Nothing comes in the way of Musharraf's political survival. Not least the rule of law.
The actual story is simple. A military dictator wanted to get rid of a judge who began to take his duties a little too seriously. But this story is set in Gen Musharraf's Pakistan, so a whole lot of farce masquerading as constitutional propriety is in order. The manner in which Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan until last Friday, was rendered "non-functional" has thrown the Pakistani legal fraternity, political establishment and news media into a frenzy of activity. The chances are, all this will be to little effect.
The facts are plain enough. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was summoned to Musharraf's "camp office" in Army House, where he was presented with a list of charges and asked to resign. The judge refused, despite being held there for five hours without being allowed to make phone calls. Musharraf then activated his plan B. This involved him, by virtue of his being president, making a reference to the Supreme Judicial Council---a body of senior judges---requiring it to conduct a hearing on the charges against the chief justice. Interestingly a new acting chief justice was appointed and quickly sworn in by a brother judge.
Meanwhile, not only was Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry prevented from returning to the Supreme Court building, but is being held under virtual house arrest at his official residence---no phone calls, and no visitors. The Supreme Judicial Council is to hear his case on March 13th. No one knows what the charges are, for the contents of the reference are secret. But don't hold your breath on what the Supreme Judicial Council will decide.
As an aside, despite the fate of his predecessors and the sombreness of the situation, Justice Javed Iqbal, the newly appointed acting chief justice was reported to have left the chamber 'beaming' after being sworn in.
So what should one make of all this? Well, that Musharraf does not allow anything to get in the way of his own political survival. Pakistani constitutions can be abridged by doctrines of necessity and amended by legal framework orders. Outspoken political leaders can be thrown into prison for speaking out against the army. Rebellious local leaders can be bumped off. And uppity constitutional officials can be sacked at will (or whim). After all this is the man who mounted a coup in order to save his skin.
So what makes the Indian government so sure that Gen Musharraf will keep his end of bargains that he is only half-making?
Your subtitle will likely prove true in a way you did not expect, based on the reports I'm hearing re: affairs in Pakistan and especially its frontier provinces - where al Qaeda is now the law and Pakistan's military will not move against them.
There are a number of analysts in the intel community who see the end of Musharraf as just a matter of time - "that ship has already sailed" is not a comforting message.
Given the situation, it's a bit difficult to get overly worked up about this.
Joe,
Given the situation, it's a bit difficult to get overly worked up about this.Oh yes. As I wrote, all the hullabaloo will die out in a couple of weeks.
What bothers me is the status of the various bargains Musharraf has made (or rather not yet made) with India, and to a lesser extent, with the United States. Let me hazard a prediction: that Musharraf's successor will be as much a Musharraf as Musharraf himself (in that he'll be the only hope against nuclear terrorism and what not). The difference is that he is likely to repudiate his predecessor's deals, and we will be back to square minus ten.
And I forgot to mention,
Musharraf himself will repudiate those deals if they endanger his political survival.
We (that part of the West that's awake) will count ourselves lucky to be only at square -10 with the next, or the re-invented, Musharraf.
Or will the new new President be a creature of the ISI, or any of the numerous Kashmir- or Afghanistan- focused jihadi groups allied with al-Qaeda? And if so, what then?
Wherever the post-nonproliferation world is going, Pakistan is getting there first. Not a comforting thought for India, Afghanistan, or the U.S.
Or Pakistanis, for that matter.
I do not see Musharraf's successor as being a whole lot like him.
Though many in the West will prefer to pretend that this is so, rather than confront the alternative. Most of them will call themselves "foreign policy realists," in their typically bad genre of twisted humour.
Musharraf is a problem, but we need to remember that a nominal ally is still better than a blood enemy. If we recognize that Musharraf and his cadre are ultimately totally self-interested (not to mention ruthless), we should get along well enough. Its when we start expecting him to be the next Tony Blair that we get in trouble. Heck, we can't even keep Canada and France from knifing us when they get the chance, why would we expect Pakistan to be a bosum friend?
Its important to understand the internal workings of Pakistan to understand Musharraf's dilemna. If Musharraf were to be assassinated, it would be very unlikely that Islamic radicals would assume power without a nasty fight with the military and a good chunk of the Punjabi tribe, who have the numbers and the guns. The military in Pakistan has always been led by the British influenced Punjabs who are far more educated and 'westernized' than the average.
The spread of nuclear technology and support of the Taliban pre-911 needs to be understood to be incidental as opposed to idealogical. That is the key to understanding Pakistan. So long as we combine the carrot and the stick correctly we can expect a certain amount of support from the military realists that run and will run the nation. BUT when we make demands of them that outweigh any benefit we can offer or punishment we threaten, we have to recognize it will go unfufilled, and it does us little good to gripe about it. Its just a fact.
When Musharraf sent troops into the tribal regions last year, he lost more troops in 4 weeks than we have in 4 years in Iraq. Pakistanis see us eyeballing the exits in Iraq, how exactly can we convince them its their 'duty' to bleed their army in Waziristan? Eyeballs are rolling all over Southwest Asia.
What Musharraf has done with his withdrawal is hand us the opportunity to handle the region ourselves without any more than token complaint. And again- its going to be a tough sell for us to claim we want no part of inserting troops (special forces raids strictly if we're smart) into the region while expecting Pakistan to bleed thousands more troops trying to pacify a region that has never been more than a nominal province to begin with.
This isnt a defense of Musharraf, its an appeal to recognizing the reality of what we have rather than how thing 'should' be in a just and orderly world.
Do check out this post and the TWQ article it refers to.
The problem portrayed here is Pakistan, but similar ones, though not so acute, may arise in Egypt or Morocco. The evolution of the political systems in the Muslim world often leads towards disaster (now its second version: Nuclear Disaster) and I think realpolitik foreign officers aggravate this situation not tackling the root of the problem, as the U.S. is doing (succesfully or not, but at least doing it) in Irak, but underpining such regimes until they ultimatelly collapse.