The Rise of "˜Resistance' in Pakistan 

The Judges who have taken oath under the PCO are accomplices of Musharraf in subverting the Constitution. A legal hiatus would persist until the Judges who refused to take oath under the PCO are restored.  Promise of elections that would bring the "˜queen of looters' to power is no solution. The people want to be rid of Musharraf. Those who co-operate with him are seen as "˜collaborators' "“ targets of the 'esistance'.   

By Usman Khalid

I have been saying for months - ever since Musharraf said he wants to be President for another five years "“ if Musharraf is President after 15 November, the war for the liberation of Afghanistan would be fought on the soil of Pakistan . I say so because the people of Pakistan have great faith in and respect for the 'ule of law'. The political class "“ a group of no more than about 1200 "“ had legitimacy in power as long as it obeyed the 'ule of law'. When looters and thugs came to dominant, the people lost trust in it. When it could not find a credible man or woman from its own ranks to put in the shop window, it puts a military man in front to take the flak. There might have been some doubt as to why "˜military rule' returns so often and lasts so long despite it having been declared "˜high treason' in the Constitution. But there is no doubt left after eight years of Musharraf rule. In Pakistan , "˜legitimacy' can be obtained either through elections or by a verdict of the Supreme Court. General Musharraf got the endorsement for his first three years in power from the Supreme Court, the next five years from the parliament, and he wanted another five years from both. The tired trick does not appear to be working this time.

          The authority of the Supreme Court that gave Musharraf three years of absolute rule had been compromised as it only had judges who had taken oath under his PCO (Provisional Constitution Order). The authority of the parliament that gave him five more years as President was also dubious because civil and military officials operated openly to bring into being a "˜kings party' known as PML(Q). Even then, a majority in the parliament could only be obtained with the help of floor crossers intimidated by threat of prosecution for "˜financial crimes' for which they had been indicted. On both occasions, it was obvious that the "˜legitimacy' of Musharraf was hollow; it was derived from machinations not public endorsement. The US support to Musharraf and a faster rate of economic development were the palliatives that prevented violent public protests. In any case, people living so close to the edge for so long are reluctant to rock the boat. Musharraf survived because the end of the nightmare that his rule has been, always appeared near.

During the eight years of Musharraf rule, Pakistanis have been exposed to the world much more than ever before. American and British Satellite Channels were supplemented by English language broadcasters from many other countries and companies from all over the world. The 'ule of law lobby' that was always formidable in Pakistan , acquired a global instrument that forced it to rise to international standards of quality to be effective. Alarmed by the rapid rise in the quality of political discourse on TV, particularly on English language Indian TV channels that had been permitted to air their programmes in Pakistan to advance his "˜secret agenda', Musharraf allowed several Urdu language channels to operate. These were not of the same standard as the English language channels but they were infinitely better than the vernacular print media. For the first time, media became a force more powerful than the "˜political class' that had dominated the political scene in yesteryears.

Economic globalisation has depended upon and has been reinforced by media globalisation. And both aspects of globalisation depend on the 'ule of law' even to survive, the 'ule of law' in Third World countries has become the self interest of USA and UK . The 'ule of law' that could be so easily neglected in Third World countries cannot be sidelined because "˜national decisions' impact on the operations and the profits on multi-national companies. Therefore, along with the national media, there has been a rise in the authority and confidence of the national Judiciary. The media and the judiciary have become powerful enough, even in Pakistan , to challenge the false legitimacy obtained by trickery and coercion by General Musharraf. His attempt to get himself elected from the product of 'igged elections' of 2002 for the second time, while a serving soldier in uniform, when the opposition resigned en bloc rather than put up a candidate to give legitimacy to the farce, was not something the media or the judges could endorse. In an effort to repeat 2002 mockery of democracy and rule of law he promulgated another PCO, once again sacked the judges who would not take oath under the PCO, and ordered all news channels "“ national as well international - to go off air. In this, he had the support of the USA .

The USA itself is not a model of democracy or rule of law any more. The rise in the power of the media and the judiciary in much of Asia has been accompanied by the erosion of legitimacy of the rulers in the UK and USA that have been considered the flag bearers of democracy and 'ule of law'. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without the endorsement of the UN Security Council, in which the West has three out of five permanent seats, has clearly shown they have little respect for international law. Such disdain for the 'ule of law' in the USA and UK has given legitimacy to 'esistance' in the countries they invaded and now occupy. All those countries where the ruler is seen by the people as an American puppet, 'esistance' has emerged to the rule of "˜collaborators'. Musharraf is seen as "˜collaborator' and endorsement of his PCO by the USA is seen as further evidence of the two acting as cohorts. The existence of political opposition has been the acid test of democracy. That is not a valid test any more. We are living in revolutionary times where the existence of 'esistance' "“ more or less - is the test of democratic credentials of a state whose ruler is seen "“ more or less "“ to be an American puppet.

 When I warned that the war for the liberation of Afghanistan will be fought on the soil of Pakistan , it was because I saw that General Musharraf had neutralised political opposition so easily that there was no prospect of the people relying on any set of politicians to resist him.  In the American scheme of things, Benazir was to reinforce the routed army of Musharraf.  She has already discovered that Musharraf has no political support that she can reinforce. A part of the Kings Party is in revolt and the other part is pitched against Benazir in desperate attempt to survive. The latter part is led by the Chaudhries and it depends on the Punjab Police as its armed political cadre. The MQM in Karachi and Sindh has armed cadres as well. The Baluchi insurgents are being funded by the USA and UK and armed by India . In this scenario, only two forces are, more or less, are on the side of the people. One is the over flow of "˜Taliban' in NWFP and North Baluchistan and the other is the Pakistan Army. The latter would have authority during the short period after Musharraf hands over command of the Army, and his successor act to "˜wrest control'. If he is unable to act to restore constitutional rule, the 'esistance' alone would have legitimacy in Pakistan .

What do I mean by "˜wrest control'? It includes two things: 1) restore the judges who refused to take oath under the PCO; 2) arrest Musharraf for his crime against the Constitution and allow the constitution to operate with advice and direction from the Supreme Court in case of doubt.  

What do I mean by 'esistance' alone would have legitimacy'? The insurgents are already armed; the two king's parties "“ PML (Q) and MQM "“ also depend on armed cadres. If the Army remains paralysed by the contradictory pulls from America and the national interest, the people would eventually come out on the streets. They would not be coming out on the call of politicians who depend on them for power; they will use their power for themselves, to loot and plunder to fill their bellies and of their children. The 'obust self confidence' of Musharraf for the "˜third stage of transition' (a new euphemism for remaining in power despite total rejection by the people) is now very annoying. He is acting the role of Emperor Nero while the country burns