Zardari’s
Release Indicative of Reconciliation?
Does the release of Asif Zardari,
husband of Benazir Bhutto, from prison early last
week (Nov. 22) after eight years of confinement,
portends a turn of political kaleidoscope and reconciliation
between the military and civilian sectors of Pakistan?
Several factors make one think on these lines.
To begin with the government attorneys did not,
like in the past, take a firm stand in the Supreme
Court for the rejection of his bail application.
Then a member of the Accountability Bureau disclosed
to the media that Mr. Zardari was being allowed
by the government to be bailed out “on political
grounds”. On the heel of this came a statement
of Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, government spokesman that
he had attended in Islamabad a high level meeting
in which it was decided to release Zardari on bail
-not a salutary reflection on the independence of
the apex court.
Rumors had been circulating for a week or so that
some sort of an understanding (deal?) had been reached
between the government and the opposition. The media
had highlighted the 1-½ hour meeting of Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz with the leader of the opposition,
Maulana Fazlur Rehman in the latter’s chamber
in the Assembly building. The PM had assured emphatically
that he would strive to take the opposition along
with him for the solution of major national issues
including Kashmir. Mention is also made of the telephonic
conversation of President Musharraf with Nawaz Sharif
regarding the demise of latter’s father and
his burial in Pakistan.
For Pakistani-Americans any development which moves
a step closer to reconciliation between the government
and the opposition is a causus celebre.
Benazir, who had of late been avoiding attacks on
General Musharraf, has come out with the amusing
statement that the Supreme Court ruling has delivered
justice to her spouse. She has been, ever since
she decided to go abroad proclaiming that she has
been, ever since her self-imposed exile, defying
the summons of Pakistani courts as she did not expect
justice from them. She had been quite consistent
in her remarks: the court is prejudiced if it gives
a verdict against her, and has delivered justice
when it decides in her favor.
No less than sixteen cases were registered against
Asif Ali Zardari. Ten of these were for corruption
and six were for criminal offenses.
He was charged with conspiracy to kill Murtaza Bhutto
in a shoot out on September 20, 1996. The case is
still pending before a court in Karachi. He was
similarly shown to be involved in the murder of
Alam Baloch, Irrigation Secretary, Sindh. The case
is pending before a sessions court in Hyderabad.
On January 12, 1999 he was charged of being involved
in the murders of a former High Court judge , Justice
Nizam Ahmed and of his son. This case too is pending
before a Sessions Court in Karachi. In addition
to these some minor criminal cases are also pending
in different courts of the country.
Ten corruption cases were brought against him, in
some of which Benazir was a co-accused. In the import
of Ursus tractors from Poland they are accused of
taking no less than Rs.103 million ($1.7 million)
as kickback/commission. Polish authorities had provided
evidence for that. The case is still pending.
Another famous corruption case against them is of
the contracts for pre-shipment inspections to two
Swiss companies –SGS and Cotecna-, which are
being pursued by Swiss courts.
They were found guilty in the Karachi Steel Mills
case for awarding various contracts by accepting
kickbacks. They were booked in the ARY gold reference
for receiving commission from the ARY group for
granting import permit for gold.
Their acquisition of Surrey Palace in England became
a notorious case in Western media.
These cases are being mentioned here merely to give
an idea of the extent of the crime and corruption
indulged in by this couple.
Interestingly enough all the cases against them
were investigated and registered by the regime of
Nawaz Sharif. The miasma of his own corruption smelled
to the sky. Matter of fact by the time the army
took over power in October 1999, corruption had
sapped the country of its finances to such an extent
that it was being referred to as a failed state.
Gen. Musharraf’s coup was therefore welcomed
enthusiastically as he, in his very first address
to the people, held out the promise of eradicating
the canker of corruption.
The culture of corruption had so permeated the ruling
elite of Pakistan that an honest wielder of political
or administrative powers stood out as a maverick,
a misfit, and an anachronistic oddity. Corruption,
the most endemic and entrenched manifestation of
poor governance, had become virtually a way of life
in the country. Both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir had
robbed the exchequer dry and the country was teetering
at the brink of bankruptcy.
Thanks to the measures taken by Gen. Musharraf and
his team, the country is now economically on sound
footing and recording a laudable growth rate. An
economist and banker of world renown is now the
prime minister.
Unfortunately, the political institutions have not
yet commenced functioning as confident, competent,
thriving, throbbing bodies as they had been expected
to be. The army has acquired for itself a supervisory
role through amendments to the constitution, formation
of the National Security Council, the President
clinging on to his position as the Chief of the
Army Staff, and the appointment of over 1,500 military
officer, retired or serving, to civilian posts.
The army is thus well entrenched in the polity.
The elected institutions are unable to function
effectively as the party in power has acquiesced
to be the second string to the military brass. The
opposition parties have joined hands to campaign
against the overarching position of the men in uniform.
In a situation like this, the parliament presents
a sorry picture. The opposition keeps beating the
desks and shouting “Go, Musharraf, Go”
instead of any intelligent participation in the
issues before that august body. The supine members
of the government party too appear to be suffering
from ennui.
The Prime Minister is in effect the leader of a
dysfunctional house. The brass takes all significant
decisions.Without a grand reconciliation between
the government and the opposition, people’s
participation in development activities will not
be there.
The impression of the man in uniform as the savior
of the society from the clutches of corrupt rulers
appears to have worn thin owing to the reasons mentioned
above briefly. In the absence of an ideological
underpinning, which can be better fostered by civilian
leadership, sheer use of military force for eradicating
terrorists has not been much successful. Poverty
and frustration have been pushing credulous youth
into the arms of the extremists who do not themselves
know what exactly they want.
Poverty and frustration have been pushing the credulous
youth into the arms of the extremists who do not
themselves know what exactly is their goal. For
a solution of the Kashmir problem too the nation
needs unity among its ranks at this particular juncture.
Gen. Musharraf has already achieved the maximum
that he could aspire for himself and his constituency
–the army. A gradual loosening of the grip
over the society is now indicated so that street
agitations do not negate the gains already made
over the past five years.
One hopes that the opposition parties do not misread
the release of Zardari as a weakness of the army-backed
government. Instigation of street agitations on
such a premise would turn out to be counter-productive.
Much better results could be achieved through dialogues
and by strengthening the elected institutions and
the civilian leaders including the Prime Minister.
Tact would be more effective than valor and confrontation.
