| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
Dictatorship
goes Constitutional
Shortly after the 1999 coup, General Musharraf told the nation: "I
shall not allow the people to be taken back to the era of sham
democracy." Four years later, the people realized that Musharraf
has truly kept his word. He did not allow anyone to take people
back to the era of shame democracy. He did it himself.
The lesson General Musharraf and his Western backers are leaving
behind for other coup leaders in this process is: If the constitution
does not legitimize your actions, delegitimize the constitution.
That you can do by virtue of holding it in abeyance. In the meanwhile,
instead of mending your ways, amend the constitution to legitimize
both your actions and the “sacred” document.
It might sound odd and impossible but not for someone backed
up by absolute power.
The former shame Pakistani democracies now seem far better by
comparison when looked at in the perspective of all the crusaders
of democracy fully approving and supporting a people´s
living under a systematically legalized dictatorship.
Those who still have doubts need only to begin with the recently
approved package of amendments to Pakistan´s constitution — that “legitimize
all the actions and deeds of General Pervez Musharraf since he
seized power in a military coup four years ago,” — and
see what actions has it really endorsed.
People hardly doubt when a BBC correspondent tells them that
Musharraf´s “biggest critics” have provided
the “constitutional legitimacy he so badly needed.” No
one asks if only MMA is the real force behind granting legitimacy
to Musharraf´s unconstitutional deeds, and if he is really
now a constitutionally legitimate president.
We need to look at who is actually behind bestowing the “constitutional” legitimacy
on General Musharraf. Internally, it is now an open secret as
to who brought the so-called critics of MMA to this bargaining
position and how everything unconstitutional before the coup
is not legitimate in the constitution amended with absolute power.
It would be too naïve to believe that the constitution says: "The
Proclamation of Emergency of October 14, 1999, all President´s
Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive´s Orders... shall not
be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever." This
is the brute force talking.
Constitution is nothing more than what we put in it. Any clause
inserted under the label of amendment can never be legitimate
if it makes its way only through a series of extra-constitutional
measures against the will of the people.
No one can tell that today´s General is sitting there with
half as much public support as the General of October 12, 1999.
By the same token, he occupies the top slot not because of any
legitimacy but simply for having far more powers than he had
on the eve of the coup.
Up to 9/11, he could not say he would be able to stay in power
until 2003. Today his stay until 2008 is perfectly ensured with
guaranteed extensions like any of the most-favored US-dictators.
He formed the government party and he brought and bought the
opposition. Who can beat him now?
His authority to dismiss Pakistan´s national and provincial
assemblies is legitimized and despite all the tall claims to
democracy, he can do so now without first consulting the Supreme
Court.
Furthermore, the General is now able to form a National Security
Council that will directly involve the armed forces in the “civilian” government´s
formal decision-making process.
In fact, the constitutional amendments have given Musharraf all
these abilities. We, however, need not let our short memories
hold us from asking: who made these amendments and for what purpose?
And: who have approved these amendment and under what circumstances?
Let us not forget that the General´s 1999 coup was widely
condemned. US President urged for a quick return to “civilian
democratic rule.” US State Department spokesman called
the General to “respect the spirit and the letter of the
constitution." UK Foreign Secretary stressed that the General
should respect the “civilian constitution.”
Note the reverence for “constitution” and “civilian” in
these messages of condemnation. Germany called for respect for
constitution. EU president Finland said: "The EU can in
no circumstances approve extra-constitutional and non-democratic
means.”
European Union canceled plans to sign trade and cooperation agreement
with Pakistan the very next day of the coup and Commonwealth
leaders at their Durban summit decided a month later to suspend
Pakistan from the group.
From the beginning, Musharraf´s was in the hunt for un-constitutional
means to legitimize his rule. In the very first press conference
on November 1, he hinted at holding a referendum to make amendments
to the Constitution.
Four months later, the government decided to restore Article
58(2) B to give him powers to dissolve the national assembly
and the government. In June, 2001, Gen Musharraf dissolved the
parliament and named himself president to replace the figurehead
president, Rafiq Tarar.
The US, European Union and Commonwealth once more criticized
Gen Musharraf´s unconstitutional decisions. On August 10,
Lahore High Court also observed that the coup leader has no extra
powers as president.
The next month, however, came with many glad tidings for the
General. Just 12 days after 9/11, Washington lifted sanctions
against Pakistan. Constitution and democracy went up in smoke
as Powell descended on Islamabad 35 days after 9/11 and Musharraf
was offered $800 million immediate cash grant on October 20.
German Chancellor forgot all German calls for respecting the
constitution. He did not hesitate to proudly embrace Gen Musharraf
on October 28. Rumsfeld was in Islamabad on Nov 4 and Musharraf
was in London four days later.
Less than a week later, the once unacceptable dictator was addressing
the UN General Assembly. And exactly two month after 9/11, Bush — the
chief crusader for democracy — was standing shoulder to
shoulder with Musharraf on Nov 11, promising him up to $1 billion
and talks on Kashmir.
Less than a month later, the IMF executive body agreed to lend
Pakistan $1.3 billion. Afterwards, there appeared no bumps and
turns on the highway to Musharraf´s legitimacy. If Blair
was in Islamabad on Jan 07, 2002; Kofi Annan followed on 24th;
Musharraf dashed to White House on Feb 13 and emperor Akihito
of Japan lauded him in March.
It was an ideal environment for the rubber stamp cabinet and
the National Security Council to approve holding of a referendum
for extending the dictatorial rule.
Six days after declaring victory in a referendum widely criticized
as unconstitutional and fraught with irregularities, Musharraf
focused on inducting army in the future civilian setup. Constitutional
amendments were next to come out of Musharraf´s Pandora
box.
In August 2002, Musharraf granted himself further sweeping new
powers for which he was widely accused of perpetuating dictatorship.
The champions of democracy turned a blind eye to Musharraf´s
taking several measures prior to the October elections to ensure
his long-term survival and influence the election outcome.
The major embarrassment in referendum misled many to believe
that the General would be less inclined to interfere in the future
election process. However, political developments indicated this
was not to be the case.
This summary of unconstitutional steps shows that a seemingly
constitutional vote in the end does not legitimise all the means
adapted by the General in the last four years.
It shows the extent of US interference and Western manipulation
of democracy in countries such as Pakistan. The victims of shame
democracy have absolutely no idea as to how to bring an end to
a dictatorship that went constitutional with their own vote.
While voting in 2002 elections, very few Pakistani knew that
most of the apparently anti- Musharraf candidates were also propped
up by the most powerful government agency. The result is granting
constitutional legitimacy to tyranny with people´s vote
by people´s representative.
However, Pakistanis are not alone. Many Iraqis and Afghan are
also busy digging their own grave as the US oversees their constitution
developing process. Americans too are not spared as their representative
in Congress are leading by example through extending governmental
power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and
information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry.
USA Patriot Act is an example of a present danger to the constitutional
rights of Americans. The happy news for peace and freedom loving
people of the world at these depressing times is that we are
still at the early stages of our forced march towards perfecting
global tyranny.
And the solution lies in shattering the myths of secularism,
democracy and freedom as presented by the totalitarians sitting
in high places today.
End Notes:
1) Zaffar Abbas, Musharraf and the Mullas, BBC report, December
30, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3357245.stm
2) Ibid. Zaffar Abbas, BBC report
3) BBC News: http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473507.stm
4)BBC News: http://news.bbc .co.uk/olmedia/470000/audio/_472803_statedept.ram
5)
Mr Cook said he was "deeply worried" by the situation
but added: "The military there must be under no illusion:
we will strongly condemn any unconstitutional actions.”I
call on all parties to respect the constitution, the rule of
law and the democratic process." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/473314.stm
* Abid Ullah Jan´s latest book, The End of Democracy, has
just been released in Canada.
|
|
