Daily Times : EDITORIAL: Musharraf is President, whether one likes it or not

EDITORIAL: Musharraf is President, whether one likes it or not

October 7, 2007

After the Supreme Court refused to deliver a clear verdict on the opposition’s petition asking for a stay, the presidential election has resulted in an “unofficial” victory for President General Pervez Musharraf. His tenure is to end on November 15. He had told the Court earlier that he would step down as army chief after being re-elected on November 6 and before being sworn in as president for another five years. The Court gave “half-victory” to the opposition, staying only the official announcement of the result of the presidential election till October 17, when the case against the re-election of President Musharraf by the same assemblies would be decided on merit.

Had a clear verdict been issued, the government was ready to take care of any disruption arising out of the APDM and lawyers’ reaction to the election. But now that an inconclusive opinion has been handed down, violence raised its ugly head in Peshawar, where the lawyers, having despaired of the JUI component of the MMA majority, have gone out and attacked the “law-enforcement authorities”, leading to the usual counter-violence from the police. The crisis in the Peshawar assembly is not easy to understand for emotionally aroused partisans of the cause against President Musharraf. The Jamaat-e Islami part of the assembly has resigned while the JUI part of it has refused to dissolve it. The 124-seat assembly has taken part in the presidential election. It is supposed to send 65 votes — like all provincial assemblies — into the electoral college pool according to the presentational mathematics. Thirty-four votes have gone in favour of the president.

President Musharraf has also promulgated the National Reconciliation Ordinance — as it were, “over the dead body” of the PMLQ leaders — and made sure that the legitimacy of the process is protected through the “non-resignation” of the PPP members. In the 168-member Sindh assembly, the PPP had the largest chunk of votes, 67. Although its leader Makhdoom Amin Fahim was in the presidential race, the party decided not to vote, resembling the action of the MMA of backing the candidature of Justice (Retd) Wajihuddin but then resigning and not voting for him. The Sindh assembly has given its 36 votes to President Musharraf. The 65-member Balochistan assembly has likewise given him 33 votes — as against 28 in 2002 — while the opposition has resigned.

The PMLQ-dominated Punjab assembly celebrated after casting the winning vote for President Musharraf. With 194 seats in a 297-member assembly, the followers of Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi came out raising victory slogans as Lahore’s lawyers pushed against the police cordon to register their protest. An easy “innings” was observed also in the 342-seat National Assembly where the opposition was absent and the PPP did not vote. Only in the Senate was the opposition vote intact with the option of abstention. So President Musharraf has done swimmingly.

The “half victory” for the opposition at the Supreme Court was also a “half victory” for the government. This was not altogether a benign outcome. There were signals of “disagreement” of a factional sort among the bench that heard the first petition against President Musharraf and found it wanting on grounds of maintainability. In an extraordinary and unprecedented un-legal statement, one senior judge who had dissented from the majority and took the view of “non-maintainability” went down to Karachi and talked of “conscience” before proceeding abroad on leave. This clearly referred, not to any point of law, but to the “moral” quality of the individual judges of the bench. In the 1990s, the honourable court had given clear signs of bitter factionalism among its judges, a fact substantiated in the publications that issued later from the pens of the judges involved.

The opposition was apprehensive of the “mood” of the new 10-member bench hearing the case on merits. Some members of the opposition alliance APDM openly spoke of the “expected” verdict against them. There was some justification for this pessimism. The first bench had listened to substantive arguments for days before delivering an opinion on “maintainability” — which it could have issued in a short order much earlier. But now that the court has once again abstained from making up its mind on merits, both sides of the cause are justified in being open to misgivings, especially as at least one judge has talked about “conscience” in public.

Although the government lawyers claimed victory — and despite rumours of myriad conspiracies — the pro-Musharraf elements were on tenterhooks about the see-saw of opinion among the bench that now contained only four judges that had previously found for President Musharraf without being assailed by doubts. What if the verdict is against President Musharraf seeking re-election from the same assemblies the second time? The point is greatly obscured by the emotional pressure of the popular division on the subject in the country and the violence-prone campaign launched by the opposition. It now remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court can find a solution that puts an end the civil strife rather than precipitating another crisis. Until then, we can conclude that a process has taken place and President Musharraf is President, whether anyone likes it or not.



SECPMD EDOTPROA; [SECOND EDITORIAL] Doubts over ‘amnesty’?

The lists of those liable to get their cases quashed under the National Reconciliation Ordinance contain both politicians and bureaucrats as “holders of public office”. Much civic anger is already being expressed about the letting off of those who have usurped public treasure, but the jury is out on the relevant process of law challengeable on many counts.

People know that our politicians have been corrupt but everyone should face the fact that the process of law has been flecked with the policies of revenge. The delay in the judicial system, implicating both the state and the legal profession, has cast an additional shadow both in cases involving politicians and bureaucrats. In many cases involving bureaucrats, political motives are assigned to the anti-corruption drives initiated by politicians in power. What has been revealed is the impropriety of “special measures” adopted to end corruption and not letting the judiciary — after being duly expanded and improved — take care of corruption in the normal course.