He fears them b/c they have high moral authority unlike his illegitimate dictatorship, but the question how long will he keep them locked up?
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=87474
Locked up — but till when?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Dr Masooda Bano
The current question for those leading the struggle for the restoration of the sacked judges is: can the lawyers or civil society achieve much on their own when the main political parties have actually worked against their demands? Without a grassroots’ political party mobilization, can change come? True, the act of the political parties have been a major impediment to pushing forward the demand for the restoration of the deposed judges but to think that the story will end with the elections is also a fallacy. The question is that if the judges and lawyers were entirely dependent on the political parties for their struggle, why are the disposed judges being kept under lock and key? They have no political party behind them, then why is the government so scared of them? Clearly, they hold some power, which the government is so keen to check. The answer is simple: these judges command that rare virtue in Pakistan today, i.e., moral authority, which the Musharraf regime and the mainstream political parties so badly lack.
Imagine the psyche of the ruler who claims to know what is best for the country and who constantly claims himself to be its only saviour. Yet, the headlines of the daily papers shout out loud that opinion polls tell us that close to 70 per cent of the public thinks he is wrong. However, confident we might be, we all want reassurances beyond a point. So, how do authoritarian rulers survive against open public scorn? There are two strategies: refusal to believe, and selling one’s soul to eternal fears. General (r) Musharraf has to rely on both these strategies. There is refusal to believe that the public has actually had enough of him. At the same time, he knows that he is not wanted. The end result is that the regime lives in fear of the judges, who have neither the domestic political parties nor the international community behind them. The judges are locked up in their houses and denied the freedom to meet each other or to interact with the public.
This week, lawyers and students clashed with the police in their bid to visit Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif at his residence in the DHA after the Punjab government declared it a sub-jail. Civil society groups marching towards Judges Colony in Islamabad were similarly exposed to tough resistance from the police. Earlier, Justice Baghwandas was not allowed to meet Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry before the former left for Karachi after naturally retiring from his position at the age of 65. There is thus an acute fear within the administration of power of these judges to mobilize the public sentiment. This power won’t disappear with time. It will only grow. The reason for it is simple. The alternatives being provided are failing to gain any legitimacy or provide a solution to public frustrations.
Imagine the post-election parliament. How fair they will be is anyone’s guess but one thing is clear: no party is likely to get an absolute majority. In the given circumstances, there will be the same old haggling, give-and-takes and compromises to formulate a government. The coalition, which is likely to form the government, is unlikely to have the cohesion to push through tough reforms as going by the past record the establishment will put in enough material incentives to buy out some of these representatives to get the desired outcomes. This is the only way that President Musharraf will be secure in his presidency. And within this struggling parliament the policies that will be pursued would be more of the same.
Pakistan’s role in the war on terror will stay above its national interests as Benazir Bhutto especially has come back only through pledges to the US. For Nawaz Sharif, we don’t know any better given that he has also eventually succumbed to pressure to take part in the elections. This will mean continued military operations within the country in the name of the war on terror, continued legacy of missing people and continued denial of democratic systems to the public to gain justice. At the same time, with political parties fighting each other to control parliament, the focus on pro-poor growth is going to be a distant dream. What the public will be getting will be more of the same of which they have had enough.
The large crowds that walked with Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan on the road journey from Islamabad to Lahore had come out not because of Justice Chaudhry alone, but because of the frustration with the Musharraf government, which had failed to deliver on all fronts. High inflation, anger at the complete bankruptcy of the PML-Q, complete subordination of national interests to external powers and, above all, a complete lack of direction for the country were critical to public support for the lawyers’ movement. And the post-election reality is that the elected parliament will be delivering more of the same.
When the system being put in place by active manoeuvring of the US and the UK has failed to address any of the underlying problems of governance in Pakistan, then there has to be a miracle for the public to suddenly become optimistic about the newly established parliament. Under these circumstances, the judges whenever they are released will attract large crowds from within those sections of the civil society which have been actively involved within the lawyers’ movement. Even if their restoration becomes impossible, these judges will become a focal point for any future struggle for reform. The public energies can be diverted by the elections but so much has happened in Pakistan since March 2007 that people are not going to be satisfied with more of the same old politics. The judges thus remain a potent force for change. After all, some day they will come out!
The writer is undertaking post-doctoral research at Oxford University. Email: [email protected]