Playing hardball

It's clear what the real aim is of General Musharraf's emergency in Pakistan ñ the end of the country's independent judiciary, writes Graham Usher in Islamabad

---

Benazir raises the stakes

On 11 November - a week after he imposed martial law - Pakistan's beleaguered military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, took on his critics at a packed press conference in Islamabad. The media had come to hear answers to three questions: When will the "emergency" be lifted? When will elections be held? And when will Musharraf step down as army chief, as, constitutionally, he is obliged to do?

Dressed in a blue jacket and black tie ñ rather than the usual khaki fatigues ñ he fielded all queries. Nervous, mopping his brow, he tried manfully to turn a crisis of leadership into a show of strength.

On elections he was clear. These will be held on or before 9 January 2008. But they would probably be held under martial law. "Certainly the emergency is required to ensure peace in Pakistan, and ensure an environment conductive to elections," he said.

This was especially so in Pakistan's Frontier regions bordering Afghanistan where pro-Taliban forces have overrun cities and set up their own "parallel" system of Islamic rule. "The emergency contributes toward better law and order and a better fight against terrorism," said Musharraf.

Asked how there could be free elections if political opponents were interned, the media muzzled and judges confined to house arrest, Musharraf was blasé. "I would expect that all (those arrested under the emergency) to get released and participate in the elections. But if they disturb law and order, and if they want to create anarchy in Pakistan in the name of elections and democracy, we must not allow that," he warned.

Finally, Musharraf said he would step down as army chief just as soon as Pakistan's Supreme Court ruled on the validity of his presidential election in October. The judges are likely to do so ñ the General chose them himself. In any case under emergency rule the superior courts cannot rule against the executive.

As for reinstating those Supreme Court judges sacked under the emergency, especially Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, Musharraf was dismissive to the point of contempt. "They are no longer judges," he said. It's widely believed Musharraf imposed martial law because the pre-emergency Supreme Court was about to rule against his presidential election win.

The General has decided to play hardball. But what is his purpose? Lawyers and civil society activists ñ who have borne the burnt of the state's clampdown - will view any elections under emergency as a ruse for rigging. And opposition parties like Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League have already said they will boycott any poll held under such conditions. But what about the largest, most popular opposition force ñ Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP)?

Bhutto welcomed the announcement on elections but warned the crisis would not be "de-fused" in Pakistan unless the emergency was lifted. She said a "long march for democracy" would go ahead as planned from Lahore on 13 November. She is calling on the "masses of Pakistan" to join it. It is likely to meet the same fate as her party's attempted mass rally in Rawalpindi near Islamabad on 9 November.

That was smothered by a phalanx of 6,000 police and a house detention order served on the PPP leader. And the march has been preceded by tough new laws which enable the army to court-martial civilians, including for capital offenses like treason and sedition. Three British journalists from the Daily Telegraph newspaper have already felt the lash of Pakistan's new order. They were expelled after an editorial used "foul and abusive language" to describe Musharraf's regime.

Can the Pakistani ruler get away with what are clearly illegal actions? Yes, say seasoned Pakistan watchers ñ as long as he keeps the loyalty of the two pillars of his rule.

One is the army. And so far Pakistan's 600,000-strong armed forces are on board with martial law. Ostensibly this is because it grants them greater powers to fight Islamic militancy. Actually, say observers, it's because it gives them more leverage to fix the next elections and government.

The second is the Bush administration. On 11 November Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice applauded the pledge to hold elections but tapped her fingers that "the state of emergency has got to be lifted and lifted as soon as possible". Britain, another crucial Musharraf ally, said the same. The Pakistani ruler has strongly implied that he will not stand down as army chief or lift the emergency unless the Supreme Court approves his presidency.

Is there an exit from the impasse? Analyst Nasim Zehra sees an "American way and a Pakistani way". She outlines their difference.

"The Pakistan way says there can be no democracy without the rule of law and restoration of the judiciary. The American way calls for elections, for Musharraf to take off his uniform and for the curbs on the media to be lifted. But it doesn't demand the restoration of the judiciary. It stands to reason. An independent judiciary upholds human rights and human rights get in the way not only of Musharraf but the US 'war on terror'"

Zehra does not know which road will be taken. Much depends on whether Bhutto nails her colors to the demands of the lawyers or the imperatives of the Americans. But Zehra is clear about the consequences of an American solution to the crisis. "It will deepen the political polarization in Pakistan and spawn greater extremism and political violence. It's a recipe for disaster".