What next?

August 18, 2008 was indeed a historic day in Pakistan’s history - the strong man of Pakistan bowed before public opinion and resigned. Pakistan completed yet another step towards true democracy and the nation showed to the world that we too can resolve our issues wisely and maturely, without violence and strife. Some people are celebrating because they feel Musharraf was a dictator and usurper of the constitution whose removal served the ends of justice.

To me at this stage what Musharraf was or did (bad or good), is not important. What is however cause of rejoicing is that people of Pakistan have been spared the turmoil and uncertainty of having to go through the process of impeachment, which surely would have, to say the least, brought the country’s governance to yet another stand still for many months. Under the law the ex-president was entitled to receive a charge sheet and to defend himself through all constitutional means [dissolution of assemblies under Article 58-2(b) was available to him].

He could also have filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the charge sheet itself. Depending on the allegations against him, the defence could have roped in various high ranking army officers and senior judges of Supreme Court, and in case of assemblies’ dissolution certainly would have led to civil unrest and posed a serious threat to democracy in Pakistan. All this was avoided by Musharraf deciding to voluntarily step down. Whatever else one may say, this was an act which needs to be appreciated.

The crucial question is, having achieved all this, what next? More than 70 people died yesterday and war on Pakistan has been officially declared by terrorist organisations. It is need of the hour to concentrate on this war and neither the nation nor democracy is ready for any further controversies. There are now some obvious dos and don’ts which should be on the minds of the coalition government.

First the constitution provides that presidential elections have to be completed within 30 days. In a coalition set-up, the choice of a presidential candidate politically rests with the majority party. All coalition partners should, in this spirit, make the election of the president as free from dispute as possible by accepting its candidate.

Alternatively, if any of the coalition parties have serious objections then they should follow the democratic norms, put forward their own candidate, and in true parliamentary spirit have an election. Let the candidate with the majority votes win. This will only strengthen democracy. What they must not do however is under the garb of conciliation linger on with this issue till it becomes a dispute.

Simultaneously with the election of the president, the coalition government should waste no time in finishing, once and for all, the discord and issue of judges’ restoration. With Musharraf gone there is now no apparent reason why the deposed judges cannot be reinstated as soon as possible by one or the other means. Indeed all parties and segments of society are unanimous that the action of judges’ removal was wrong.

The only contention between PPP and PML-N is as regards modus operandi and extent of the restoration. PPP has taken a stance that any restoration has to be accomplished through constitutional amendment and are of the view that in this way not only what has happened in past will be validated but independence of judiciary would be better secured.