By Humayun Gauhar
Everyone realised that things were very serious when President Musharraf cancelled his visit to the Beijing Olympics. He would not let our only true friend down easily. The double-edged Chinese saying, "May you live in interesting times" can be a curse and a blessing. In our case it is a curse most vile, which is even affecting China now. There's never a dull moment here. No wonder I get bored so quickly when I'm abroad.
Wasn't it amusing to see Asif Zardari sitting next to the guy who had really done him in, taking the name of the president with such venom that it seemed that he might bust a gasket? Let's get things in perspective. To try and impeach the president is their constitutional right. But it's strictly a numbers game and has to be done exactly according to the procedure laid down in Article 47 of the constitution. The president can be removed or impeached only on three grounds: ""¦physical or mental incapacity"; "violating the constitution" or ""¦gross misconduct". This can only be done when, "Not less than half of the total membership of either house"¦may give to the Speaker National Assembly or"¦the Senate chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of or"¦to impeach, the president; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charge against him." If the notice goes to the Senate chairman, "he shall transmit it forthwith to the speaker" who shall, ""¦within three days" of receiving it "cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the president"¦The speaker shall summon the two houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after receipt of the notice by him."
Now comes the possible copout and confusion. "The joint sitting 'may' investigate or cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded." [emphasis added]. "The president shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation, "if any", and before the joint sitting." [Emphasis added]. Unless this is poor language, the words "and be represented" could only mean that whether he chooses to be represented or not, the president has to appear himself if he wishes to give his point of view. Otherwise it would have been, "'or' be represented." And the words "if any" means parliament may choose to vote and not "cause to be investigated" the ground or charge, which goes against due process as it removes the president's "right to appear and be represented during the investigation." It couldn't be a mistake, because the words "if any" appear again. "If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, "if any", a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the 'total' membership of [parliament] declaring that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution." [emphasis added].
Any result or any investigation? It doesn't say two-thirds of the members 'present' but two-thirds of the 'total' membership regardless of how many members are present. What happens if a significant number of members from either side are not present? They still have to reach the magic 295 number to succeed, and the fewer the members present the more difficult it will be. And "cause to be investigated" how? Obviously through a bipartisan parliamentary committee in which an issue can drag on for long if the actual intention is to only create the optics. Plus the impeachers must build a credible case that can be proved under intense scrutiny. When you're about to change the course of history, you don't treat it like a media circus.
How did this happen? The coalition had reached flashpoint. Sharif was in a bind. Remaining in without the deposed judges being restored had become untenable. Getting out would force Zardari to replace him with Musharraf's Q-League. He would lose his Punjab government too. The new coalition would have support that matters. In five years they could cook his goose. By over-committing himself on an issue that he couldn't sell to Zardari, Sharif had painted himself into a corner. To abandon the deposed judges now would be tantamount to another political suicide. How to abandon them without losing credibility? Simple. Shift the focus from the judges to the president. Argument: remove Musharraf first "since he won't let them be reinstated while he is there".
No problem, since Sharif's real and only purpose is revenge. First he tried to do it indirectly through the judges. Now he could get Musharraf directly through impeachment. It was probably Zardari's brainchild anyhow. He was cornered too. If he joined Q his vote bank would also erode woefully as would his hold on a party in turmoil. His voters would say, "We voted you in to get these people out, not to bring them back in again." Best to keep Nawaz in by helping him save face.
Scepticism about Zardari's intentions is based on his earlier trashing of the Bhurban Declaration and now the side-track of the provincial assemblies passing resolutions that the president take another "vote of confidence" on the spurious grounds that they are part of his electoral college. But it's not part of the constitutional procedure and its only procedure that matters. Is this a decoy to fool Sharif into not leaving? Are they buying time to buy numbers or to build a strong case because they feel they have a technically weak one? Is it to give the president time to exit so that they can avoid impeachment to avoid the possibility that he might win and get stronger? Problem is that when you buy yourself time you also give time to the other guy to gather his forces. Added bonus: it keeps minds away from the real issues.
Can impeachment fly? The president cannot be removed for physical or mental incapacity, so that's out. As to gross misconduct, that's a value judgement. There is no Watergate or Lewinsky affair here. Violating the constitution? The October 12, 1999, countercoup has been legitimised by the Supreme Court and parliament through the 17th Amendment, while the November 3, 2007, emergency has also been legitimised by the Supreme Court. Like it or not, that's how it is. As to the morality argument, it only comes into amoral politics when you've lost the constitutional argument.
What are the numbers? According to this newspaper, which is not famous for being pro-Musharraf, the impeachers lack 16 votes. This is where the many independents and tribal FATAs come into play. Who will woo them to their side is the question. Their market value must have shot off the charts. The impeachers will also try to woo the disgruntled Q-League members. Conversely, Musharraf will also try to woo them all and disgruntled PPP-P members too. The sore Amin Fahim is not one vote but 30 to 40. If he supports Musharraf, impeachment will fail. Logic dictates though that Zardari would never have gone for Sharif's zero sum game unless he had made absolutely certain that he had the numbers. But you never know. He might be posturing again, to get Nawaz off the hook and save his coalition. Whatever, the three have gone from zero sum game to end game now. Worse, Pakistan could have entered the end game too. Someone and something have to get burned. The stance of the army and the perceived position of America will be crucial in swaying loyalties.
Giving up without a fight is not in the president's nature; he has said that he will fight back, but constitutionally. He will not dissolve the National Assembly through Article 58-2(B) if he thinks he is going to win. It will be difficult to make dissolution credible. Rescinding the NRO that has let Zardari in or rescinding Sharif's conditional pardon that let him out will look like desperate ploys. All this may work after Musharraf wins, not now. His best option is to go for it and win. If he does win, he's a big player again. If he loses"¦"Nothing is permanent," he once told me. If the president is sure of his numbers he should insist that the process be expedited so that we're done with it and can keep moving backwards. If he doesn't have the numbers, then he is in a bind �" 2(B) or not 2(B), that is the question. 2(B) and you've had it; not 2(B) and you've had it. The president is the best judge of what is the best course for Pakistan and only for Pakistan.
If Musharraf goes Sharif could be the eventual winner, Zardari the big loser. Q will vanish. PML will reunite. With the common binding enemy gone and the PML reunited, Sharif could force early elections. The PML juggernaut will flatten the PPP. Either way, the government will no longer have Musharraf as their excuse for failure. Its writ won't run anywhere, as it doesn't now. The economy will collapse for lack of confidence and expertise. The extremists will gain. Eventually, another political failure will force the army to intervene again, whether it likes it or not. We have to keep 'saving' democracy after all, don't we?
The writer is a senior political and economic analyst
Need I say more? Read this:
President Pervez Musharraf has been dealt his latest and most serious blow with the accusation from the leader of the ruling party that he misappropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid given for supporting the war on terror. PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari made the charge in an interview with The Sunday Times.
This allegation would be credible if made by anyone but Mr 10% himself, the prime beneficiary of NRO or by Brothers Sharipov (whose friends paid up $340 million of the loan he defaulted on in a London Court - just one case off the top.)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=16537
Even an unborned child in Pakistan knows the fame attached with the name of Asif Ali Zardari. He has been certified by most eminent historians and analysts as one of the most important factors for the fall of his wife's government. Most of the corruption charges during the two tenures involved Zardari. Not only Asif, but his father, Hakim Ali Zardari has been famously notorious for a long time and had been convicted on numerous occasions. The title of Mr. 10% and more-than-rumors of his involvement in the murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and now even in that of Benazir Bhutto are well known across the country. Describing Asif Ali Zardari in one word is a tough ask. Is Zardari a politician or a criminal? The latter is by far the more popularly accurate description. The tags of drug trafficking, BMW cars, murder, Switzerland accounts and money laundering are all different aspects of this character.
The question is whether the words of such a person is credible enough? Should the nation believe in what is said by the man who has been washed off his sins by a controversial ordinance (which BTW, was issued legitimised BECAUSE of the Nov. 3 emergency)? Are we really ready to have Zardari as the next president???
Can we forgive Zardari just because he can say (without proof) that Musharraf has misused the US aid?
On the other hand, the calls for a trial and jailing of Musharraf by Nawaz Sharif also deems an explication in detail. How can a person who couldn't stand to live in the jail for a few days, after being convicted by the court in the airplane conspiracy case, say that someone else should be jailed? Nawaz used all his influence to get out of Pakistan and live in a royal exile and this is historical fact now verified by all parties involved in the agreement. Why doesn't the same logic of exile apply to any other Pakistani (including Musharraf)? Does the years of exile in Saudi Arabia exonerate Sharif of his heinous political sins and acts?
I would like to see Musharraf going to trial and the case dealt with impartially but never at the call and wish of corrupt morons like Zardari and Sharif. Zardari, the Godfather?
Today, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari announced that "he would decide when the judges sacked on November 3, 2007 would be reinstated." Interesting, coming from a man who isn't an elected member of Parliament, but who still calls the shots. I couldn't help but be reminded of the iconic 70's film, The Godfather. Granted, Zardari is not the Don of an Italian family in New York [see images]. Instead, he's the leader of the majority party in Pakistan. However, their modus operandi is eerily similar. Just like Vito Corleone ran the show for his family, Zardari "” at least according to the Pakistani media "” often overshadows members of his party who were actually elected to power - including Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani.
The Daily Times reported, "Talking to senior journalists and columnists at Punjab Governor's House, he said the judicial crisis was one of the major problems Pakistan was facing and that no one could assess the situation better than he could." Dawn newspaper reported that in his statements, Zardari "downplayed" the recent Long March, asserting, "We know what to call a long march. We know when to call a long march. We know how to conduct a long march. And when the People's Party calls a long march, then Pakistan will see what a long march really is." Nevertheless, he asserted the government's commitment to restoring the judges in a "legal and constitutional manner," which was further emphasized when they paid the deposed judges their salaries for the last seven months. It would be interesting to see if the PPP's package to reinstate the judges could be an offer the Parliament can't refuse.
At the same news conference, Zardari also made several references to the fate of President Pervez Musharraf. According to The News, he emphasized that "the day is not far away when the PPP would induct a man of its own choice in the presidency." He added that the party "would soon bring a president of its own as it has done in the case of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer." Although both Dawn and The News noted Zardari's emphasis on the central role the PPP would play in choosing a new president, an article in the Daily Times quoted him saying, "All ruling coalition parties will be consulted regarding the nomination of [the] future president."
The role of Zardari in the current government is not surprising given the prevalence of personality politics in the country. This dynamic generally results in the rise of charismatic political figures, often at the expense of party politics. Although this may be a political reality in many countries, the case of Zardari is particularly interesting because of his constant references to "democracy," and his polarized depictions of "anti-democratic forces" versus the democratic process. Today, for instance, he emphasized, "We will follow her [Benazir] and take revenge from anti-democratic forces through democracy." The fact that Zardari, unelected but unofficially leading the country, can make such statements, is ironic.
Impeachment of Musharraf : Nawaz Sharif's Personal Vendetta?By Sameer Shaharyar "¢ Aug 12th, 2008
The News carried out a survey, according to which 70% of Pakistanis pointed their fingers at the General (r) Pervez Musharraf for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the two time Prime Minister of Pakistan last year in Rawalpindi. That is one of the point in the charge sheet leveled against President Musharraf by the ruling coalition. Other charges on Musharraf include that he carried out a needless murderous operation in the Lal Masjid and he killed Nawab Akbar Bugti in Balochistan and hence weakened the federation.
Just keep these charges and General (r) Musharraf could be executed by any court in the world and none of the above mentioned charge has anything to do with Nawaz Sharif. That, and the impression by General (r) Musharraf that Nawaz Sharif is exploiting Asif Ali Zardari against him is as absurd and ridiculous as anything. Nawaz Sharif us undoubtedly has played a major role in shattering the specter of Pervez Musharraf, but Zardari has always been there against Musharraf but he was tied up by the deal brokered by United States with his late spouse, and now as United States has let go of its support to the tinpot dictator, Zardari is also hastening to butcher out Musharraf.
Musharraf and Shujaat have seen now that their sun is setting for now, and they want to make room for themselves. Their only chance comes by creating fissures among the coalition government, and this new statement that PML-N is dictating PPP is yet another attempt by them to create rifts between the partners. But PDA partners have smelt the blood and they are lurching and leaping towards the prey.
|