Bush, Gore and Pakistan

How messed up the current situation is

In the landmark decision taken by the United States Supreme Court in year 2000, the presidential elections were decided in favour of George W Bush as opposed to Al Gore. The decision was per curium, in nonprofessional’s language a decision that is decided by a group of judges of the appellate court. The Court ruled that the method of recounting votes by the Florida Supreme Court was in conflict and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment. Effective in 1863, the clause clearly enunciates that no state can or will deny any person equal protection of laws that resides within its jurisdiction. In non-technical language, a right cannot be awarded to one individual that takes away the right of another living within its jurisdiction or reduces the right of another. The decision allowed George W Bush a win over the Democratic candidate Al Gore who bagged 266 electoral votes as opposed to Bush winning 271 electoral votes.

The Bush vs Al Gore case is a parallel to what happened in Election 2013 in Pakistan, except that some may not view institutions as being impartial. According to a local newspaper the Lahore High Court has admitted a petition by PAT for dissolution of provincial and national assemblies.

On the other hand, after fourteen days of trying to break the deadlock and failing, the government turned to COAS Raheel Sharif for help. Editorial by the same newspaper says and I completely support, “The issues of corruption, nepotism, economic and social injustice and election reforms raised by both PTI and PAT are true down to the core. Their demand to bring about a phenomenal change in the existing system of autocratic governance and making it more people-centred is undoubtedly the need of the hour and must be implemented in letter and spirit. However, the path chosen by the leaders of both the parties to get their demands fulfilled is perhaps not appropriate.”

If PTA and PTI have shown street power, so has PML-N. The party took out rallies in Khanewal, Bahawalpur, Islamabad and Faisalabad amongst other cities. Many have questioned the constitutionality of the sit-in. Is encouraging civil disobedience and raising demands on the basis of street power within the ambit of the constitution is a question being raised by many? The twitter account of @AsimBajwaISPR tweeted on August 29, “ISPR Release: #COAS was asked by the Govt to play facilitative role for resolution of current impasse, in yesterday’s meeting, at #PM House.”

Whereas Qadri declared that the army had taken on the role of a guarantor and ‘it seems he will play a role to resolve the issue of Model Town FIR’ but is involving army in the political affairs of the country so blatantly a very good idea? I think not. In an article by Wall Street Journal published August 27, “Government aides said the military has seized on Mr Sharif’s weakened status during the political crisis to strike a deal in which he would leave strategic policy areas — including relations with the US, Afghanistan and India — to be controlled by the armed forces. The military is now seeking guarantees from the prime minister that he will follow through on the agreement, the aides said.”

What is happening here is street power has taken over.

Let us stop and look closely at the phenomenon of street politics. Yes, governments can go because of street protests in massive numbers.

Protesters may protest and continue protesting to make the government negotiate on their terms. Failing that, protesters may feel the need to make the government step down or flee. A more realistic situation applicable in the case of Pakistan may be a desire by those in the protest to bring a positive change in the government. This is aimed at bringing the point home to the movers and shakers within the system that an ‘X’ change is needed. In addition, a protest points towards specific changes. It may pertain to cheating and corruption (as in the case of rigging in 2013 elections), it can point towards economic needs, or it can also draw attention to issues pertaining to security and failure of government to deal with the issues satisfactorily.

One cannot overlook the fact that these protests may make other nations look upon such a country as a ‘freak’ finding it difficult for even allies to stand by and can also lead to an economy whose stability can be severely impacted and may shy away potential investors.

Then of course covert actions by powers within and outside may attempt a regime change. It may include supporting of insurgent elements within, their funding and support by other means. Many examples can be quoted with more recent being of Afghanistan in 1979-89, Ghana in 1960s, South Vietnam in 1963, so on and so forth.

Then there is the direct military coup.

This form of regime change is unlikely today. Economies, national interests and world politics are so deeply intertwined that powers of the world will find it extremely difficult to support an openly non-democratic set up irrespective of the reason.

Quoting from an interesting blog post by Dr Shabir Choudhry, posted August 29, 2014, “Today in Pakistan, there are two big questions: Is the military attempting to stage-manage Sharif’s third exit? And is his political tormentor, the temperamental former cricket star Imran Khan (unrelated to Ayub Khan), the Army’s choice as his replacement?” (Dr Chaudhry is founder member of JKLF and became its Secretary General in 1985, and got elected President of JKLF and Europe in 1999. He is author of more than 25 books and booklets in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle.)

The questions raised by him are generally what one hears on TV shows as well as by opinion makers and on social forums on the net. He responds to both questions with impeccable logic, “Khan’s bravado is, on the surface, perplexing. For some, this kind of confidence only comes from the knowledge of having the support of Pakistan’s military brass. Could it really be betting the house on Khan?

Probably not. Pakistan’s military faces a hostile India on its eastern border and a dysfunctional peace process in Afghanistan on its northwestern one. In between, it is trying to stamp out the remarkably resilient and potent Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, also known as the Pakistani Taliban, against which it recently launched a massive operation in the remote Pakistani region of North Waziristan. Now is not a good time for the Army to manage a chaotic political transition.

Removing Sharif would probably complicate the country’s fiscal situation. Pakistan is a poor country with an even poorer record of fiscal management. Outside aid is vital to the country — be it from the IMF and World Bank or from friendly nations like the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. International lenders hate instability and coups, and they have a long-standing man-crush on Sharif and his team because they are the big-business.”

My tuppence: the military certainly does not want PML-N out.

A calculated guess is to force them to manage he stable better.

Unfortunately, protesters “belonging to Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) have broken the fence of Parliament House by ramming a truck into it as well as setting police vehicles on fire as the situation is deteriorating in the most sensitive part of the federal capital after several people, including police personnel, were injured when law enforcement personnel resorted to tear gas shelling and firing rubber bullets after thousands of protesters led by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) chief Dr Tahirul Qadri attacked the main gate of the President’s House on their way to Prime Minister’s House to stage a sit-in.”

This is a huge tragedy. Innocents are being killed.

I completely agree and support Raza Rumi in his tweet of August 30, 2014, “Nothing is more important than saving human lives. PTI/PAT should stop risking people’s lives and government should come up with a list of concessions.”