fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Editorial: The future of coups détat
Speaking on the occasion of signing of the
Constitution (18th Amendment) Bill, President Asif Ali Zardari said that it had closed the doors on dictators taking over, but added, mishaps can take place. Legally, constitutionally, even politically, the 18th Amendment has strengthened Article 6, which defines high treason, and added a specific sub-clause, barring the courts from validating military coups or the illegal removal of governments. Has a piece of paper, the constitution, ever deterred someone who is determined to seize power, having at his back an organised force, i.e. the military? The answer is no. This is the mishap that President Zardari hinted at. However, it will be very difficult for future dictators to get validation for their rule.
By its very nature, a coup is illegitimate and therefore to seek legitimacy at a constitutional, legal and political level remains the main concern of every usurper. Musharrafs regime has been the most recent example. Having achieved endorsement and legitimacy through the 2000 verdict of the Supreme Court, which gave him three years as the chief executive and even powers to amend the constitution, Musharraf held a fraudulent referendum in 2002 and anointed himself as the President of Pakistan. However, just before his five-year term was about to expire in 2007, the question of legitimacy once again loomed: whether he could contest the presidential election in uniform or not. It was here that his wrangling with the judiciary started. Removing Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who had proved himself too independent to be trusted because of his verdict on the privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills and questioning the role of the intelligence agencies in the missing persons case seemed paramount to the interests of the regime. We all know what followed the chief justices removal through a contrived judicial reference and, later, the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. Thus, the inherent contradictions of Musharrafs rule paved the way for his downfall.
Our history depicts the importance of the judiciarys role in legitimising every usurper. The judiciary has always been the vehicle of legitimising the illegal removal of elected governments, from Justice Munir onwards. The only exception in Pakistans history is the 1972 Asma Jilani case, in which the Chief Justice of Pakistan declared General Yahya Khan as an illegal usurper, albeit many years after the dictator had departed. Article 6 now clearly states that anyone validating such coups is also guilty of high treason.
The real barrier in the way of an illegal usurper is not just constitutional provisions, but a conscious and mobilised public. With no legitimacy and validation, and the public standing up against him, a coup-maker would have to think twice before usurping power or stay long if he does. The question is, can we say with confidence that, in the year 2010, the people of Pakistan have turned their back on military dictators forever and will not allow dictatorships to become a reality again?
The question answers itself. Spontaneous popular resistance has some inherent limitations. A capable political leadership is needed for an organised resistance. The buck stops with the political forces of the country. It is a moot point if the political parties are capable of providing that kind of leadership and have the outreach and mass support for resisting a military dictator. Where the judiciary has colluded with dictators in the past, it is also true that there have always been opportunist political forces that jumped onto the bandwagon of dictators, foremost being the Muslim League in its various avatars over the years. Military coup-makers, the judiciary, and the political class have much to answer for. Attention needs to be paid to strengthening the political process if Pakistan hopes for a future different from its past. Another coup will sink us, perhaps forever.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
Speaking on the occasion of signing of the
Constitution (18th Amendment) Bill, President Asif Ali Zardari said that it had closed the doors on dictators taking over, but added, mishaps can take place. Legally, constitutionally, even politically, the 18th Amendment has strengthened Article 6, which defines high treason, and added a specific sub-clause, barring the courts from validating military coups or the illegal removal of governments. Has a piece of paper, the constitution, ever deterred someone who is determined to seize power, having at his back an organised force, i.e. the military? The answer is no. This is the mishap that President Zardari hinted at. However, it will be very difficult for future dictators to get validation for their rule.
By its very nature, a coup is illegitimate and therefore to seek legitimacy at a constitutional, legal and political level remains the main concern of every usurper. Musharrafs regime has been the most recent example. Having achieved endorsement and legitimacy through the 2000 verdict of the Supreme Court, which gave him three years as the chief executive and even powers to amend the constitution, Musharraf held a fraudulent referendum in 2002 and anointed himself as the President of Pakistan. However, just before his five-year term was about to expire in 2007, the question of legitimacy once again loomed: whether he could contest the presidential election in uniform or not. It was here that his wrangling with the judiciary started. Removing Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who had proved himself too independent to be trusted because of his verdict on the privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills and questioning the role of the intelligence agencies in the missing persons case seemed paramount to the interests of the regime. We all know what followed the chief justices removal through a contrived judicial reference and, later, the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. Thus, the inherent contradictions of Musharrafs rule paved the way for his downfall.
Our history depicts the importance of the judiciarys role in legitimising every usurper. The judiciary has always been the vehicle of legitimising the illegal removal of elected governments, from Justice Munir onwards. The only exception in Pakistans history is the 1972 Asma Jilani case, in which the Chief Justice of Pakistan declared General Yahya Khan as an illegal usurper, albeit many years after the dictator had departed. Article 6 now clearly states that anyone validating such coups is also guilty of high treason.
The real barrier in the way of an illegal usurper is not just constitutional provisions, but a conscious and mobilised public. With no legitimacy and validation, and the public standing up against him, a coup-maker would have to think twice before usurping power or stay long if he does. The question is, can we say with confidence that, in the year 2010, the people of Pakistan have turned their back on military dictators forever and will not allow dictatorships to become a reality again?
The question answers itself. Spontaneous popular resistance has some inherent limitations. A capable political leadership is needed for an organised resistance. The buck stops with the political forces of the country. It is a moot point if the political parties are capable of providing that kind of leadership and have the outreach and mass support for resisting a military dictator. Where the judiciary has colluded with dictators in the past, it is also true that there have always been opportunist political forces that jumped onto the bandwagon of dictators, foremost being the Muslim League in its various avatars over the years. Military coup-makers, the judiciary, and the political class have much to answer for. Attention needs to be paid to strengthening the political process if Pakistan hopes for a future different from its past. Another coup will sink us, perhaps forever.
http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk
