LIBERTY & SECURITY WRESTLE IN PAKISTAN, AS ELSEWHERE
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE 21st CENTURY? HOW CAN THE INT'L COMMUNITY PROMOTE INTERNAL REFORMS WITHOUT HEIGHTENING INSTABILITY
13 November 2007 :: Crisis Policy Forum

In many parts of the world, people are presently facing the question, on a societal scale, of whether or not free and open democracy can coexist with measures taken to protect against extremism. The question is an old one and goes to the root of whether it is possible, as a matter of natural law, to vote away one's rights or to vote against democracy.

To take a serious look at this question, we must first consider that: democracy is not an ideology and it is not a system; it is quite simply the idea that no form of government can be legitimate unless it is (regularly) chosen by a free and sovereign people. That can be implemented in a number of ways and need not be contrary to anyone's culture or faith.

But, a new problem has come into play in recent years, which has existed throughout modern times and essentially has always been part of the mix between populist rhetoric and authoritarian rule, from Hellenic city states to the Roman empire up through the 20th century: that is whether the need to be secure justifies overruling the protections that allow for a population of free individuals to choose its government.

Famously attributed to Ben Franklin, but possibly written by diplomat Richard Jackson is the tenet "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Clearly, one cannot secure one's liberty by stamping it out, just as one cannot save a village by burning it.

There are countless cases of dictators committing mass murder under the auspices of a prolonged security operation or state of emergency, so it should not be shocking that authoritarian rulers expect to persuade that mass detention, the suspension of civil liberties and attacks on opposition activists can be justified by security concerns, so long as no one is killed.

In Pakistan, we have seen a tragic loss of life —the authorship of which is still undetermined— when a bomb attack targeted Benazir Bhutto's celebratory convoy upon her return after years in exile. Now, we are seeing a general who has ruled as a quasi civilian leader for nearly a decade, targeting all the levers of a democratic state, and making the claim that security and extremism are his concerns.

Maybe. What if? But there is no way to trust in that justification, because as Ms. Bhutto quite rightly points out, extremists are being ignored by the 4,000 police surrounding her home, and the legal system has been dismantled by military decree, added to which we have the constnt problem of a general claiming he plans to save democracy by stamping it out.

There are clearly real security issues in Pakistan. As there were in 1864 when the United States was at war with itself, but still held national elections. As there are at all times in the Philippines, whose government confronts several rebel factions, or even in Spain, where Basque separatists continue to harass the democratic state.

In 2004, when the Spanish ruling party talked of suspending elections because there had been a terror attack, it was top ranking military and police who said they would not stand by and watch the constitution ignored by the government. When the US Dept. of Homeland Security, under Tom Ridge, contemplated suspending November elections, it was the president's own party that responded to public outrage and moved to bar such a move.

Security and liberty are not at odds. They are parallel streams whose tributaries often intersect, but they have their own course and should not be mixed for the political gain of any faction or ideology. This much we should be able to agree on. From there, we need to take a very serious look at what motivates a people to sign away its rights in the confusion of a dangerous moment.

MUSHARRAF ARRESTS OVER 3,500 LAWYERS, DISSIDENTS, ACTIVISTS IN NATIONWIDE MIILITARY ACTION
8 November 2007

Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has signaled his willingness to resort to force to put a stop to protests against his exercise of power, suspending the constitution, rounding up opposition leaders, judiciary officials, human rights activists, and saying democracy will be restored upon his decree. Several days into a martial law decree, protests are mounting and police violence against demonstrators shows no signs of abating.

Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has called on Musharraf to hold elections as scheduled in January, to step down as military chief and to restore the constitution and the judiciary. She has said she will stage mass demonstrations in Lahore, then march with thousands of supporters across the country to Islamabad to demand his resignation if the rule of law is not promptly restored.

After sustained pressure from opposition leaders, lawyers across the country and world powers, Gen. Musharraf today told a gathering of state-employed reporters "Elections in Pakistan must be held before Feb. 15, 2008, latest", according to the Wall Street Journal. The move is intended to diffuse tensions and hopefully begin a process of negotiation and deal-making to allow a smooth transition back to democracy and prevent the rise of radical groups.

Human rights groups are demanding that the democratic constitution be restored immediately, even as Musharraf has announced he will dissolve the National Assembly by mid-month, setting the stage for an interim period in which he carries out political reforms by decree and seeks to limit dissent, in the run-up to the re-scheduled parliamentary elections. [s]

BACKGROUND:
WHY MUSHARRAF'S USE OF FORCE AGAINST CIVIL REFORMERS IS DANGEROUS FOR PAKISTAN, THE REGION
6 November 2007

When Pervez Musharraf came to power in a military coup d'état in 1999, he promised to restore democracy fully within 3 years' time. Symbolic elections were held under a temporary constitution, beginning his first 5-year reign. Now, under a civilian constitution, Musharraf has been re-elected to a 2nd 5-year term, though the Supreme Court was about to issue a ruling on the legitimacy of his re-election, as he had not relinquished control of the military. [Full Story]

MUSHARRAF DECLARES MARTIAL LAW, SUSPENDS CONSTITUTION
OPPONENTS PREDICT 'LAST DAYS' OF HIS RULE AS HUNDREDS ARE DETAINED BY SECURITY FORCES
5 November 2007

Pakistan pres. Pervez Musharraf, a general who came to power by 'bloodless' military coup in 1999, has been facing opposition from a national lawyers organization that says he has delayed too long in restoring the democratic process, and was facing a Supreme Court ruling that might invalidate his recent re-election. Musharraf claims he had no choice but to suspend the constitution, because Pakistan's "sovereignty" was under threat from "paralysis of government by judicial interference".

The imposition of martial law, 8 years after taking power with the promise to restore democracy, is a shocking move for the general, who has been under pressure from all quarters to relinquish his role as head of the military and rule as a civilian president, elected by the people in free elections. The Supreme Court was to vote on the validity of his recent re-election to the presidency, given his refusal to relinquish control of the military. Early statements suggested Musharraf intends to rule by military decree until the elections are over: observers warn the election could not be considered legitimate if the constitution that governs it and which those elected must serve, is not in effect at the time of the vote. [Full Story]