Prime minister Benazir Bhutto insists that Sheikh Rashid’s conviction by a Special Court for the Suppression of Terrorist Activities is part of her drive to enforce `accountability’ rather than political `victimisation’ as claimed by opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. Ms Bhutto also asserts that, unlike her predecessors, she has never been inclined to tinker with the judiciary which, according to her, remains as free and independent as it has always been. If that had not been the case, Ms Bhutto argues, she would have been sorely tempted to hassle the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, who rejected her father’s appeal against the death sentence, propped up the dictatorial Zia regime, upheld her ouster from office in 1990 but restored Nawaz Sharif to power in 1993. Since she did nothing of the sort, and Justice Shah was able to retire with all the graces of high office, the charge is totally baseless, she explains.
It is, of course, true that Ms Bhutto has had to bite her lip and suffer Justice Shah’s provocations in silence. Indeed, at the fag end of his career she encouraged him to travel around the world canvassing support for the cause of Kashmir. And to this day, despite Justice Shah’s impolitic public utterances, the government has not deemed fit to `leak’ unsavoury stories sullying the `good name’ of the former chief justice of Pakistan. It is also true that, however much some people may object to the rather cavalier manner in which changes have been rung in the courts by the new regime, the constitution has been followed to the letter (if not in spirit) as in the past.
There is also not much point in quibbling over the true meaning of what is taking place today — ‘victimisation’ or `accountability’. When Ms Bhutto, Mr Asif Zardari and other stalwarts of the PPP were hounded during the Sharif regime, the opposition called it `victimisation’ while the government claimed it was `accountability’. The same sort of thing is taking place today, except that the boot is on the other foot. Similarly, there is not much party-political mileage to be extracted from lamenting the loss of `independence’ by the judiciary. It was so badly mauled by Zia ul Haq and his disciples from 1977 to 1993 that it has become singularly incapable of adjudging constitutional matters without arousing the hostility of one protagonist or the other. If Ms Bhutto has now sought to “redress” the “political imbalance”, she is simply following in the footsteps of her cynical predecessors and cannot be accused of being a bigger culprit than they were.
However, semantics and foul-play allegations aside, we should be seriously worried about the implications of a brewing battle between Ms Bhutto and her detractors. Both sides seem to have wittingly arrived at the precipice. Mr Altaf Hussain is playing with fire in Karachi. Mr Sharif is seriously thinking of stepping aside in favour of a consensus candidate to replace Ms Bhutto as prime minister. Mr Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Nawabzada Nasrullah, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Mr Yusuf Raza Gilani and Mr Manzoor Wattoo are all sizing up the odds rather greedily. Ms Bhutto, meanwhile, had dug her trenches and positioned General Naseerullah Babar’s cannons for a preemptive strike, when necessary. Some people say that the rebels will only attack if they get a `nod’ from Rawalpindi. Others think they could get desperate and go ahead without it. Apparently, the plan is to try and stage an upheaval in parliament on the eve of Ms Bhutto’s departure for the United States in April when it could cause much disarray in the treasury benches and undermine Ms Bhutto’s credibility.
Ms Bhutto says her doors are open for dialogue and compromise even at this late hour. But her actions belie her pronouncements. She has arrested several opposition leaders and is threatening others because she is seeking to stamp out incipient revolt in parliament for the sake of her government and not because she is keen on accountability for the good of the public. But if this strategy spurs the opposition to become more resolute, unyielding and audacious, it could make matters much worse. Ms Bhutto would then be compelled to order another round of arrests, thus hastening the hour of showdown.
Since politics is the art of survival, it is in everyone’s interest to try and diffuse the situation as soon as possible. Ms Bhutto could begin by trying to appear less stroppy. Mr Sharif, in turn, should seriously consider entering into a dialogue with the government over his overriding concerns — a genuinely independent election commission, a ban on floor crossing and a new formula for elections a couple of years hence.
It is in neither side’s interest to provoke a do-or-die situation. The nasty tips and tricks of a no-confidence move — horsetrading, forward blocks, kidnappings and arrests — will do no one proud. The problem will become irretrievable if the army, which is adept at knowing when enough is enough, decides it is time to put its boot down.