Chief Justice Reinstated in Pakistan;
Protest Rally in Capital Cancelled;
Crisis subsiding
The immediate crisis in Pakistan was averted Monday morning when Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced that he was going to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry as chief justice of the supreme court. Chaudhry had been dismissed by dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 2007 in a particularly lawless way.
Pakistan Muslim League (N) leader Nawaz Sharif had defied the attempt of the government of President Asaf Ali Zardari to confine him to house arrest and was leading a procession to the capital from Lahore when he heard the news, at Gujranwala. He then called off the "Long March", which aimed at rallying for the reinstatement.
Sharif was himself an extremely high-handed and dictatorial prime minister who violated press freedom and tried to move the country toward more Islamic law, and he wasn't exactly a friend to poor people, so I personally don't trust his pledge to help Pakistan achieve real democracy.
The intervention with Zardari of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is said to have been important in moving the government toward compromise.
But it seems obvious that the Punjab police and judicial authorities more or less mutinied against the Federal government on Sunday, allowing Sharif to escape house arrest and to lead big protests and to set out for Islamabad. It reminded me of when the Iranian soldiers refused to fire on protesters rallying against the Shah in fall of 1978. That was a prelude to revolution.
Certainly the overturning of Musharraf's illegal dismissal of Chaudhry has an up side if it begins to undermine the edifice of arbitrary military dictatorship from which Pakistan has so often suffered. It would be more promising if Chaudhry had himself opposed that dictatorship before he was dismissed.
The crisis is not over. The Punjabi population resents Zardari's imposition of 'governor's rule" or a Federal take-over of the province, which has an elected provincial legislature in which the PMLN is the leading party. And, the Sharifs are not going to put up with being excluded from politics, and Zardari and his courts tried to do.
Those issues have to be resolved before the political situation can calm down. Moreover, Iftikhar Chaudhry is himself an iconoclast, and what if he indicts Musharraf or even Zardari? Or maybe Dick Cheney. If Chaudhry is worried about Pakistanis who were made to disappear without habeas corpus or formal legal proceedings, as part of a 'war on terror,' I have suggestions for perpetrators he should look into, who now live in Texas.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/16/2009 12:57:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Wow Juan, you almost sound like a Jiyala (a PPP die-hard) here. I find it pretty odd that you'd choose to downplay what in my view, and that of every Pakistani I know, is a major victory for the people (please don't tie it to Sharif).
Sharif was himself an extremely high-handed and dictatorial prime minister who violated press freedom and tried to move the country toward more Islamic law, and he wasn't exactly a friend to poor people
You are correct on all scores, except the bone you appear to be throwing to your Western audience as a mark of Sharif's ultimate evil: he "tried to move the country toward more Islamic law". Au contraire, it was Sharif who made decisions such as reversing ZA Bhutto's populist decision to change the public holiday to Friday. Sharif, the unsentimental neoliberal industrialist, changed it back to Sunday in order to bring it in line with world markets.
It would be more promising if Chaudhry had himself opposed that dictatorship before he was dismissed.
That I think is not only unfair, it is sheer nastiness. Yes, Chaudhry should never have signed on to the dictators court, but that does not obviate the fact that on such crucial matters as the disappearances of dissidents and the illegal privatization of major industries he challenged the dictator, and then refused to back down. He hasn't compromised since, and rejected inducements from the West including offers of a seat on the ICJ bench, and a chair at harvard.
I think your sympathies for the PPP are getting the best of your judgment here.
The massive protest march was driven not only by the demand for reinstatement of judges, but also the extreme pro-american governement that allows US predator drone aircraft to kill pakistanis. There are many issues in Pakistan that need to be resolved for the protests to end.
DICK Cheney lives in Wyoming, fyi.
Dear Professor Cole,
There is a movement in Pakistan that demands the rule of law. Pakistanis support this movement overwhelmingly. Most of them believe something important and interesting happened when the CJ stood up to the general. Most recognize that the movement is lead by folks who have betrayed the constitution in the past. Participation in the movement requires belief in new beginings for CJ and NS etc.
Then there are the detractors of this movement. They are usually supporters of the aristocracy that considers itself above the law. This crowd believes that there was nothing new or interesting about the actions of the CJ. They see the lawyer's movement as corruption as usual.
Which side are you on?
Forgive my ignorance, but do you see any of these people having the inclination or the potential strategy to shift power away from the military or intelligence service?
Is there anything the US administration can do to support the elements in Pakistan who would push for equal representation and human rights? Are those goals inconsistant with the US's military aims regarding the FATA and NWFP?
I'm also looking forward to your opinions regarding the suggestion that Khatami is dropping out of the campaign in Iran.
Thanks for the blog, Dr. Cole; it's always a good read. Good luck to your Wolverines in the tourney.
I think Nawaz Sharif's heavy-handed rule has two aspects that need to be explored. 1. Much of this heavy-handedness was actually his attempt to impose the prime minister's legitimate powers vis a vis the military and characterized as dictatorial by military propaganda. 2. His crackdown against the press, as well as, his imposition of Islamic law was done under a certain context where Nawaz Sharif, despite being "dictatorial" and having a 2/3rds majority in parliament had to constantly appease and repress certain segments of society in order to confine civil agitation. This is very similar to the sort of actions taken by the Pakistan People's Party when in power - they did not remove Shariah laws from the constitution and acted in similar ways towards journalists/opposition.
The point is if the political parties are confident about the length of their term and non-interference by the military, they would be less inclined to appease the agitating section (Islamic fundamentalists). If there is rule of law, they will not have the capacity to crackdown on opposition.
Nawaz Sharif has done things and said things that have irrevocably changed the political landscape of this country. He may not sincerely believe in them but he has inculcated the rule of law and the democratic process as norms of society.
Post a Comment
<< Home