Leaderless: government, lawyers movement

Astute analysts on Pakistan are generally astonished that despite the lapse of four months since the February 18 elections, there is no substantive change in the federal governments outlook, image or composition. Indeed even major policies, both domestic and external, remain the same. The NYT in a recent powerful expose on Pakistan dated June 24 says quite accurately that there is “a leaderless drift in Pakistan four months after the elections.”
To begin with the country’s top officials are unchanged; attorney general, an arch supporter of the Musharraf dictatorial elements, is still there as have been the Governor Sindh and until lately of Punjab as well. All the premier Ambassadors of the country like that at UN in New York and in Geneva are still unchanged; indeed the former Ambassador in Washington has just moved a step closer to the seat of power in Islamabad by being made the National Security Advisor. With same faces, little can one expect of true index of a representative government in harness in Islamabad.
Politically, Nawaz and his PML-N despite being a coalition partner of the PPP led government has no clue about what is going on and admittedly is never consulted on any major issue. More recently both the ANP and indeed the JUI said they were considering withdrawing from their participation in the coalition. Even the PPP does not really know what is going on. All the real and established PPP leadership did not have much rapport with the current supremo Zardari until the untimely passing away of Benazir thereby creating a strange kind of consequence. No one in the government, including the PM really is in a position to take any decision since that prerogative ostensibly only vests in Zardari who is often abroad when crucial decisions are needed within Pakistan.
The same is true seemly sadly, of the lawyers movement; neither could they achieve any tangible concrete result and their main leader, by now the well known president of the SCBA, is was in the US reportedly making speeches to audiences already converted. Lawyer bodies elect their leaders to stay in the country at such crucial time and not proceed to other capitals to make contact with powers that may be.
What is the raison d’etre of such visits and such engagements at this pivotal time? His publicly orchestrated taking the CJ to condole with Zardari was for whose benefit? Though he along with several stalwarts of the PPP are sidelined by Zardari, scepticism remains if his 40 year old association in the party has something to do with this volte face  when he refused a sit in after the Long March seemed to bear fruit. No wonder a leader of the British Pakistani legal community Amjad Malik who like many of us have given huge sacrifices said, poignantly in a piece recently, “He (president SCBA) caved in meagrely, called off his moot and went to United States where all leaders go once they are tired…” In his self belief he called it a day without taking any public statement in response to his million March, in fear of unrest without proper consultation leaving the nation in shock and lawyers in dejection. How will he ever gather 5 lakhs in future, only he knows?”
I too have been here several times making such efforts since November 2007; these addresses have been from Harvard Law to Stanford, from Congress to the State Department etc.
On July 2 those that remain of the SCBA in Pakistan announced that it would hold another Long March and stage a sit-in. “The All Pakistan Lawyers’ Representative Convention being held in Lahore on July 19 will decide the date of the march,” SCBA secretary said. Does it spell end of the reign of the president of SCBA? Only time will tell but I do not think so. As long Musharraf continues, we are bound to witness this endless dance of musical chairs amongst contenders of power.
In this political and bureaucratic atmosphere, it is really astonishingly that Boucher said, “Musharraf is not an issue.” How naive can one be? No wonder his goading Nawaz to accept this utterly unrealistic persuasion was flatly rejected. Musharraf is the major issue in Pakistan since last many years. Since 1999, the entire law and constitutional schemes have revolved around this one fulcrum: how can he remain in power? That still continues to be the theme of all major states level actions.
In this season of democratic thinking unelected advisers, mostly of the Musharraf era have outnumbered the duly elected ministers in Gilani’s cabinet to establish the proxy situation we are now confronting. The first clear violation of the constitution was committed on June 25 when the sixth adviser to the PM was named; Article 93 of the constitution permits only five. Presently, the total number of federal ministers in the government is 15. However, the number of advisers to the PM or those holding some other key positions but enjoying the status of minister has gone up to 16. This is the first time in the country’s history that such a team of unelected advisers has outgrown the size of regular ministers. Gilani presently has six advisers, and the latest is Syed Hamid Saeed Kazmi, adviser on Religious Affairs.
Constitutional advisers to the PM not only attend cabinet meetings but can also attend sittings of both the houses of parliament. In addition to these 6 advisers, there are at least 10 individuals holding different public offices but enjoying the status of federal minister. Many of them are known Musharraf sycophants. Those who have been given the status of federal ministers and ministers of state often do not write with their name federal minister or minister of state. Such “hidden” ministers also do not take oath of their office, which is mandatory for formal federal ministers and ministers of state and hence is a violation of the constitution. Therefore it is most lamentable that while Musharraf continues to hold the balance of power and to ensure his nominees retain all basic powers structures in the bureaucracy of the country the nation’s economic well being is literally going astray and into doldrums.