Adil Najam
The good news is that politics - in the good sense of the term - is back in Pakistan. The bad news is that it is not clear where it is going.
Today we heard the news of the Supreme Court asserting its independence again by ordering the release of Javed Hashmi. I also want to share the results of our most recent ATP Poll - on the ‘new BB-Musharraf deal.’ I put it in inverted commas because there is much more speculation about this than fact.
But, before that, the news of the day. Which is that the Supreme Court has passed an order directing the concerned authorities to immediate issue the order for release of the incarcerated Muslim League-N Acting President, Javed Hashmi.
According to BBC News:
Pakistan’s Supreme Court has granted bail to opposition leader Javed Hashmi, who was jailed for inciting mutiny in the army, forgery and defamation. The former acting president of a Pakistan Muslim League faction was sentenced to 23 years in jail in 2004. Mr Hashmi was effectively serving at most seven years in jail as he was handed seven different prison terms running concurrently.
He was arrested in 2003 over a letter critical of President Pervez Musharraf. Mr Hashmi’s appeal against his sentence is yet to be taken up for hearing by the high court in Lahore. But the country’s Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhry, acting on a separate review petition, granted Mr Hashmi bail saying that he had already served his sentence. “If periodic remissions are counted, he has already served his entire sentence,” Chief Justice Chaudhry said, while granting bail to Mr Hashmi. “Even if remissions are not allowed to him, he has nearly served the sentence, counting the length of his imprisonment before and during the trial,” he added.
… Javed Hashmi was arrested after circulating a letter bearing a military letterhead which was purportedly written by disgruntled officers. It called for an inquiry into alleged corruption in the army’s senior ranks and demanded a judicial investigation into a Pakistani military operation in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1999. The authorities claimed the letter, which was also highly critical of Gen Musharraf and his alliance with the United States, was a forgery. Mr Hashmi’s allies said they believed the letter was genuine and that the charges of forgery were politically motivated. He was convicted at a trial behind closed doors in the city of Rawalpindi, near Islamabad. Mr Hashmi’s trial was widely criticised as “politically motivated” by observers and opposition groups. The US and other foreign governments had expressed concerns over lack of transparency in the trial.
Is this a sign - one hopes - of a revitalized and energized Supreme Court after its reinstatement of the Chief Justice? We certainly hope so. Or is this a sign that the Musharraf government is reaching out not only to the PPP but also to the PML-N? That will also be a good thing. Or is the meaning of this something very different altogether?
Whatever its meaning, this, I think, is one more data point in the growing trend of ‘politics’ - in the good sense - having returned to Pakistan. The results of our most recent ATP Poll seems to suggest that same. But it also shows that there are more questions in Pakistan politics today, than answers.
Our recent Poll was a repeat of an earlier poll we had conducted back in April when rumors of such a deal had first surfaced. We asked the same question and gave the same options as before. That is: “What would a Benazir-Musharraf Deal Mean for Pakistan?” Of course, much had happened between April and July - including the Lawyers movement and the Lal Masjid operation - so we wanted to see how opinion of ATP readers had changed. Here is what we found:
First, the majority opinion remains that the deal will make things WORSE in Pakistan. Importantly, the percentage of people thinking so has increased - from 43 percent of the polled in April to 59 percent now.
Second, the percentage of people thinking that it will make things BETTER has also increased - from 16 percent to 21 percent. But this opinion remains a clear minority.
Finally, the paradox above is explained by the fact that the number of people who think it will make NO DIFFERENCE have gone down dramatically - from 41 percent to 18 percent. From the numbers it seems that the people who think it will make a difference has gone up drastically but most of them think it will make things only worse.
Like any web-based poll, this is only indicative of the type of people who visit our page and is NOT a scientific poll by any stretch. Some 654 people had voted in the April Poll and 1023 people voted in our July Poll. (I suspect, however, that the real number in teh second poll might have been less since some people were able to vote more than once because we moved computer servers during this period and because the poll was hosted outside ATP; however, I believe the results would have still been the same and were stable at these percentages nearly from the start).
The deal is seen to be more important now partly because it is seen to be more real. The real interesting question now is what explains this change and what does it mean. What do you think about this?
To me, this only reconfirms something that I had written in an article for The Friday Times last week on the All-Parties Conference (APC):
The good news is that politics – in the good sense of the word – is back in Pakistan. There is a palpable sense that people are tired of military rule. But what we are seeing is much more than boredom with authoritarianism. There is a clear realization that political problems need political solutions. That politics may not always be the most efficient way of doing things, but it is the most legitimate. That institutions do mater. That the great issues of state and policy cannot be resolved through simple managerialism. That nations need leaders, not Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).
The bad news is that the one group that seems even more unprepared for this sea change in public sentiment than Gen. Musharraf and the ruling PML-Q, are the opposition political parties. The recently concluded All Parties Conference (APC) demonstrated exactly how. On display in London was the same petty bickering, hollow sloganeering, lust for personal power, and the disconnect from the real problems of Pakistanis today that has so often turned so many Pakistanis away from these same political parties. It could be argued that the APC was the only good news that Gen. Musharraf has had in a very long time. It reminded Pakistanis of the poverty of political alternatives to military rule.
This is a great shame. The people of Pakistan seem quite ready – even eager – for a return to politics — and to meaningful democracy. If the APC is any indicator then it is not at all clear whether our politicians are.
… You have to stand up and say what you stand for. These are momentous times and the people of Pakistan want to be have a say in the nation’s future. This is not simply a question of who the next leader should be; it is a question of what the various leaders stand for. At the end of the day it does not matter if all the opposition parties are united. Why should they be? After all, they are competitors. But it does matter that the people of Pakistan know what the various political parties stand for and who they stand with. The APC failed for many reasons, at least one of them was that it was very evident who the parties stand against, but it was not at all clear what they stood for.
Owais Mughal…
It occured to me too that it may just be a good political move to get Mush to shed the uniform and remain the president, and once he sheds the uniform, he loses his source of strength, which is his army… but it may be more complicated than that…
1) The 8th amendment is back, so even a non-uniformed Mush will have the power to sack the government when he likes…
2) To get rid of the 8th amendment (again), a 2/3rds majority will be required… not easy to do at all, given how the polls will be rigged to ensure a hung parliament if not one which puts the Q League in a position to form the government…
3) He may not be the COAS anymore, but he’ll still be perceived as the army’s man in the presidency, and the old days of the so-called “ruling troika” will return… the new COAS and the president (Mush) will gang up against the new PM, if the PM is someone from the current opposition that is… if they rig the polls to ensure a Q League victory, then the three will be part of one big team…
4) Since it is believed that BB is being pushed and prodded from Washington and London to come to an agreement with Mush, she’s unlikely to force his removal even if she could…
5) If her voters are angry at her, she may not even have much of a voice in the new parliament!
But one never knows… we may be dismissing her for being a bad politician and she may in the end deliver a master-stroke… who knows…
BB is just striving to save her 1.5billion dollar fortune which is apprently blocked in Pakistan as well as abroad due NAB cases.
But building a castle on weak pillars may result in collapse of castle too.. PML Q will never desire to share the rule with so many others.. so lets see when the deal will collapse under the Chaudries forces;)
A major setback for the military tyrant Musharraf. PMLN will exploit this fully with Makhdoom Javed Hashmi leading political rallies in country’s heartland. Hashmi will overshadow all other politcal figures in the country now in the absence of Nawaz Sharif and BB.
It would be great to have Ali Ahmad Kurd and Javed Hashmi address political rallies blasting the traitors (generals) in uniform. You wouldn’t need another speaker besides these two :)
The debate should change now.
Knowing what the voters know ‘uptil now’ about different parties/their leaders, the question to be put to the poll ‘now’ should be….
Given the possibility of a free and fair election which party/candidate would ‘you’ like to represent ‘you’ in the parliament.
PMLQ - General Musharraf
PPP - Benazir Bhutto
PMLN - Nawaz Sharif
PTI - Imran Khan
MMA - Qazi Maulana
MQM - Altaf Hussain
P.S. Remember by not voting you are ‘voting’ for the winner.
Ali Zain…
Good post, but I think you’re mistaking the criticism of BB on this forum as an indication of right-wing, reactionary leanings of the posters… in fact, most people are criticizing her because they do not wish her to follow the route the right-wing elements in Pakistani politics (the ones you’ve named) have already trodden… its precisely because her party is perceived to be a relatively progressive force in our political landscape that most people do not want her to come to any sort of arrangement with a man who heads an institution that is the creator and nurturer of all the reactionary forces in Pakistan… no one seems to be criticizing the MMA, the PML-N and sundry other right-wing parties because its old hat: everyone knows what their past is… they have a history of collaboration with the establishment, as you mentioned… it is because the PPP has never ventured down this path that people are worried about it too being nothing more than one of those other parties…
I have been reading most of the comments on this site and others across internet, regarding a ‘deal’ (talks!?) between Benazir and Musharraf.
It seems that most of the comments made here and elsewhere are formulated by watching the new wave of plethora of ‘urdu channels’ in Pakistan. There is no real sense of history, understanding and nauances of politics.
I am not a worker of any political party, but it seems to me that whenver elections are due in Pakistan (atleast begining with 1988 elections) there is a surge in reactionary, ultra right wing and conservative forces. This is very much premediated and uses all the machinery at its disposal not only to forge public opinion but also uses other means to somehow bring together all the reactionary and conservative forces in order not only to implement their agenda but also to prevent any popular party to gain enough seats in assembly to make a positive change in Pakistan. Remember how in 1988 ISI, military and establishment successfully formed IJI against Peoples Party. How in 1993 again Aslam Baig and then President Ghulam Ishaq shifted power to Peoples Party under certain conditions and in 1997 the caretaker government made abosultely sure that Nawaz Sharif has a landslide victory, which he did.
The point I want to make is that, when we talk about this so called ‘deal’, we seem to think that the history of pakistan’s politics started when Chief Justice was removed in March. Benazir is accused of all kind of criticism, being morally corrupt, debase, hypocrite, an opportunist who is always hungry for power. We tend to forget most people who are engaged in this criticism were once part and parcel of Musharraf regime and supported it in one way or another. Qazi Hussain Jamat-i-Islami supported General Zia’s military dictatorship all the way and was part of the govenment, the MMA not only supported Musharraf’s coup but also supported the ‘Legal Framework Order’ (LFO) of Musharraf which required the constitution to be suspended for a given amount of time but also required all the judges of Pakistan, whether it be supreme court, high court or city courts to take oath under this new legal framework and revoke their oath taken under the constitution of Pakistan. The MMA are still in power in Baluchistan with the PML(Q) and in NWFP. Why does no one take this ever into consideration? is that a political strategy on MMA’s part or a ‘deal’?
When Musharraf came into power in Oct 1999, there were 32 cases against Nawaz Sharif of corruption and misuse of powers. Nawaz Sharif literally got away with everything by striking a ‘deal’ with Musharraf, or was it political strategy based on ground realities. Do you think that a military ruler who was the cheif executive and who had suspended constitution would have forced Nawaz out of the counrty? Why would he do that, and forcefully exiled with your furniture and your personal cook and servants? And this guy is accusing others of striking a deal with military dictator who started his political career in the lap of a military dictator.
When Imran Khan started his politics by being an enthusiastic supporter of anti-Benazir lobby created by Hamid Gul and Nawaz Sharif. This is the same group which also approached the great charity worker Abdus Sattar Edhi, but he rejected them outrightly for being reactionary and anti-democratic. When Benazir was oust, the same lobby which supported Nawaz in the beginning, later accused him of corruption and abuse of powers. Imran Khan then conveniently supported Musharraf, his coup, his LFO and suspension of constitution. Typical of his politics he reverted his support of Musharraf right before the elections. And I don’t understand how can a man whose politics has been based on self-contradiction and a pompous self-righteousness, and who supported a military dictator can have a moral stand by suggesting others that they should not do so.
I am not sympathizer of Peoples Party, but it seems to me that the criticism and objections against it are not well founded and doesnt take the history and real-politik into consideration. The country today is facing an unprecedented situation, the fear of extremism is a real fear, whether one likes it or not. If in this situation if a dictator approaches you and you try to convince them that they have to get rid of the uniform and hold fair elections, whats the big deal? Like Musharraf after March 2006 is devil incarnate and talking to him is selling your soul. Like all these supposedly puritanic leaders having a huge cry didn’t supported military dictators and that too for wrong and anti-democratic reasons.
If Palestines and Isreal can talk, Britain and Northern Ireland can talk and Pakistan and India can talk then why we amongst ourselves can’t sort out our problems. There should be no doubt that the army rule and rule of one man is bad for Pakistan. Musharraf is in power for about 8 years now and on top of it he has managed to convince Americans that without him Pakistan would slip into extremism. Keeping the fact in mind that we do face a problem in our country and it is real, the solution is NOT army but fair elections and I don’t think anybody, let alone Benazir is stupid enough to strike out a ‘deal’ with a guy who they know has little or no support of the people of Pakistan, but has support of certain institutes and outside powers. Its time for politics and not wishy washy slogans.
Well, just because China and India have the same problem does not justify the trickle-down capitalism that the world bank advocates… with the way the trickle-down thing actually, well, trickles down ( ;) ), it may take forever to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich… even when this model succeeds (succeeds, that is, in enriching the already rich), the gap continues to increase and the trickle-down thing is rendered valueless by comparison… I don’t know enough economics to suggest any alternatives, but this model strikes me as seriously unjust…
As for difference of rich and poor, thats part of any emerging free market economy. China and India have same problem.