Author Archives: Editors
The Art Of Capturing The People’s Mandate
A chronological history of systematic subversion of Pakistani people’s mandate.
Written by : Dr. Nazzir Mahmood(The News July 28, 20180)
Shared by : Mirza Ashraf
In the seven decades of Pakistan’s existence, at least seven strategies or tactics have been developed in the country to capture or steal people’s mandate.
These tactics – or tools if you will – have been used with various degrees of success in the past 70 years, but one common feature among them is that most of these tools were perfected in the 1950s and then used again and again in each succeeding decade. So, what exactly are these tactics that have been so useful and how people keep falling prey to them?
First, topple the government or its leader without resorting to any no-confidence motion. This tool was first used within the very first week of Pakistan’s creation when the elected government of Dr Khan Saheb in the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) was removed without a no-confidence motion. It is an established practice that if a national or provincial government needs to be removed, the opposition introduces a no-confidence motion and if the ruling leader or party does not have enough support in the concerned assembly, they lose the confidence vote. This is the legal and constitutional way of removing a government or its leader.
The removal of Dr Khan was not the last such episode. In fact, this engendered a plethora of such removals from both the centre and the provinces. The chief ministers of East Bengal, Punjab and Sindh were repeatedly removed at the behest of the central government. You will find not a couple, but dozens of such incidents in the history of Pakistan. The names are too many to cite here, but from Dr Khan, Ayub Khuhro and Fazlul Haq to the Bhuttos and the Sharifs, there is a long list of leaders whose mandate was captured or stolen.
Second, call them traitors and deprive them of their popular support. For this, a leader or a party does not need to be a popular leader across Pakistan. If you are a provincial or regional leader, or you are not likely to win many seats in the elections, even then you can be labelled a traitor. The condition is that you must deviate from the dominant narrative. If that narrative is of hatred and religious discord, you just need to talk about peace and harmony and you qualify to be a traitor.
Perhaps the first leader to be declared a traitor was Abdul Ghaffar Khan, and then there is a long line of them: Molvi Fazlul Haq, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Suhrawardy, Fatima Jinnah, the Bhuttos, down to the Sharifs. All these leaders have carried the proud stigma of being a traitor at various times. This tool is useful against big, medium and small-scale leaders alike. Even if your party or leader is not likely to win a couple of seats in elections, your defiant mood and questioning nature can deprive you of whatever meagre public support you command.
Third, create a conspiracy case. If declaring a traitor doesn’t do the trick, go a step further and concoct a conspiracy case that can substantiate allegations of treason. Be it the Rawalpindi, Agartala and Hyderabad conspiracy cases or the airplane high-jacking case, all have been used to prove that those who differ from the dominant power – civilian or military – run a risk of being involved in a conspiracy against the state. The hollowness of these cases can be gauged from the fact that even after being convicted in the Rawalpindi conspiracy case, Faiz Ahmed Faiz still commanded people’s respect. The Agartala and Hyderabad conspiracy cases were abolished by Gen Ayub Khan and Gen Ziaul Haq respectively, when they outlived their utility. The airplane high-jacking case died its own death when Nawaz was exiled.
Fourth, physically eliminate the leader. Liaquat Ali Khan was perhaps the first leader of a national stature who was eliminated in this fashion. Irrespective of what wrongs he committed, Liaquat Ali Khan was the leader of the house and commanded majority support. Though the real conspiracy behind his assassination was never fully disclosed, those who benefitted the most from his elimination included Malik Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Gen Ayub Khan; all three of them became the heads of state one after the other. In the presence of Liaquat Ali Khan, perhaps none of them could have been elevated to such a lofty position.
Be it the judicial murder of Z A Bhutto or the terrorist attack on Benazir Bhutto, they deprived people of their favourite leaders. But physical elimination is not done by assassination alone. You can also exile a leader for 10 years like Nawaz Sharif, or put him/her behind bars for a long time such as Asif Zardari. Those who do all of this are never answerable in any court, even if the cases against those assassinated, incarcerated or exiled are highly controversial and lack any semblance of judicial accuracy. You may also capture the mandate just by creating an atmosphere in which leaders’ safety is always under threat.
Fifth, you may steal peoples’ mandate by abrogating laws and writing your own constitution. Ghulam Mohammad used his own interpretation of the law and the federal court stamped it for him. Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza abrogated the first constitution that had come into being after almost a decade. Gen Ayub Khan formed a constitutional commission of judges but then ultimately wrote his own constitution, promulgated in 1962 and arrogated all powers to himself, thus depriving people of their mandate for over a decade. Gen Yahya Khan abrogated the 1962 constitution and gave his own legal framework order.
Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen Musharraf mutilated the constitution so much that it took decades to restore some of its original countenance, though a portion of it is still bleeding and mauled. But this was not done by dictators alone. Even Z A Bhutto made changes to the constitution that have had a lasting impact on the minorities. Nawaz Sharif in his 1990s’ incarnations made such loathsome changes to the constitution that it started resembling a document from the Middle Ages. In this disenfranchisement of large segments of society, the judiciary was hand-in-glove.
Sixth, to capture the mandate you can use the media to your heart’s content to tell the people that the leaders they love are a worthless bunch of crooks or nincompoops. The print media was used effectively against the second prime minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Nazimuddin in the early 1950s. Then both the print and electronic media were used against Fatima Jinnah. After toppling Z A Bhutto, a series of programmes were shown on PTV that maligned Bhutto and his family. In the 1990s, the media was again used against the Bhuttos, when the Sharifs were relatively favoured.
Finally, the seventh tactic, or tool, to capture people’s mandate is to simply manipulate the elections. Perhaps the first such practice was used against Mirza Ibrahim, then on a massive scale against Fatima Jinnah in the 1960s. This manipulation can range from installing outright hostile caretaker governments, such as Ghulam Ishaq Khan did when in 1990 he made Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi the caretaker prime minister while the latter was stiffly against Benazir Bhutto, or installing Jam Sadiq Ali as caretaker chief minister of Sindh who surpassed all levels of indecency against Benazir Bhutto and her party, which enjoyed popular support at the time. So much so, that the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad had to be created to capture the mandate.
Please download and open the following link for further reading.
| Attachments | ||||
| untitled-[1.1].plain | text/plain | 0.1 KiB | Download | View | |
| The art of capturing the mandate.docx | ||||
“Terrorist Money Laundering, Pakistan & Elections” By F. Sheikh
Recently, just before elections, global terrorist money laundering watchdog organization, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Pakistan on its watch list. FATF is a 37-member watchdog organization, and 36 members voted in favor to place Pakistan on the watchdog list. Only Turkey voted against it, and both China and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s supposedly staunch allies, voted in favor to place Pakistan on Terrorist Money Laundering Watch list. It shows how bad things are, and how deep Pakistan’s credibility has eroded. India and USA spearheaded the campaign to place Pakistan on watch list. Financial Insider writes on its blog;
“Pakistani officials and analysts fear being on the FATF list could endanger Pakistan’s handful of remaining banking links to the outside world, causing real financial pain to the economy.”
In October 2016, Pakistan’s civilian government warned Military establishment that Pakistan will be isolated in the world unless all measures are taken to eradicate terrorism ,including proxy agents, and actions are taken against perpetrators of Mumbai attacks in India. The civilian government told Military that whenever it arrests these perpetrators, ISI works behind the scene to release them.The Military was not happy, and warning was taken as a threat to Military’s core interests. The civilian government faced serious consequences for challenging the Military. In recent elections , Military intervention made sure it does not win the elections.
The (European Union) EU watchdog Election Mission in Pakistan, claimed that although overall 2018 elections were credible, but not as credible as 2013 elections. The EU commission noted following alarming findings, as reported by Dawn , which calls into question their own conclusion of credible election;
According to the Mission, “Most interlocutors acknowledged a systematic effort to undermine the former ruling party through cases of corruption, contempt of court and terrorist charges against its leaders and candidates.”
“The elections took place against a background of allegations of interference in the electoral process by the military-led establishment and the role of the judiciary as a political actor,”
“the electorally sensitive timing, as well as the content of decisions of courts investigating or adjudicating on matters related to high-profile Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) candidates were perceived by several stakeholders as an indication of the politicization of the judiciary.”
Another interesting observation made in the preliminary statement says that security force officials “recorded and transmitted the results, giving the impression of an ongoing parallel tabulation.
The Military’s parallel monitoring of results from polling stations, at least suggests that perhaps backup plan was in place to get the desired results.
After elections it is obvious that PTI will form the next Government of Pakistan. There is reasonable chance that PTI will deliver to a certain degree on internal matters of corruption, health, education, and basic needs. But the sticky matters of Army affairs, terrorism and foreign policy, especially relations with India, are obstacles to any progress as it has doggedly haunted previous civilian governments.
What will happen to immediate matter of being on the terrorist money laundering watch list by FATF? Imran Khan has been called Taliban Khan for his sympathy to Taliban and questioning the need for war against terrorism. PTI government in PK allocated Rs 3 Million in their 2016/2017 budget that was supported by Imran Khan. How Imran Khan will satisfy FATF, against his own beliefs and without stepping on Army’s toes, to prevent further action by FATF of banning international banks and financial institutions to work with Pakistan’s banks? It can cripple Pakistan’s economy. He must keep in mind what happened to previous civilian government when it warned Military about it.
India is emerging economic power and all countries, including China and Middle East, would like to do business with India and accommodate its interests in all matters. Unfortunately, Pakistan does not have much to offer to the rest of the world that can attract their support. Some Western countries are giving token support because they fear economic collapse in a nuclear Pakistan might generate more violent extremism. China’s support is shaky and it alone cannot save Pakistan.
Recent elections will further embolden the military to get desired results by means other than imposing Martial Law. Military has found a way to have a leash on any civilian leader by bringing Judiciary under its fold.
Even if Imran Khan is sincere and honest, as all his supporters believe, will he make any difference? Most of the analysts think only on the margins, until three major issues are resolved. Number one, good relations with India. Number two, full civilian control on Military. Number three, which is correlated with other two, elimination of all forms of terrorism including proxy actors. More than anybody else, Imran Khan knows that it is impossible to achieve any of these goals, because he was a willing player used by the Military, to create unrest and topple previous civilian government which, despite being corrupt, tried to do exactly that.
Worth reading following supporting links for the article, especially the first link.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1288350
https://www.dawn.com/news/1266524
“America’s Killing List” By Matt Taibbi
Kareem now had no doubt he was on America’s infamous “Kill List.” Most Americans don’t even know we have such a thing. We do. Officially, it goes by the ghoulish bureaucratic euphemism “Disposition Matrix.”
Seemingly conceived in the Obama years, the lethal list – about which little is known outside a few leaks and court pleadings – appears to sort people into targeting for capture, interrogation, or assassination by drone. It was run by a star-chamber of two-dozen security officials and the president. According to a 2012 New York Times report, they met once a week to decide which targets around the world lived or died.
These meetings became known as “Terror Tuesdays.”
As Obama was preparing to leave office, candidate Donald Trump was promising to jack up the number of bombings in the Middle East. “You have to take out their families,” he said.
It’s one of the few promises he’s fulfilled. Reports vary, but some estimate that Trump has upped the pace of drone attacks by about four or five times the Obama rate, which itself was 10 times the rate of Bush.
We kill suspects whose names we know, and whose names we don’t; we kill the guilty and the not guilty; we kill men, but also women and children; we kill by day and by night; we fire missiles at confirmed visual targets, but also at cellphone numbers we hope belong to targets.
When he first heard he was on this list, Kareem was aghast. This was no situation like the siege of Aleppo, where a quick joke might turn the crowd. How could anyone reverse the decision of a deadly bureaucracy so secret and inaccessible that even if it had an off switch, few in the civilian world would know where to find it? How could he talk his way out of this one?
Kareem appealed for help to Clive Stafford Smith, an Anglo-American attorney he’d met in his travels, who’d founded a London-based human rights organization called Reprieve.
posted by f.sheikh