It appears as if the executive is now positioned against a largely democratic section of society comprising Musharraf era victims, lawyers, judges. The last time something like this happened was in 2007 and it didn’t end well for Pakistan, writes Omer Azhar Bhatti.
If anything, the military-judicial nexus in Pakistan has hindered democracy in the past vis-à-vis doctrine of necessity used to justify coups in 1999 and 1954. The week and the month that have gone by are unprecedented. Never before in the history of this country had the Armed forces gone through a severe tussle ending on the receiving end. Parvez Musharraf has been sentenced to death by a special court while the apex court barely gave a 6 month extension to Chief of Army Staff in a landmark judgement declaring the extension method illegal. In Pakistan, the only thing that really is permanent is change.
It is clear that the forces have come out all guns blazing evidenced by DG ISPR labeling the verdict inhumane and dastardly. The top brass of the establishment have decided to take a bold stance and protect one of their own-almost a bid to save an ex General from a civilian court judgement. The forces have conflated Musharraf with the institution and vice-versa.
A corollary of that is square one: Pakistan’s institutions have collided with each other yet again. Circa, 2007 (Lawyers movement against Musharraf), 2017 (Panama case-Executive vs Miltablishment) and the list goes on. The posturing and positioning by the forces have brought them on a direct path to clash with special court verdict, case in point the anguish and anger felt by the forces over the decision.
It seems that the Pindi-based institution have decided to flex their muscle to advance political space and shape public discourse against the decision. From the Pindi perspective, there were three options.
The last resort option was use force to clamp down on the judgement i.e. coup, impose emergency etc. But in a complex economic situation with ever increasing security threat on the Indian border and an overburdened institution, the military would not risk massive havoc to save an ex-general. This would be in direct contravention of the Bajwa doctrine which aims to solidify democracy in Pakistan, (even if superficially). Second option was to actually do the right thing which would be to regard the decision, not do an over-zealously emotional press conference and allow Musharraf to fight his legal battles.
This would ensure the institution remains highly neutral (ironically) and avoid confrontation with a judicial court. Third option was to take the decision head on, fight it publicly and declare Musharraf one of their own. Having resorted to this, the implications have been largely negative and shall continue to do so.
The armed forces have now publicly declared themselves party to judicial matter between Musharraf and the court which has brought out members of the civil society, journalists and political opponents in support of the court’s decision. The logical and legal flaws undermining the narrative that a patriot cannot be a traitor has further strengthened those on the court/judgement’s side. After all, Musharraf’s participation in the 1971 and Kargil war doesn’t justify his act of abrogating the constitution.
It appears as if the establishment is now positioned against a largely democratic section of society comprising Musharraf era victims, lawyers, judges. The last time something like this happened was in 2007 and it didn’t end well for Pakistan. Another round of clash between the above mentioned line ups will be futile for one of these sides.
The clash could be in the form of Supreme Court upholding the death sentence or could be excessive opposition to the institutional voices for Musharraf’s verdict. Imagine Bilawal out on the streets and Parliament hallways calling for an end to public pressure against the verdict.
The eventuality of either is debatable but foreseeable. The following days shall tell. The only thing we know is if you poke the bear long enough, it will eventually attack you (possibility of the boys’ using the last resort.)
In the midst of this, the PTI government’s hypocrisy over Musharraf is crystal clear because Imran Khan was the first one to declare Musharraf a traitor but his government is now scrambling to save the dictator. Perhaps, it is true for Pakistan: the only thing that really is permanent is change.
If anything, the military-judicial nexus in Pakistan has hindered democracy in the past vis-à-vis doctrine of necessity used to justify coups in 1999 and 1954. The week and the month that have gone by are unprecedented. Never before in the history of this country had the Armed forces gone through a severe tussle ending on the receiving end. Parvez Musharraf has been sentenced to death by a special court while the apex court barely gave a 6 month extension to Chief of Army Staff in a landmark judgement declaring the extension method illegal. In Pakistan, the only thing that really is permanent is change.
It is clear that the forces have come out all guns blazing evidenced by DG ISPR labeling the verdict inhumane and dastardly. The top brass of the establishment have decided to take a bold stance and protect one of their own-almost a bid to save an ex General from a civilian court judgement. The forces have conflated Musharraf with the institution and vice-versa.
A corollary of that is square one: Pakistan’s institutions have collided with each other yet again. Circa, 2007 (Lawyers movement against Musharraf), 2017 (Panama case-Executive vs Miltablishment) and the list goes on. The posturing and positioning by the forces have brought them on a direct path to clash with special court verdict, case in point the anguish and anger felt by the forces over the decision.
It seems that the Pindi-based institution have decided to flex their muscle to advance political space and shape public discourse against the decision. From the Pindi perspective, there were three options.
The last resort option was use force to clamp down on the judgement i.e. coup, impose emergency etc. But in a complex economic situation with ever increasing security threat on the Indian border and an overburdened institution, the military would not risk massive havoc to save an ex-general. This would be in direct contravention of the Bajwa doctrine which aims to solidify democracy in Pakistan, (even if superficially). Second option was to actually do the right thing which would be to regard the decision, not do an over-zealously emotional press conference and allow Musharraf to fight his legal battles.
This would ensure the institution remains highly neutral (ironically) and avoid confrontation with a judicial court. Third option was to take the decision head on, fight it publicly and declare Musharraf one of their own. Having resorted to this, the implications have been largely negative and shall continue to do so.
The armed forces have now publicly declared themselves party to judicial matter between Musharraf and the court which has brought out members of the civil society, journalists and political opponents in support of the court’s decision. The logical and legal flaws undermining the narrative that a patriot cannot be a traitor has further strengthened those on the court/judgement’s side. After all, Musharraf’s participation in the 1971 and Kargil war doesn’t justify his act of abrogating the constitution.
It appears as if the establishment is now positioned against a largely democratic section of society comprising Musharraf era victims, lawyers, judges. The last time something like this happened was in 2007 and it didn’t end well for Pakistan. Another round of clash between the above mentioned line ups will be futile for one of these sides.
The clash could be in the form of Supreme Court upholding the death sentence or could be excessive opposition to the institutional voices for Musharraf’s verdict. Imagine Bilawal out on the streets and Parliament hallways calling for an end to public pressure against the verdict.
The eventuality of either is debatable but foreseeable. The following days shall tell. The only thing we know is if you poke the bear long enough, it will eventually attack you (possibility of the boys’ using the last resort.)
In the midst of this, the PTI government’s hypocrisy over Musharraf is crystal clear because Imran Khan was the first one to declare Musharraf a traitor but his government is now scrambling to save the dictator. Perhaps, it is true for Pakistan: the only thing that really is permanent is change.