The lost half of a decade

S Iftikhar Murshed Sunday, February 17, 2013

The ruling coalition in Pakistan ceaselessly brags that it is the first "democratically elected" government that will be completing its term. As the curtain rings down on its five-year tenure, it expects the world to applaud. Providence has been kind to the PPP-led dispensation, which has escaped being scorched by the vicious fires that it has been largely responsible for igniting. Three interlocking reasons are immediately identifiable for its survival.

The first, and most important, is the decision of the military establishment to stand aloof from the foibles of the inept and corrupt civilian government. The chief of the army staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, adopted a policy of ‘splendid isolation’, a concept that was crafted by Benjamin Disraeli and the Marquis of Salisbury in respect of 19th century Europe. In the context of Pakistani politics, Kayani, a realist par excellence, understood only too well that there was no alternative to a hands-off approach.

The people of Pakistan had had enough of military rule and yearned for a civilian dispensation. Bitter memories of the past come stealing into the mind like a dreaded phantom. It seems only the other day when, on October 7, 1958, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the 1956 constitution – which had taken nine years to be drafted – and imposed martial law.

His justification was: “It is said that the constitution is sacred, but more sacred is the country and welfare and happiness of the people.” It is strangely ironical that a day after the Supreme Court, under Justice Muhammad Munir, validated Iskander Mirza’s action citing the doctrine of necessity in its verdict on the Dosso case, he was ousted and sent into exile by Gen Ayub Khan.

Nineteen years later, after toppling the Bhutto government on July 5, 1977, Gen Ziaul Haq declared: “The constitution is just a scrap of paper which can be thrown in the dustbin at any time.” Three decades on, nothing had changed. On November 3, 2007, the chief of the army staff and president, Pervez Musharraf, imposed emergency, suspended the 1973 Constitution and issued the Provisional Constitutional Order. With insufferable self-assurance he proclaimed: “The country is more important than the constitution or democracy.”

These men, mounted on sturdy stallions, thought themselves the saviours of the country. Yet they had all pledged: “I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the constitution...I will not engage myself in any political activities...” Gen Kayani, however, was not contaminated by the messiah complex that had infected his predecessors.

He reckoned correctly that military intervention, under any pretext, would have resulted in Pakistan being quarantined and isolated as a pariah state. This would have had terrible consequences for the country, which is heavily dependent on external assistance. Gen Kayani readily concedes that the core ingredient for national security is a robust economy. On April 18 last year he told the media: “You cannot be spending on defence alone and forgetting about development.” In a perverse sense, the incompetent ruling coalition, by rendering the country hugely reliant on foreign aid, has unwittingly ensured that there will be no military takeover!

The second reason for the survival of the PPP-led government is the decision of the Supreme Court to never again validate any abrogation of, or deviation from, the constitution. Yet the track record of the judiciary has not been entirely aboveboard. Besides the controversial judgement in the Dosso case, some of the other decisions of the apex court show that, in the past, it has been influenced by extraneous factors.

In the Maulvi Tamizuddin case in 1955, for instance, the Federal Court under Justice Munir upheld the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly. In the Asma Jilani case of 1972, the Supreme Court declared Yahya Khan a usurper, though barely three years earlier, it had validated his assumption of power. Some of the same judges later endorsed Ziaul Haq’s coup, and subsequently sent the ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the gallows.

Similarly, Musharraf’s toppling of the Nawaz Sharif government was rubberstamped by the Supreme Court which included the present chief justice. Later, the court validated the 17th Amendment of December 2003 which confirmed Musharraf as president and allowed him to continue as army chief.

After six tumultuous decades, the judiciary has finally come into its own. The process started with Musharraf’s sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on March 9, 2007. This set in motion an unprecedented tidal wave of popular support for the ousted chief justice and resulted in his reinstatement by a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday on July 20, 2007.

But the high drama continued. Emergency was imposed by Musharraf and judges who refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order of November 3, 2007, which included the chief justice and Ramday, were ousted and placed under virtual house arrest. Thus, in a mere eight months, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had been treacherously dismissed twice by an army dictator.

This convinced him after he was reinstated for a second time to never validate any ‘constitutional deviation’ again. Thus, on July 31, 2009, a 14-member bench of the Supreme Court declared the November 2007 emergency “unconstitutional, unauthorised and without any legal basis...” The immediate reaction of the Presidency was that the judgement was “a triumph for democratic principles, a stinging negation of dictatorship and is most welcome.”

Several months ago, Justice Ramday said that the new-found independence of the judiciary is derived entirely from popular support. “The courts,” he added, “are not equipped with tanks, guns and fighter planes. Their strength lies in the people... if anybody plays around with the judiciary the people will not accept it. Military coups are no longer possible and the government should therefore be able to complete its term. The rest depends on the internal political dynamics of the country within the parameters of the constitution.”

Here again the ruling coalition was singularly fortunate because the main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who heads his own faction of the Muslim League, had also been humiliatingly ousted by the military. He was, therefore, as determined as the chief justice not to allow the derailment of the elected government. In the process Sharif’s reputation, perhaps unfairly, was tarnished as the leader of the ‘friendly opposition’. This restraint was the last of the three interlocking factors that has enabled the ruling coalition to muddle through its inglorious innings.

In this period, the currency has plummeted to an all-time low of Rs100 to the dollar. As of January 31 foreign exchange reserves stood at $8.7 billion – way below the minimum level of $10 billion recommended by the IMF. In addition, the country has to repay the IMF $3.4 billion in 2012-13, $3.43 billion in 2013-14 and $1.35 billion in 2014-15.

The desperate economic situation has impacted on ordinary people, who measure time by throbs of pain and anguish. Loadshedding, and consequently burgeoning unemployment, accompanied by spiralling inflation, have taken their toll. Last month, 45-year-old Muhammad Qasim of Faisalabad shot his wife and five children in their sleep and then killed himself after losing his job because of the power crisis. On average, three such heart-rending tragedies occur every single day.

For the last 65 years, Pakistan has limped on from crisis to crisis. On Wednesday the Supreme Court snuffed out an attempt by Tahirul Qadri, the self-righteous leader of the Tehreek-e-Minhajul-Quran, to replace the existing Election Commission of Pakistan with a new one. Had his petition not been rejected, it could have resulted in the postponement of the coming elections. It is not possible to predict what will happen in the weeks ahead.

The only certainty is that the government will continue to project the completion of its five-year term as a triumph for democracy. But these years have been shameful and are, undoubtedly, the lost half-decade in the country’s history.

The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly. Email: iftimurshed @gmail.com

Democracy or Bust

By: Khurshid Akhtar Khan | February 17, 2013

Democracy has been portrayed by our politicians as the cure for all evils. Nothing could be more fallacious than this. Democracy is just a system of governance of which parliamentary democracy is one form, inherited by us from the British Raj. On its own, it does not offer the solution for anything. To get results, it has to be coupled with good governance administered by competent men and women, chosen through the process of elections by politically aware and free thinking electorate. If people fail to elect the right people - democracy fails.
We have seen many systems come and go in our country. Four military coups introduced systems that initially transferred the command to army personnel over the civilians.  The induction of army officers could not be sustainable for longer periods and had to be stopped after brief spells. Most of the lower rank army personnel were gradually withdrawn barring the key positions. Soon, public representation through elections became inevitable and some kind of democratic system had to be put in place.
The military-backed controlled democracies resulted in better infrastructural development, order and prosperity. The downsides were, however, starker, as we lost half of the country, religious extremism soared and the attempt at creating national harmony utterly failed. Each experiment was eventually followed by civilian democracy. The realisation has finally sunk into all segments of society that free and fair democratic form of government envisaged by our founding fathers has to be made to work. Let it evolve with time.
The last five years of the most unadulterated democracy our country has seen have been poorly managed, resulting in nothing but chaos. Too much freedom too soon with a void of ideology has bred contempt for each other. Unity, faith and discipline have been eroded. In this acrimonious, free for all and uncontrolled environment everyone is trying to undermine the other. Misuse of authority is rampant. There is total lack of determination and foresight to check those who disrupt peace by using arms or plan to sabotage the system for ulterior motives. People are beginning to wonder if it is democracy or anarchy.
What happened in Lahore on Sunday, February 10. An innovative public transport system completed with 11 months of rigorous construction work and exemplary public cooperation was being inaugurated, attended by tens of foreign ambassadors and dignitaries. At the same time, at a stone’s throw, an opposition party stalwart was encouraging the rebellious young doctors to carry the protest to the venue of the festivities. Should responsible citizens be accessories to creating situations with a distinct potential of disorder (notwithstanding the merit of the right to protest)? When can we learn to recognise achievements and be proud of them?
Earlier in the month of January, a firebrand with sworn allegiance to a North American country descended on the capital out of the blue and held the city hostage assisted by thousands of his followers, to make demands that may not be his business. What a nation are we that go down on its knees to any frivolous mob challenge with clear mala fide intentions. How can such a timid government hold high its head and its credentials?
It had to be the Supreme Court of Pakistan that lent a twist in the tale of the short rise and rise of Dr Tahirul Qadri. What others were talking mutely was taken upfront, cornering the eloquent scholar. Can a fly-by-night dual national, resident abroad, suddenly appear and challenge the constitutional provisions, is a question needed to be discussed threadbare to remove ambiguities. Who else could do it better than the Supreme Court, once it had inadvertently been thrown in their domain. That it did in a befitting manner by first questioning the motives.
Indeed, overseas Pakistanis are an undeniable asset. However, many of these are now into third and fourth generations for whom the native country of their elders is little more than folklore. Most of them who have acquired a foreign citizenship will never return to live permanently in their former homes. Their sympathies, love and attachment may stay with their origins, but their loyalties will rest with the country where their future lies. In case of a hypothetical clash of interests between the two nations, pragmatism and survival instincts will not allow them to go against their adopted countries.
The billions of dollars remitted by overseas Pakistanis that props our economy is cited as an argument for special favour, as we tend to weigh priorities, relationships and loyalties in terms of money due to our material instincts that have deeply infiltrated our thinking.
One forgets that firstly, it is this country that provided them the background, skills and education at considerable expense to the exchequer that enabled them to do so. Secondly, the percentage of the remittance from the dual nationals is less than 10 percent of the total - the balance comes from other patriotic Pakistanis in the Middle East, whose ties are relatively more interlinked to their homeland. Thirdly, the track record of most of the high profile dual nationals in the service of this country has not been that bright.  Fourthly, this factor of easy money has added to our complacency in striving to achieve self-reliance like other foreign assistance programmes. True loyalty springs without any strings attached.
The press and television media sometimes does a disservice to the nation by blowing up unnecessary controversies and uncertainties in an environment that is already volatile. This is not to say the politicians are in any way slack in providing them enough ammunition to fire. An ineligible Fata resident, who is not a registered voter of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is appointed as its Governor in an appalling display of incompetence at the highest levels. A regional party gets uninterrupted coverage on television channels that received veiled threats and insults routinely hurled against opponents.
Meanwhile, our elected President is defiantly flouting the impartiality of his august office by active involvement in party affairs and practically heading its election campaign. Oblivious to previous charges of mega corruptions that he should be endeavouring to obliterate, reportedly, he accepts a gift of billion rupee worth of property in Lahore.    
The economic indicators have never been worse. Discipline is in tatters. Respect for law is minimal. Mutual recriminations and lack of cooperation among institutions and individuals are at their peak. Political parties thrive more on creating divisions in order to strengthen their own positions than promoting national unity to strengthen the country. Polarisation among regions, religious sects, ethnic and linguistic groups has reached alarming proportions. Disintegration of the country has never appeared more distinct a possibility than now.
Elections 2013 present an opportunity to demonstrate our maturity and conviction in the democratic form of government by full participation and by following our conscience to elect the right candidates. It also presents a test of whether have evolved as true democrats or are still entangled in the biradri, feudal and money culture. Let there be no doubt that the worst democracy where people have freedom of expression is better than the best dictatorship where people’s spirits and thought process are stifled.
The writer is an engineer and an entrepreneur. Email: k.a.k786@hotmail.com

Evolution and Revolution

PAKISTAN TODAY
Sunday 10th February 2013
Humayun Gauhar
Feeling depressed after my last article? I do sometimes too, but don’t be, for it is darkest before the dawn, though it might not be the sort of dawn you envisage. Someone wrote saying that “brilliance lies in simplicity”. Sure it does, but not in the simplistic. We often confuse the two.
What is unraveling is the system, not the state, though if after a system’s failure we cannot forge a better system by forging a new social contract within the context of the state, the state too will fail. Then new states will be made, as they were in 1947 and 1991, with new social contracts, however airy-fairy. That will be sad, but then states do disappear. Consider how many states have existed on the land on which you live. What really matters are the land and the people living on it. States are manmade, not God-made. Manmade things have a finite life, for human ingenuity is finite, though in my dark moments I sometimes feel that human stupidity is limitless. God-made things live till God wills them to live, and some live on forever in other forms.
Being attached to the material is human, but not to the extent that it detracts from our love of God, which is primary. We take what we have for granted and forget to thank Him for the Faith He has given us and health, happiness and peace of mind. If we don’t have these everything else becomes meaningless. These days people say to me, “Oh, Humayun, you look so much better” while I’m feeling terrible inside. When I was feeling great people would say, “You don’t look so good, Humayun.” You have to feel good inside no matter how bad you may look on the outside. How deceptive looks can be. If we don’t have health and peace of mind, what can wealth, shiny cars and palatial houses do for us? If we don’t have Faith, what do we look forward to? Oblivion? Faith is to look forward to union with the Supreme Creator and the best place in the next world, which is the real world. This world is but a dream and everything worldly is ephemeral. It matters little.
One cannot help being human though. With life and the world in such turmoil my pensive moments have morphed into melancholy. It occurs with such increasing regularity that I fear that melancholy may become permanent till one feels that life isn’t worth living. But that is to be an ingrate: life, however ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is the greatest gift from God. The mystic would say that what is considered ‘good’ in this world is actually bad or irrelevant in the next and what is considered ‘bad’ is actually good. We should be grateful for living through such tumultuous global change and witnessing history in the making at fast-forward. I wouldn’t miss it for a second. Thank God that one is alive today.

I am sharing these thoughts with you because I know that if you have a working brain, which you do, you must sometimes be melancholic too. Look upon it as catharsis, otherwise melancholy might descend into ‘alcoholy’. What could be more exciting than what is happening today, if only we could step back from our own imaginary self-made reality and look at things objectively? Mental and emotional distance helps one to see the wood from the trees and realize that we leave this world as we came into it – naked, pocketless and empty-handed. All we will take are the intentions behind our deeds – ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – and the knowledge that we have gathered and digested. Intentions and knowledge need no pockets or bank accounts. They need only the mind, and the better it is the better for us.
Now, back to ‘reality’. We saw last week that the root of our problems is the evaporation of our social contract that our constitution is supposed to be based on. None of our three constitutions have been faithful to our social contract – to make a democratic homeland as an Islamic welfare state for the Muslims of India in which every citizen is equal regardless of faith, religion, gender, race or colour. Our current constitution made by a rump assembly of losers is so full of hypocrisy piled upon more hypocrisy and contradictions piled upon more contradictions by successive governments for their own advantage that it has become irrelevant and unworkable. No wonder our political and economic systems born of this hypocritical-unworkable constitution are hurtling towards their demise so fast that it leaves one breathless. A few more years and the system and the status quo it protects and perpetuates will be dead and gone and may it go to Hades and take its few beneficiaries with it. Ameen. Then, hopefully, a new social contract will emerge and give rise to a new constitution and a better system.
That is why I have been saying: let this system continue to its logical conclusion through evolution. But there are some spoilers who would wish the coming elections postponed on some constitutional pretexts, even though they have no representative character because they or their parties are not even in any parliament. Sure they proclaim that their objective is not to delay elections but to ensure that the constitution is followed faithfully. Why didn’t it occur to them earlier? Why now, when elections are upon us? Is this hypocrisy, because they are unlikely to score well if elections are held? Mark my words: if elections are postponed the country could fall apart. Which suits no one, least of all our neighbours and Russia and America, which needs exit from Afghanistan like yesterday and cannot without a stable Pakistan. This is the glue that is keeping us together – too dangerous to disintegrate. The fallout could engulf the region from Turkey to Burma and change geographies.
What has happened is through evolution, not revolution. During this time people have learned more than I would have imagined five years ago. So don’t close their school of life down for God’s sake. Now you understand why I have been saying that the system should be allowed to continue till it self-immolates and hopefully a beautiful new phoenix emerges from its ashes. Try and bring revolution without a workable ideology, without ideologues, without a vanguard and without sacrifice and all you achieve is anarchy, making this system a martyr and prolonging its life. Again: witness Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Their imported western electoral systems have failed on the launching pad and what is emerging is an ogre.
Where did we go wrong? It goes back to before Partition but that can wait. All three of our constitutions lacked legitimacy. All were made by the consensus of the oppressor. Our first Constituent Assembly was elected in another country – India before Partition. Many of its MPs left their constituencies behind in leftover India. If I remember correctly, India held an election soon after independence to make its parliament fully representative. So did Bangladesh. We didn’t. Our first national elections were held in 1970, 23 years after independence.  By the time the 1956 constitution was made the character of the Constituent Assembly had changed drastically at the hands of our first bureaucratic dictator who stuffed it with many unelected. It took nine years to find a device to deprive the majority of its majority. It was an anti-democratic abomination, not a constitution. To justify it we mutilated West Pakistan by making its four provinces into one.
Our second constitution was made along misunderstood US lines and imposed by a military ruler who adopted the worst features of the first constitution because the oppressor had to be kept in control of all levers of power. As soon as he bit the dust his constitution bit the dust.

Our current constitution has the same sad story as the 1956 constitution. The 1970 elections were held in another country. The 1973 constitution was made in another country. The 1970 elections were held in the original Pakistan. The 1973 constitution was made for the ‘New Pakistan’ by legislators elected in the original Pakistan. No fresh elections were held. How can a majority secede from a minority? What if the East Pakistanis had decided to call their new country Pakistan instead of Bangladesh? We made the 1973 constitution after chasing the majority out even at the cost of breaking the country just so the Bengalis don’t come to power. The myth is that it is made by a majority of leftover Pakistan, not the minority. This is a zero-sum game. By this logic the MQM could say that since they are the majority in Karachi they will make a constitution for Karachi. At this rate we will go down to zero. The myth is that it is made by consensus. Consensus between whom: a minority of legislators comprising mostly bloodsucking tribal warlords and feudal robber barons? It is a rehash of the colonial British India Act of 1935 and has nothing to do with our original social contract of 1947. In 1971, when the country broke, our social contract broke too and has not been replaced by a coherent one. All we have is polarization: are you pro-Bhutto or anti-Bhutto? Pathetic. That is what dynastic politics does to you, forces you to mindlessly follow icons. So let the system continue and let us learn the hard way till realization dawns. Then and only then there will be revolution.

By Peter Jones 
| 2/11/2013 12:00:00 AM   Dawn

TRACK-two diplomacy has been active in South Asia for many years. Proponents argue that it can cut through the red tape of conventional diplomacy.

Critics argue that it is both a useless waste of time, and a sinister plot often making these contradictory arguments in the same breath.

In reality track two is simply a mechanism to bring together people from different sides of a conflict to talk about issues and try to develop new ideas.

Track two exists on many levels and for many purposes.

Some projects bring together those close to the centres of power. Other track-two projects are targeted at the civil society level with the objective of promoting broader change on a societal level.

Still others involve professional groups attempting to influence policy.

My own experience of facilitating track-two discussions has tended to be at the level of retired officials, working on issues close to those being considered by governments. So my comments here will speak to that kind of track two. But readers should be aware that there are many kinds of different activities that go on under the name.

The term `track-two diplomacy` was first coined by Joseph Montville in 1981. In my view, a fundamental mistake was made by adding the word `diplomacy`. It conveys the idea that this is somehow a diplomatic activity. It is not.

Those engaged in track two should never succumb to the idea that they are engaged in secret negotiations.

What they are there to do is to work with people from the other side to develop new ideas and understandings around dispute settlement. In practice, track two tends to bedefined by a recurring set of concepts which arise in studies of various examples.

They emphasise small, informal dialogues between people in conflict, which are often facilitated by an impartial third party; though the dialogues are unofficial, it is generally expected that the participants are able to innuence thinking in their societies; the dialogues are not meant to debate current positions, but rather are workshops where the participants step back from official positions to explore the underlying causes of the dispute in the hope of jointly developing alternatives; the dialogues are ongoing processes, rather than one-off workshops; and while not exactly secret, are conducted quietly to create an atmosphere where outsidethe-box thinking can flourish.

Such processes, if successful, can lead to a number of results. Amongst these are: 

changed perceptions of the conflict, including a greater appreciation for the domestic politics and red lines of the other side; opening new channels for communication between adversaries; the identification and development of new options; and the development of networks of influential people who work to change views in their countries. A key to success in track two involving people working on issues close to the official agenda is that the participants be able transfer their ideas to the official sphere. This is harder than it seems. Officials are instinctively wary of ideas coming from outside the bureaucracy; sometimes with reason, and sometimes because they fear the loss of control. Thus, these processes often enlist as participants people who have credibility in the of ficial world and are familiar with how things are done there, but who can think outside the box as they are no longer officials.

There is no guarantee that governments will accept ideas developed in track two, whoever the participants may be. In practice, ideas often enjoy the most traction if they come along at those rare moments when the system is looking for new approaches.

More subtly, however, track two can work to help create such ripe moments by demonstrating that new thinking is possible and developing cadres of credible people who advocate new approaches.

Reliance on such `influentials` carries with it further issues. First, such track two can be dominated by a small elite who are too similar in their thinking. This leads to the second problem, known as the autonomy dilemma. This holds that, although reliance on influential elites means that results can be more easily transferred to the official process, outside-the-box thinking may be in short supply.

However, gathering a really autonomous group can lead to more independent thinking, but the ability of such processes to transfer their results to the inner sanctum is limited if participants are not known or trusted by officials. There is no easy answer to the problem posed by the autonomy dilemma, other than to be aware of it and work to make sure that the discussions do not degenerate into an exchange of official positions.

Of course, those who specialise in track-two projects aimed at change on the civil society level would argue that concern over the autonomy dilemma is misplaced. In their view, official policy willchange only after the societies in question have changed official policy will then catch up.

Thus, over-concern for how officials might receive the results of a track-two process is misplaced and has the effect of limiting what track two should try to achieve.

Another critical issue is funding. Though the sums involved are small, support for airfares and other meeting costs is required. Traditionally, track two is funded by major foundations and by some governments, such as the Scandinavians and the Americans. This sometimes leads to concerns of undue influence.

At the end of the day, the integrity of the third party depends on not accepting support if the funder demands conditions, and on being scrupulously open and honest about who is funding the exercise.

Support can only be accepted if the process is organised in ways which meet with the approval of the regional participants. Third parties acting as agents of others quickly gain a reputation for untrustworthiness and are unable to continue. • 

The writer, an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, is facilitating a South Asian track two process known as the Ottawa Dialogue.

Defending democracy

By: Malik Muhammad Ashraf | February 02, 2013By: Malik Muhammad Ashraf | February 02, 2013 . 1

There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. This idiom is a befitting description of our political culture, which has mostly remained embedded in uncertainties.
Even after more than six decades of our existence as an independent state, unfortunately, we are still groping in the dark to find the avenue that could lead us to our cherished destiny of a democratic polity, thanks to dictators, time-serving politicians and forces inimical to democracy, who have abiding vested interests in the perpetuation of a culture of confusion, not allowing democratic entities to gain ascendancy. So whenever democratic norms seem to take root in Pakistan, these forces activate themselves and conspire to derail democracy and drag the country back into a dark alley.
Now when everything seems to be moving towards a smooth power transition, the rumours about postponement of elections and establishment of a caretaker set up for a longer period are getting louder. Recently, Senator Raza Rabbani, while speaking to the media outside Parliament, said that a plot was being hatched to derail democracy and set up an unconstitutional caretaker government for the next three years. The opposition parties too have expressed their fears about it.
These rumours have been going on ever since Dr Tahirul Qadri landed in Pakistan after an absence of five years. His long march, his ever-vacillating stance on the country’s political future, the threatening tone and insistence on reforms before the 2013 elections are the usual ploys employed by anti-democratic forces to deny the people their right to exercise their will in choosing their representatives.
Initially, he wanted the implementation of constitutional provisions in determining the eligibility of candidates. But later demanded the reconstitution of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which is an unconstitutional desire.
Against this backdrop, there are signals emanating from different quarters suggesting that well orchestrated moves are in the offing to disrupt the democratic process. These tactics are designed to precipitate confusion and have the elections postponed, paving the way for the establishment of an unconstitutional setup in the country.
Moreover, the rightist and religious elements have always played the role of a spoiler by supporting unconstitutional arrangements and dictatorial regimes. They have been creating doubts about the viability of democracy in Pakistan, ever since the 2008 elections and have run a sustained media campaign to discredit the PPP-led government. However, their sinister designs have been thwarted by the political will and sagacity of the ruling party, which must be given the credit for fighting an unrelenting war against anti-democracy forces.
It is also gratifying know that these forces are facing tough resistance from democratic entities. The government and the opposition parties, who have differed on everything under the skies after the end of their short-lived bonhomie, have shown solidarity on defending democracy and holding the election on time, according to constitutional requirements.
Equally reassuring is the support for the continuation of democratic process from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, while hearing a contempt case against the Nab Chairman, maintained that the judiciary would resist any endeavour to scuttle the democratic process. The court’s warning has at least permanently closed one avenue for the forces hostile to democratic order, who try to legitimise their unconstitutional acts.
There is no doubt that the country badly needs political reforms and change in the way we elect our representatives. But that change must come through a democratic and evolutionary process, rather than unconstitutional means. Our salvation, peace, progress and tranquillity lie in our unflinching commitment to democracy; the course cherished and envisioned by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
    The writer is a freelance columnist.
       Email: ashpak10@gmail.com