are already suggestions that deliberate attempts are on to create a rift in the ranks and the kind of chaos that would sink any ship.

The events in Lahore Tuesday evening, where former minister Sher Afgan Niazi was beaten by a mob is the latest example of this. There have been allegations that the action was deliberately orchestrated. Certainly, it seems rather oddly similar to the events at the Sindh Assembly where former chief minister Arbab Ghulam Rahim was also assaulted in similar fashion. There has as yet been no adequate explanation as to why police, still in the control of caretakers when each of the incidents occurred, failed to intervene -- though this of course is no excuse for barbaric behaviour that is completely indefensible.

There have been other incidents too. The report, quoting sources, of a 'charge-sheet' allegedly issued against deposed judges by a petulant Asif Ali Zardari at a closed door meeting of his party's central executive committee in Naudero is one example of these. On the same day that the story surfaced, a PPP spokesperson denied any deviation from the Murree accord reached just a few weeks ago with the PML-N. Mian Nawaz Sharif too asserted he trusted Asif Zardari as a 'man of commitment'. But in many ways, by planting suspicion in minds, by deflating the spirit of optimism that has been ushered in among ordinary people with the changed political order, the damage had already been done.

There have been other examples too. The PPP's defence minister has denied he described President Musharraf as a 'national asset'; another senior party leader, Amin Makhdoom Fahim, has repeatedly denied he is a 'mole' for the presidency and the PML-N has been forced to reaffirm several times that the understanding between the parties remains undented. Reports of PPP ministers making 'secret' offers to deposed judges appear to fall in the same category of accounts based on undisclosed sources.

Rumours that the new 'atta' crisis that has hit Lahore and other parts of Punjab has been deliberately intensified by officials still aligned to the outgoing PML-Q government and reports that attempts are on to cover up massive corruption in the Punjab Education Department by hastily distributing thousands of textbooks but claiming receipts for many more than have actually been given out, are still more disquieting. In this regard it is unfortunate the formation of the PML-N led government in Punjab has been delayed so long. In Sindh, news reports suggesting the person who attacked former chief minister Ghulam Arbab Rahim with a shoe inside, and later outside the assembly, was affiliated with the venomous former chief executive have stirred up all kinds of doubts and misgivings.

To some extent, speculation of one kind or the other in the media and elsewhere is unavoidable. The difference in the stance between the PPP and the PML-N on the issue of the judges has been evident since well before February 18. The same is the case regarding policy on the US, with the PML-N adopting a markedly more belligerent attitude. But, despite this, the suspicion lurks that a deliberate effort is being made to create mischief -- and that were it possible to trace back the origins of some of these stories the trail would end somewhere within the corridors of the presidency.

The same holds true of some of the pessimistic forecasts being made regarding the future of the coalition. Whereas cynicism is always tempting, there is a desperate need too to allow the government which represents the people of Pakistan a fair opportunity to deliver on what they have promised.

It is easy to blame journalists for engaging in conjecture or basing stories on half truths. Indeed, they must bear some of the burden of guilt. Professionals everywhere are aware of attempts to feed certain versions of events to the media industry -- with its insatiable thirst for news. The talk in newspaper offices is that such efforts to slip in specific stories are currently dominant. This means that everyone engaged in the process of bringing an item of news from its source to its audience needs to exercise extra caution at all stages.

But, the new information managers must also consider how this phenomenon has come about. The fact is that reporters are immensely dependant on sources because of the restraints that exist on their access to almost any kind of official information. The denial of the right to information -- with curbs having in fact increased under the inappropriately named Freedom to Information Ordinance of 2002 -- mean that most in the business of gathering news must depend on individuals offering it to them in one form or the other. This creates a situation where there is an immense vulnerability to distorted or 'planted' news, used to further specific interests.

Various elements in the country, particularly those within the establishment, have become adept at exploiting this channel at key moments. Even a cursory study of newspaper editions published in the runup to the fall of four democratically elected governments from 1988 to 1999 show the extent to which this holds true, with a series of 'leaked' stories playing a part in the discrediting of governments.

The dishonest and unwise actions of governments, most often focused only on protecting their own self-interests, of course made this task all the easier for those who have traditionally 'managed' power in the country and thwarted democratic endeavours. Such managers are active once more today.

The political leaders of the country, who have so far displayed statesmanship and a new sense of purpose that seems to have taken root as a consequence of a long period of combating ruthless repression by a dictator, need to take steps to guard against the possible harm a sustained campaign of misinformation can inflict.

The decision, already announced by the PPP, to withdraw various 'black laws' against the Press and introduce a new, more meaningful law to grant citizens the right to information, is welcome. It is only when there is greater ability to reliably know what takes place in government offices that it becomes possible to properly verify what is published and avoid manipulation by various elements. Such manipulation occurs not only at the top echelons of power, but also at far lower levels, within the bureaucracy, the police and other government departments. The fact that powerful political forces, most notably those based in the Punjab, have literally recruited small armies of journalists, adds to the complications and makes it essential for media bodies to consider how they can enforce a viable code of ethics.

But, even in the far shorter run, political parties need to consider strategy. It is encouraging that these parties are today a stronger force that ever before, with loyalists who largely resisted the immense pressure exerted throughout the years from 1999 to 2007 to switch sides, today largely holding key positions. To ensure such unity endures the strains of power as it has the trials of opposition, the parties need to speak with one voice. A single spokesperson, or indeed several spokespersons should alone represent the public face of the party -- and ideally the government. Other ministers, advisors and leaders should be asked to avoid issuing statements or speaking to the media.

The desire for publicity and an appearance on television screens, for the sake of longer term good, needs to be reined in and restraint exercised. Briefings by various key ministries at weekly, fortnightly or monthly intervals can play a part in ensuring information continues to flow. Most crucial of all is the need for the new coalition and its diverse members to prove that they are willing to stand firm on the tryst they have made with people. If they remain steadfast in their promise to grant these people a future that offers hope and a change in lives, and are not lured away from this route by the ruses of a presidency that now has almost nothing to offer, no amount of gamesmanship from behind the scene will alter the broader picture. Indeed, in time, the president -- already isolated with the exception of his friends in distant Washington -- will have to give way to the forces of democracy and the increasingly desperate efforts currently on to subvert the will of the people will come to an end.