Daily Times Editorial May 1, 2012

Charter of Democracy: RIP Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani has poured cold water over the hopes of those relying on his replacement as PM to write the letter to the Swiss authorities. Thereby they hoped to bring down both the PM and the President. Further, the PM has reiterated his view that only parliament can decide whether he can continue as PM or not. Therefore there was no question of his resigning under pressure from any direction or any other institution. Although this implies a rejection of the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) verdict convicting him of contempt of court, nevertheless the PM in the next breath advised Nawaz Sharif to hold his horses until the detailed judgment of the SC, implying an appeal against the judgment, a process that must be exhausted before the question of starting the process of settling the future of the PM. Gilani’s defence lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan has supported his client’s view that only the Speaker of the National Assembly can disqualify the PM. Meanwhile a familiar (from the past) war of words has broken out between Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik on the one hand and the Sharifs and Chaudhry Nisar on the other. This ‘war’ has been sparked by Rehman Malik’s opening up his guns against the Sharifs’ alleged corruption, bank loan fraud, etc. Malik has appeared on TV to flash documents he says are proof positive of his accusations. In reply to the harsh answers he has received from the Sharifs and Chaudhry Nisar for his pains, Rehamn Malik has challenged them to sue him for libel. Nawaz Sharif is now planning to stump all over the country to contact ‘like-minded’ opposition forces in the hope of forging a grand opposition alliance to launch a protest movement against Gilani continuing in office. However, at this time it is difficult to assess the chances of the success of such a venture, since despite their misgivings about the heightened confrontation between the executive and parliament on the one hand and the judiciary on the other, most people seem willing to wait for the judicial and political process to play itself out before they may be persuaded to pour out into the streets against the sitting PM. To those with living memories of the confrontations between the PPP and PML-N in the 1990s, all this may seem very much like déjà vu. However, while that decade of democracy ended in a military coup, if Chaudhry Shujaat is to be believed, the military is far from keen to take over and is only “observing” the situation from the sidelines. There is little doubt that given the plethora of serious problems confronting the country, it would need either extraordinary courage or foolhardiness to want to be responsible for running the country at present. What the deepening confrontation between the two main parties portends is the end of the period that began with the signing of the Charter of Democracy between the late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 2007 while both were in exile and out in the political cold. A pragmatic realisation that General Musharraf could not be removed ‘from the outside’ finally persuaded both rival parties to join hands. BB must be given the major credit for that political wisdom. This effort to bring the political class together to settle once and for all the fundamental rules of the political game was informed by its main thrust of taking a principled position against military dictatorship and the vow that neither side would indulge (a la the 1990s) in pulling down or toppling each other’s government’s by approaching and/or collaborating with military adventurers. The present developing scenario may persuade most that it is time for us to say adieu to any such ideas. Whether the confrontation between the two mainstream political camps will end up with the same result as at the end of the 1990s is not clear at this point, and Chaudhry Shujaat’s wisdom on the army’s reluctance to step in may carry a lot of weight. However, one conclusion seems inescapable: the Charter of Democracy, a good idea and one that most observers thought at the time was an idea whose time had finally come, seems dead in the water, with both sides of the political divide having to bear the cross of their responsibility for bringing things to this pass. RIP, Charter of Democracy.

Daily Times Editorial April 30, 2012

Lyari battle For at least three days running, the Lyari area of Karachi has been turned into a battlefield. The police moved in in force some days ago after a PPP local leader, Malik Mohammad Khan, was killed while leading a protest against the prime minister’s conviction by the Supreme Court in the contempt case. The People’s Amn Committee (PAC), previously aligned with the PPP but banned in the wake of the Dr Zulfiqar Mirza furore, stands accused of the murder. PPP leader Nabil Gabol was also reportedly targeted by a grenade attack but escaped unhurt. The police seems to have attempted to ‘conquer’ the area from the direction of Cheel Chowk, but has got bogged down because of fierce resistance from alleged gangsters. The resisting elements are now freely using rockets and hand grenades, in which a police APC was hit, killing an SHO and a constable and wounding three other policemen. At the time of writing these lines the death toll in the fighting had climbed to at least 19, with many more wounded. Even media reporters and cameramen covering the fighting were not spared, and at least two were injured by a rocket attack. The ‘siege’ of the area has left residents hostage, with food and other supplies rapidly dwindling and the fear induced by constant firing made worse by uncertainty regarding a resumption of supplies. Those lucky enough to do so have fled the area, but the bulk of residents are still trapped between the law enforcement and opposing forces. The authorities are consistently blaming the trouble on criminal elements, but knowledgeable observers point to political factors complicating what may not be just a simple ‘law and order’ operation. That operation has in fact been continuing almost throughout April, starting with the demand raised by MQM and acceded to by the PPP to conduct a targeted operation against extortionists in Lyari. There are reports in the media that the MQM was incensed when these ‘nouveau’ extortionists began muscling in on areas that hitherto were an exclusive MQM preserve. Thus an ‘extortion war’ started between the old and the new extortionists, with the former finally succeeding in pressurising the PPP to launch the operation that is continuing. The PPP, in an effort to mollify its coalition partner in the Sindh government, chose to conduct the operation exclusively in an area that traditionally has been considered a PPP stronghold. Local residents of Lyari, most of whom are Baloch, resented the PPP’s acceptance of the MQM’s demand at a time when it is hardly a secret that extortionist activity is ongoing in almost all areas of Karachi. Had the PPP-led Sindh government launched simultaneous actions against all extortionists in Karachi without fear or favour, the operation may not have run into the controversy it has amidst accusations by Lyari residents that the PPP had abandoned them just to please the MQM. The PAC was banned after former Sindh home minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza was sidelined in the context of his campaign against the MQM. Now the police is being resisted, it is said, by both criminal and political elements (including the PAC). What makes the operation even more controversial is the alleged use of some gangs cooperating with the police against others resisting the operation. This is a formula that is likely to harden the divide and exacerbate the ‘gang wars’ in the area. These developments have alienated not just the PAC or similar political elements in Lyari from the PPP, even ordinary residents have blamed the PPP for their woes. It is being conjectured that the PPP has either lost or is in the process of losing its Lyari stronghold, putting the plan to elect Bilawal Zardari Bhutto from a seat in Lyari in the next elections under a shadow of doubt. The current but reportedly on his way out Sindh Home Minister, Mansoor Wasan, refused to be drawn by media questions on the Lyari operation, deflecting all such queries in the direction of Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah, who reportedly has taken the portfolio of home minister under his own control. However the Lyari operation eventually turns out, its political fallout seems set to damage the PPP in perhaps its only remaining stronghold in Karachi. The political vacuum created y the retreat of the PPP from the area is likely to be filled by political and perhaps even criminal elements that could cause headaches in future to not only the PPP, but also the law enforcers involved in the operation.

Daily Times Editorial April 29, 2012

Looming confrontation? In the National Assembly (NA) the other day, Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani threw down the gauntlet to the opposition to move a no-confidence motion against him if they were adamant that he was no longer the PM after the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) contempt conviction. On the occasion, neither the Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar nor his PML-N colleagues were present in the house, the former having absented himself despite his blood-curdling threat to prevent (physically?) the PM’s entry into the NA, the latter for having walked out when the PM entered. Not that that prevented Chaudhry Nisar from repeating his unparliamentary threat in Nawaz Sharif’s press conference. This language, tone and message is hardly befitting of the Leader of the Opposition, considered a PM-in-waiting in parliamentary democracies. His leader, Nawaz Sharif, did not tarry far behind his lieutenant. He demanded the PM step down immediately “otherwise he will face unexpected results”. There is an implied threat in the sub-text of this message too. Both PML-N leaders need to be reminded that such language and messages would shame even a criminal denizen of Bhaati Gate in Lahore, let alone two major opposition figures. In the meantime, reports suggest the PML-N is reaching out to all the opposition parties and even the government’s coalition allies to try and create a front against the PM to stage protests throughout the country. So far, however, the latter are standing firm with the PM, while the latter present a picture of differing perspectives, not all of which may serve the PML-N’s purpose. For example, the other opposition parties in the NA did not follow the PML-N out of the NA but instead chose to listen to the PM’s speech. Outside parliament, Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) presents the PML-N with a dilemma. Convergence of interests against the PPP-led coalition government notwithstanding, the two parties are at daggers drawn because each views the other as its real rival, especially in Punjab, the PML-N’s traditional stronghold. How to square this with the need to come together against the PM is the conundrum for both sides. The US State Department spokesperson meanwhile has stated that Washington recognises and will continue to work with the PM. There are reports that in the light of the SC verdict, the PPP is mulling over the possibility of moving a resolution in the NA reiterating presidential immunity. The PML-N is not the only party contemplating street mobilisation in its cause. The PPP workers have already been out in anger at the SC verdict. Sporadic such protests continue. If the PML-N succeeds in mobilising its own and other opposition forces’ cadres on the streets, there is every likelihood that the PPP will not take this lying down. If it were in turn to mobilise or even turn a blind eye to the spontaneous mobilisation of its workers, a looming confrontation cannot be ruled out. Such a confrontation could throw the country into new uncertainty and chaos to add to the crises that already afflict us. It is interesting to note that on the very day the SC delivered its verdict against the PM, the PPP won a by-election in Multan on a seat it regained after decades. Does this presage a divide between politics and the judiciary? And yet the Sindh High Court saw fit to dismiss a petition praying for stopping the PM from working. The immediate fallout of the SC verdict is scary enough. But what may be exercising thoughtful minds even more is the danger that the possible looming confrontation may derail the entire effort to ensure a smooth democratic transition from this government to the next through the ballot box, a transition not very frequent in our unfortunate history, but critical if the democratic system is to be consolidated. The PML-N willy-nilly has a vested interest in such a transition. Wiser and more moderate heads in the PML-N are cautioning the leadership not to abandon its policy of restraint over the last four years, which has earned it the jibe of being a ‘friendly opposition’, a description not ordinarily considered disparaging in long established democracies. The restraint was dictated by our sorry history of praetorian forces waiting in the wings to take advantage of any seeds of confrontation between the two sides of the civilian political divide. If the effort for a democratic transition were to be derailed, the only beneficiary would be parties outside parliament like the PTI. Hence the discomfort of the PML-N on the horns of its dilemma.

Daily Times Editorial April 28, 2012

PPP fight back One day after being convicted and symbolically sentenced for contempt till the rising of the seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC), Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani appeared in confident, fighting mood in his appearance in the National Assembly (NA). In a hard-hitting defence from the floor of the house of his stance on the conviction and a host of other issues highlighted by the verdict, the PM raised some pertinent points. He took the Leader of the Opposition, Chaudhry Nisar, to task for challenging the treasury benches to bring the PM to the house. The PM’s advice to Chaudhry Nisar and others of his ilk was to avoid trying to play God. He argued that, as the PML-N chief has stated, even if you do not recognise me as the PM, I am still a member of the house and cannot be prevented by threats from attending the sessions of the NA. The PM questioned why the judiciary had never in our history put military coup makers and dictators in the dock. He pointed to the infamous doctrine of necessity formulated by the judiciary, which led to the condoning and justification of all coups in the country’s history. He said he had only defended the constitution as a member of a party that had not only formulated the 1973 constitution but also restored it (considerably) through the 18th Amendment. He further asserted that all the constitutions of the country, the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions promulgated immunity for the president of the country. Therefore, by implication, the demand of the judiciary that he write a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen the alleged corruption cases against the president would be in violation of the laid down immunity for the president while in office, an immunity that exists for all heads of state internationally. Had the immunity not been laid down in all the constitutions in the country’s history, the PM argued, the demand to ignore the clear provisions of Article 248 might have had some weight and value. As things stood, his view and the view of the government’s legal experts was that this was not possible under the long standing and consistent immunity available to heads of state while in office. The PM reiterated his view that parliament is supreme as it expresses the will of the people and all other institutions of state receive their legitimacy and standing from parliament. The contempt verdict has split legal, political and all other circles right down the middle. The division in the political field corresponds to the PPP and its allies in one corner, while the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition stands on the opposite side of the ring. This was also visible in the NA on Thursday when the house descended into scenes reminiscent of a fish market, much to the discomfiture of the Speaker and all those who fear such scenes erode the sanctity of parliament and thereby depreciate democracy itself. Demands have been raised by Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and others, both with a presence in parliament and outside it, for the PM to resign immediately. The first named has gone so far as to say that the government must immediately appoint a non-controversial caretaker PM to conduct the coming elections, who should also write the SC’s desired letter to the Swiss authorities. Ironically, forgetting to even glance at his own past track record, Nawaz Sharif attempted to take the high moral ground by accusing the PM of ridiculing the judiciary. Politics does require thick skins, but this must rank as close to taking the cake. No wonder after the SC verdict against him, the PM in a lighter mood remarked that politics is like watching a “horror movie”. The government, its allies and the PPP seem to be in no mood to roll over and die after the contempt conviction. Apart from filing an appeal against the verdict and allowing the process after that appeal is exhausted to take its course, the PPP-led government, given its strength in both houses of parliament, still retains the ultimate weapon, as hinted at by Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan: legislation to nullify the effects of the SC verdict and bring an assertive judiciary within the fold of restraint required by all institutions of state in their relationship and working with, not against, each other.

Daily Times editorial April 27, 2012

Prime Minister’s conviction In another first, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) hearing the contempt of court case against Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani has found the PM guilty of contempt and sentenced him symbolically for 30 seconds until the rising of the court. That symbolic sentence may have disappointed all those baying for the PM to be transported from the courtroom straight to jail. Nevertheless, the court’s decision, not unexpectedly, immediately ran into controversy amongst the legal community and the public at large. The short order of the bench, according to defence counsel Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, added the charge of the PM scandalising, ridiculing or defaming the judiciary, which never found mention in the original indictment and on which no proceedings during the hearings were conducted. The perception is difficult to deny that the court appeared throughout the case to be pre-disposed to the final conclusion it has now delivered. Its manifest impatience with, and refusal to allow the defence counsel to present his arguments in full during the hearings, and even after the conviction and sentencing, when Aitzaz Ahsan wanted to raise certain issues/questions regarding the short order, certainly strengthens this perception. In a press conference after the hearing, Aitzaz, amongst other things, read out a list of such questions. The main thrust of the list was on the issues Aitzaz had raised during the hearings, but which the court, at least during the proceedings and now in its short order, seems to have brushed aside. Of course, in all fairness we have to wait for the detailed judgement of the bench before coming to any final conclusions. At this point, it is only prima facie that tentative conclusions can be drawn. Aitzaz had pointed to Article 10-A, introduced under the 18th Amendment, which reinforces the right of every citizen to a fair and free trial under due process. On this basis, Aitzaz had argued that the bench as constituted was assuming the role of judge, jury and executioner in its own cause, a position that sits uncomfortably with the provisions of Article 10-A. Since the bench had itself initiated the contempt of court case, Aitzaz argued, it was not within its purview to hear the case. That argument too was brushed aside by the bench. Further, Aitzaz criticised the addition of an indictment of the PM for scandalising, ridiculing and defaming the SC, a charge that did not form part of the original indictment and on which neither proceedings were held, evidence presented, or the right of defence offered. Again, under the provisions of Article 10-A, this falls foul of the definition of due process. The defence argument that President Asif Ali Zardari, so long as he held the office of head of state, enjoyed unqualified immunity in domestic and international law was never pronounced on by the court, except for repeated remarks that if someone wanted immunity, they must approach the court for it, a strange formulation in the light of the clear wording of Article 248. Be all that as it may, the fallout, implications, and further process in the affair require some explication in the aftermath of this unprecedented verdict against the chief executive of the country. As far as the lobby wishing to see the back of the PM, not to mention the PPP-led coalition government, is concerned, they may still have some teeth gnashing ahead. The disqualification of a sitting PM is not a simple matter of a court, even the apex court, so pronouncing. The law lays down that any sentence of less than two years does not automatically disqualify a sitting member of the National Assembly, and therefore the PM. The Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 limits sentencing to six months, and in any case the Ordinance per se was challenged by the Attorney General as having lapsed without being passed by parliament. His argument therefore was that at present there is no law of contempt holding the field. That argument too was given short shrift by the SC bench. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the conviction disqualifies the PM from continuing in office, the procedure for de-seating the PM involves a reference being sent to the Speaker of the National Assembly to take a decision on the matter within 30 days, failing which, it is deemed that the reference has been sent to the Election Commission to decide the matter within 90 days. But even before that, since appeal lies against the verdict of the bench, which can only be filed after the detailed judgement is available, as long as the appeal process is not exhausted, the contempt case remains alive and in process. Legal and procedural processes aside, there are other worrying aspects of the fallout of the verdict that deserve mention. The verdict has naturally been received badly by the committed workers of the PPP, with protests breaking out throughout the country. It remains to be seen whether the leadership of the PPP will enjoin upon its angry workers the same restraint it has shown in the face of the adverse verdict. If it does not, or cannot contain this brewing anger on the basis of a long held view by the PPP that it has seldom received justice at the hands of the judiciary in the past or now, more agitation may follow in the streets. That is bound to make the judiciary controversial. In this space we have been arguing consistently that the respect and dignity of the judiciary, which is its due in any civilised society, imposes the time-tested principle of judicial restraint on it, which rests in its own hands, lest the judiciary become the subject of controversy. Instead, ever since the restoration of the judiciary in 2009, the latter’s assertion of ‘independence’ and ‘judicial activism’ has more often than not led it into controversy, a divisive factor in legal and public circles. However the present case of the contempt conviction of the PM turns out, perhaps the verdict has opened the floodgates of making the judiciary more controversial than ever in our history and diluting the universal respect that should be its due.

Daily Times Editorial April 22, 2012

A tragedy foretold? The crash on Friday of a Bhoja Air flight from Karachi to Islamabad when it was on its approach for landing has shaken the entire country. All 127 people on board, including six crewmembers, were killed. That tragedy refreshed memories of the July 2010 crash of an Air Blue flight that crashed into the Margalla Hills, killing all 152 people on board. As in the Margalla crash, the only small mercy was that the Bhoja Air flight fell in relatively open ground, inflicting damage on houses but without any loss of life on the ground. The rescue operation swung into action fairly promptly, but was hampered by a traffic jam restricting access to the site. Also, the rescue teams seemed poorly equipped and far from coordinated in their efforts. Not that they had much to do except collect charred bodies and scattered body parts to be transported to a cold storage hired quickly for the purpose of keeping the remains, since the mortuaries at PIMS and other hospitals were likely to be overwhelmed. That at least was a lesson learnt from the Margalla crash almost two years ago, although not much else seems to have changed in the intervening period as far as the readiness of emergency rescue services is concerned. Tearful relatives of the victims thronged the airports in Karachi and Islamabad, but according to reports, despite the fact that the aviation authorities had set up information rooms in both airports, Bhoja Air’s counter at Karachi airport remained shut, much to the irritation of distraught people seeking news of their loved ones. PIA has offered free passage for one family member of each victim from Karachi to Islamabad on a special flight. The president, prime minister have expressed grief and ordered every conceivable effort for the comfort of the stricken families, while ordering a thorough probe into the crash. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh too sent a message of sorrow and condolences. Speculations are rife as to the cause/s of the crash, with rumours ranging from a lightning strike to bad weather to unknown technical problems. Perhaps a rush to judgment should be avoided until the results of the inquiry are in. Fortunately the black box has been recovered and its data may yield clues to what exactly happened in the final moments before the plane went down. Bhoja Air has a chequered history. It was closed down in 2000 by the Civil Aviation Authority because of financial difficulties. It announced the revival of its operations just last month. The ill-fated flight was its inaugural flight to Islamabad. Questions are being raised in the aftermath of the tragedy about the viability, technical and financial solidity and credibility of Bhoja Air. Some sections of the media have gone so far as to assert that political pressure or favouritism was at play in allowing Bhoja Air to resurrect itself when it did not have an adequate fleet (the crashed Boeing 737-200 was reportedly 27 years old) and proper technical, maintenance and safety checks according to international procedure and standards were not carried out. These are aspects of the tragedy that need to be probed thoroughly. As this example and the plethora of stories lately about the national flag carrier PIA show, there is something rotten in the state of our aviation regulatory and maintenance systems. Every other day there are reports about flight cancellations, delays, near disasters that are slowly but steadily eroding the idea, at least in Pakistan, that flying is still the safest way to travel. PIA has suffered strictures abroad for failing maintenance and safety standards. What a fall for our once proud national carrier. With the opening up of the skies to private airlines, what was needed was a strengthened regime of regulation and monitoring to ensure safe and trouble-free operations. Instead, like much else in the country, it seems that this area of national life too has suffered a grievous decline. The inquiry into the crash will be eagerly awaited, not the least because the Air Blue Margalla crash inquiry fizzled out without any clear-cut conclusions or lessons learnt. But in addition to adducing the circumstances that led to the Bhoja Air crash, the entire machinery of civil aviation needs a thorough overhaul, especially standards of regulation, maintenance and monitoring of all airlines.

Daily Times Editorial April 20, 2012

COAS’s wisdom

On a visit to Siachen to inspect the rescue work being carried out to find the trapped soldiers and civilians at Gayari, COAS General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani received president Asif Ali Zardari, who was also there for the same purpose. While talking to media, the COAS delivered a surprisingly refreshing view of Pakistan-India relations. The common perception about the military is that it regards India as a perpetual enemy and therefore cannot contemplate any improvement of relations with our eastern neighbour. This ‘single track’ view of the military may well have underestimated the capacity of the military for course correction where national interests demand it, at least if what the COAS said can be relied upon as an authoritative statement of the military’s wisdom. General Kayani spoke about the need for a peaceful resolution of the Himalayan glacier dispute with India, and went on to stress that Pakistan should spend less on defence and more on development. “Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people,” General Kayani pronounced. He went on to explain that national security should be a comprehensive concept, implying that spending more and more on armaments and defence preparedness while the people were unhappy would eventually affect national security in very negative ways.
The cost to Pakistan of cross-border tension or conflict and the blowback of supporting jihadi extremism has been extremely high. The economy has tanked because capital is either shy or flying to more salubrious destinations. Large numbers of our people are on the verge of starvation, which has thrown the whole question of sustainability of such a grievously inequitable system in doubt. What we are witnessing is a rethink in the perceived military fixation with India as permanent enemy. Realism, pragmatism, growing understanding of the way forward, the obvious advantages of peace in the region may finally be coming to sway GHQ’s thinking.
While General Kayani’s remarks are very welcome in the context of renewed openings to the east, a border that may soon see peace and quiet and mutually beneficial exchange, so long as our western border is hot (with its concomitant effect on stoking internal strife), the anomaly or contradiction at the heart of our policy is glaringly obvious. If regional peace is what our situation demands, it is time to revisit our Afghanistan policy, especially its component of relying on extremist jihad, which soon transmogrifies into terrorism against us. In the context of the endgame in Afghanistan, the wish to control or dominate that country (dubbed ‘strategic depth’) has turned into a nightmare. We do not want to come out of the Afghanistan wars after the US/NATO forces leave that country by 2014 to be seen as the stokers of a pro-Taliban civil war that may break out post-withdrawal. That would isolate us regionally and internationally, a denouement that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered in our best interest. The contradiction at the heart of our policy in this regard is supporting the Afghan Taliban while fighting against the Pakistani Taliban. In essence the two are one, united in eventual purpose even if not in tactical considerations.
On Siachen, Nawaz Sharif has gone further than most in demanding Pakistan take the lead in withdrawing troops from the glacier, a move he thinks will make no difference militarily. Certainly the ceasefire in place on the glacier since 2003 would suggest that an absurd confrontation has been reduced to insanity if all the troops of both sides are doing up there is battling the elements, not each other. Of course it is a reflection of the intractability of conflict between Pakistan and India that even the rational cannot be conceded by either one side or the other (in turn) for fear of showing weakness. Settling irrational conflict requires strength. It cannot therefore e be construed as weakness. Time to descend from the icy heights, gentlemen.