|
In
a remarkable show of manipulative power, the ruling Muslim League
and the indefatigable establishment combine has delivered the ultimate
result to its ultimate benefactor, General Pervez Musharraf. The
October 6 elections outcome - 387 out of 702, from an electoral
college comprising four provincial assemblies and two houses of
parliament - would have been a tough task without the day and night
efforts of all of the president's men. If five FATA representatives
and the breakaway members of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) agreed
to vote for money, the so-called dissidents within the fold of the
ruling Pakistan Muslim League fell into line faced with the prospect
of a bleak political future in case they cast a negative vote.
The
all important question of the legitimacy of the election was solved
by a helpful triangle: the support of the JUI in the NWFP, the Peoples
Party at the centre and a 10-member bench of the Supreme Court.
The first did not dissolve the provincial assembly and therefore
saved the electoral college from being challenged on the grounds
of incomplete composition; the second put up Makhdoom Amin Fahim
as a candidate and imparted a semblance of correctness to the procedure
of the election; and the third, by not staying the process of the
election, removed a crucial hurdle from the election commissioner's
path of carrying out the exercise. This came together to produce
a 55.13% vote for General Musharraf, up from 53.28, which he had
obtained in the January 2004 vote of confidence from the same electoral
college.
This
is not to suggest that the presidential election is over, and that
the general has hit a home run in political terms. To start with,
it is important to note who did not vote for him. The resignations
of the MMA in Balochistan, and Pashtoon nationalists from the NWFP
assembly meant that a large chunk of the Pathans have spoken against
the general. The Peoples Party pulling out of the polls at the last
minute dented the electoral exercise's credibility, which was already
considerably challenged by the resignations of 86 members of the
National Assembly from the platform of the All Parties Democratic
Movement (APDM). And while political agitation remained tame, the
lawyers stayed steadfast in battling the general's presidential
bid. Predictably, the NWFP was the scene of the most vociferous
protests, indicating, yet again, how the country's northern belt
is becoming a political sore for Islamabad's rulers.
Even
more pressing than these pockets of resistance to General Musharraf
is the critical issue of the yet-to-come judicial verdict on the
final result of the elections. The result of the presidential poll
has not been announced because the 10-member Supreme Court bench,
while allowing the process to continue, has barred official notification
till the matter is heard and adjudged. The proceedings will be tackling
the mother of all legal questions facing General Musharraf: whether
he, as a sitting chief of army staff, qualifies to be a kosher presidential
candidate.
Regardless
of the happy majority that General Musharraf has obtained in the
October 6 elections, he contested the polls in uniform and plans
to wear his 'second skin' (as he once called it) till he hears what
the learned judges have to say on his candidature. This deliberate
wait-and-see policy tightens the spot the judiciary is already in.
If they endorse his election in uniform, regardless of how exceptional
they make it sound, they would risk creating the precedent of coup-makers
getting elected as legitimate presidents. The court's other problem
is that General Musharraf has chosen the existing assemblies to
get elected. An endorsement of this electoral process would mean
that all future presidents would use the vulnerabilities of the
outgoing assemblies to get elected and then rule over the new assemblies
from the position of unassailable power.
Yet
another issue before the court is that while the elections went
on smoothly, these were marred by resignations and boycotts. Practically
no opposition member took part in the election, except the turncoats.
Practically, everyone from the opposition called the election unconstitutional
and placed zero confidence in General Musharraf's candidature. If
this were an ordinary election, the will of the majority, no matter
how thin and how suspect, would prevail without any legal ado. But
the office of the president is not an ordinary one: it is a symbol
of the federation and the person occupying it, to quote the constitution,
must represent the unity of the republic. A candidate who overthrew
an elected government, is the chief of army staff and additionally,
hobbled by the opposition's complete distrust expressed through
resignation and protests, might have to be tested on sterner grounds
than on the touchstone of simple majority.
These are most important matters: they all concentrate on the country's
60-year-long vain quest for non-militarised democracy. Not for the
first time, these questions have all landed in the lap of the Supreme
Court for a fundamental decision. It is difficult to gauge the court's
mood: the views of the honourable judges have crisscrossed the two
seemingly irreconcilable territories of power politics and pristine
constitutionalism. However, a full court, including the chief justices
of the high courts, could throw up a forum where General Musharraf's
electoral victory might get spiked.
And
even if it does not, and General Musharraf does get another five
years to rule, ugly political weather awaits him. An out-of-uniform
general is a turtle without the shell, but so often those wearing
it never seem to realise this grim fact. General Musharraf, too,
believes that he floats on the high waters of national life not
on his brass but on his brilliance. The October 6 election might
just prove to be his final journey to real life.
|