A theatre of the absurd

Shoot-thyself instinct, a meanness of intent, or both?

Understandably, there was a scarcity of pressing issues and the government needed to create one to keep it busy. So, the Musharraf treason parade had to be marshalled with gruesome fanfare!

One only hoped that the political leaders, more so the one by the name of Nawaz Sharif, would learn from history and get on with matters of governance as things finally appeared to be going in favour of the political hierarchies. But no! The paucity of credible intellect coupled with a perceptible meanness of purpose have combined to create a situation that may end up undoing a lot that seemed moving towards tilting the balance in favour of the democratic forces. The fear now is that all that may be stalled and renewed tensions may emerge to haunt the prospect of nascent democracy in the country.

There are many intangibles that escape comprehension. Since the exit of General Musharraf, People’s Party was in power for full five years. They did not make any move for initiating the treason case against the former president. Did anyone from the current concoction give it a thought? There was no perceptible public demand either. Why, then, Nawaz Sharif and his charlatans fell in the trap and created a clear prospect of reversing the tide that would have only benefitted them? Is it a repeat of the shoot-thyself instinct that the prime minister notoriously suffers from? Or, is it part of a conscious bid to subjugate a key institution of the state and force it to do a despot’s (cloaked in a democrat’s garb) bidding?

The underlying purpose that has been much advertised by the government is to use the treason trial against General Musharraf to bury the prospect of military coups for all times. The objective appears riddled with innumerable non-descript eventualities, the cumulative result of which may be the exact opposite of the intended results. This is so because the conduct of a powerful institution cannot be regulated by subjecting it to unnecessary and avoidable pressures which carry a discernible and broadly-intended element of ridicule. Why, then, instead of concentrating on formulating and implementing policies for national salvation and, thereby, enhancing its potential to stay in power beyond the next elections, the government plunged itself into a quagmire which may not have an exit?

There are many things that have remained an enigma regarding the manner of governance of the incumbent prime minister. Let’s go back to the time when he enjoyed a two-third majority in the parliament and could proceed with accomplishing whatever he desired in a democratic and civilised manner. He did not do that. Instead, he opted to move an amendment granting him dictatorial powers, ala Amir ul Momeneen, to impose his theocratic writ. It led to a rebellion within the party which laid the foundations of his ultimate departure, but not before another unnecessary entanglement with the same institution that he is, once again, manoeuvring to outwit and outbid. His intemperate reaction to a sensible proposal made by the then Chief of Army Staff was to give the general the marching orders. His own marching order, thereafter, was only a matter of time.

Or, going back to his first stint in power, the manner in which he confronted the judiciary, venting his inherent and deep-set dictatorial instincts, which ended in an orchestrated assault on the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice is now part of the historical archives. The same instinct has overshadowed his current conduct as he remains on a conflict-course with the edicts of the judiciary, bringing the matters of governance to a grinding halt as countless public sector institutions remain headless, thus in a state of limbo.

It is a sad case of not learning from experience as, also, of being unable to change the deeply-engraved spots of a dictator regarding everything that the prime minister initiates. He did not learn from his disastrous yellow cab scheme or the way he managed the national economy. He has the same players unleashing a sequence of devilish tricks. Starting with a proclamation of breaking the begging bowl, his government has become the heaviest borrower from the IMF in the first six months in power. By initiating a scheme for extending un-secured loans and benefits to the so-called deserving people, he has laid bare the prospect of inflicting further damage on an already ravaged state exchequer.

This is not to suggest that General Musharraf did something laudable on that eventful October 12 of 1999, or that he should have done it. It also does not mean that others may follow his tracks. It only means that there comes a time in the history of nations when bygones have to be deemed as bygones as there is so much that needs to be accomplished in an environment generally free of controversies and schisms. That, unfortunately, has not been the case. On the contrary, the incumbent prime minister and his attendant serfs and foot-soldiers have proceeded to create further divisions among a society that already stands intractably divided. Instead of taking initiatives to bring the warring factions closer together, the jaundiced stalwarts of the prime minister, owing allegiance to the Sharif family instead of the state, have opted to open another divisive front which may bring down the entire edifice.

There is also a conscious effort to alienate a general from his institution that he commanded for over a decade. In addition to being an unsavoury attempt, it is also improbable to yield dividends as it smacks of a total lack of understanding of how the institution operates and what are the dynamics that automatically come into play when subjected to unnecessary pressures. Army had been maintaining a stoic silence on the manner in which one of their former chiefs was being treated, but everyone knew that this cannot last. The prime minister should have known better as he had been at the receiving end of this reaction once in the past also. During his second stint in power, and after he had made a mess of things vis a vis Gen Jehangir Karamat, he was warned of a collective institutional response if he made a move again. He could not resist the temptation and was booted out by the very person he has put in the dock today. Is it a case of having your revenge while you can, damned be the interest of the state or the people?

The treason case against General Musharraf for having imposed the emergency in November 2007 is based on article 6 as it stands today vide the 18^th amendment which includes the act of holding the constitution in abeyance as treasonous. It also holds the aiders and abettors of the act guilty of high treason and calls upon the Supreme Court and the High Court not to validate the act under any circumstances. The original Article 6 made no mention the act of holding the constitution in abeyance and dealt only with its abrogation and subversion as acts of high treason: “Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason”. In effect it means that when General Musharraf imposed the emergency and held the constitution in abeyance, the same was, technically, not an act of high treason. The question that consequently arises whether the law as it stands after amendment can be applied retrospectively? In essence, this is question of law and shall be at the heart of much of the hearing in the case.

The other key question is that of selective justice. It is a case of picking on just one of the actors of the imposition of emergency, thus overlooking the second part of Article 6 of the constitution that deals with the role/s played by the aiders and abettors of the crime. Why? Because, ostensibly, the government of Nawaz Sharif and his cronies tried to play a fast one on the institution of the army: by moving only against General Musharraf, he and his unworthy cohorts wanted to reiterate that the trial was not against an institution, but only against an individual, hoping that the army would disown its former chief and allow him to bear the ignominy of standing trial that is bound to throw up the role/s that other former commanders and the civilian partners played in the act of imposing the emergency. What the government wanted to avoid was the opening up of a Pandora’s Box. That’s why it did not include any other actors in the reference it moved before the Supreme Court. This is a gross travesty of justice as also a concoction that was not meant to hold for long. It had to disentangle. That it did so early was possibly beyond the reckoning of Nawaz Sharif and his dim-witted charlatans.

When Musharraf claimed that the army was with him, the government actors were quick to say that if that were the case, the army should state so. They failed to understand that the army does not believe in nuances as much as in action. That is inherent in the very character of the institution. The manner of this action has even caught the die-hard proponents of the treason case by surprise. For the time being, Gen Musharraf has been transported beyond their reach and, possibly, shall remain so for the foreseeable future. Only if Nawaz Sharif and his charlatans could learn to let bygones be bygones and get on with the act of governance. That, in all probability, is well beyond the call of their calibre and sincerity. They have enacted a theatre of the absurd. It is the case of a sad story being retold in a nauseating manner!

The writer is a political analyst and the Executive Director of the Regional Peace Institute. He can be reached at [email protected]