He had appointed a retired major to the OGDC in violation of rules on instructions of General Nasirullah Khan Babar (Retd), then Special Assistant to the Prime Minister. No reference was filed either against General Nasirullah Babar or against the Major. Selective accountability is the order of the day. And the opposition has understandably to protect itself against such selective acts of accountability.
Another case of harassment of the opposition for the offence of standing up to the government is that of Javed Hashmi, He has been convicted to life imprisonment for "treason" in secret trial in jail. There is no hope of his ever coming out as long as this government lasts. The worst case was that of Asif Zardari. He acquired a very bad name some as a result of adverse Press and some of undeserved.
People generally believed most of what was said against him. But his continued incarceration for about 8 years without having been convicted has aroused strong sympathy amongst the population for his courage, savvy and determination. Amnesty International finally adopted him as a prisoner of conscience.
These are a few cases of bold and brave politicians who have defied all odds to stand up to the oppressive regimes. These are some honourable exceptions. But a majority of them do not deserve these epithets. Opposition has somehow escaped serious scrutiny by the media because it has been assumed that it has been doing its job well.
Every segment of the society has received attention one time or the other from intellectuals and the Press. Opposition leaders have been depicted as heroes having supposedly stood up to the uncaring, undemocratic governments.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Opposition is as much infested with unprincipled politicians as any other part of the society. Take the case of the present opposition in the National Assembly. The 'official' opposition headed by Maulana Fazalur Rehman has been installed by the regime in the face of opposition from ARD that represents the largest single bloc in the National Assembly.
MMA is widely perceived as the B team of the present military government. Mulla-Military nexus has become a byword of Pakistan politics.
The MMA, as the mulla alliance is known, does not meet the graduation criterion and yet the military regime has allowed them not only to continue but also to rule NWFP and Balochistan. The decision of Peshawar High Court de-recognising the so-called degree of one MMA member was challenged in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The military regime did not challenge the appeal after a deal was done.
The case is still lies somewhere in the deep recesses of Supreme Court Library. After a stay, the case continues to pend, obviously until the term of the present assembly expires. The thick relationship between the military and mullas' needs no proof if one is needed.
The people's Party in spite of desertion by a dozen "patriots" still enjoys the support of the largest number of members. The People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League (N) under the banner of ARD carry the flag of real opposition to the military rule.
The official opposition as represented by the MMA is playing by the rules prescribed by the regime and raises some sharp noises once in a while to sustain its image being the real opposition and then goes along to strengthen the military's control over the country. The mulla-military nexus has indeed been formalised with the last elections.
The present government has one single item agenda that is to protect 'supreme national interest'. That is a different matter as to how you define it. It was in the supreme national interest to hold a copycat referendum to legitimise the seizure of power by the Generalissimo.
The referendum, and ultimate shame in political chicanery, has been embedded through the 17th amendment in the constitution. Zia-ul-Haq did the same. General Yahya Khan also tried to safeguard the national interest in 1971 by blatantly disregarding the verdict of the people as expressed in the polls swept by Awami League. He went as far as to allow the humiliation of his own military, which nourished him in power, and the loss of more than half the population, not to be confused with the loss of land that people left in the truncated Pakistan rue the most.
The motivation of the present regime is no different. The national interest is only a fig leaf to mask personal ambition of the Generals. Civil war-like conditions in rural Sindh, the whole of Balochistan and the tribal areas of NWFP present bad omens reminiscent of early 1970s.
The Pakistani generals have assumed the role of being the arbiters of our national interests. One has known the Generals well enough to understand that their simple minds are incapable of comprehending anything more complicated than their personal ambition or the rudimentary fundamentals of the military strategy or tactics. Once they set their heart on ordering national priorities by entering politics they make a bigger mess.
The most recent example is the Kargil adventure, which was based on an assumption that India will not react because we are a nuclear power. The former Prime Minister had to beg the United States to intercede with India for a safe withdrawal.
The government is smug in the belief that the real opposition to the present regime sitting outside the country provides for its longevity. The General is happy at the exit of two leaders who alone can offer potent threat to his continuity in power. The vote bank is either with the PPP or PML (N). Both the leaders are cooling their heels in foreign lands. Benazir lives in self-exile and is not returning for fear of being arrested on arrival.
Mohammad Nawaz Sharif is away as a part of a bargain, which allowed him freedom from prison. Both the leaders by remaining abroad have failed their electorate by not orchestrating the will of the populace in wanting restoration of democracy. A determined opposition to the Generals so as to force them to their barracks can only come from the presence of these two leaders. As things stand, with the two leaders sitting it out for the sake of their personal reasons, the military gets a chance to further entrench itself into the civic society.
The two leaders are guilty of abandoning their electorates to the harsh realities of insidious military rule.
One can understand Nawaz Sharif's dilemma for trying to escape the threat of gallows a'la Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and to enter a secret deal with the Generals. But he has landed himself from Pakistani jail into gilded royal Saudi jail. He is not even allowed to make statements or leave Saudi Arabia. His passport together with the families' is with the "Kafeels".
He let down the people of Pakistan by bartering away their freedom for his own. Had he stayed on, the military was coming under tremendous pressure to release him and make progress or make progress towards democracy. And had Benazir decided to jump into the fray at that time which looked imminent, it would have been impossible for the military to withstand the pressure.
Two former Prime Ministers in jail would be too much even for the hard-headed General to withstand. Both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif followed their personal instincts of survival rather than their duty to the people. The General could not hope for anything better.
Benazir does not want to run any risk and wishes to follow the easier path to power. She wants to ride the coattails of the State Department of the US Government and our military.
The people of Pakistan are very angry at the present regime serving the US interests. If Benazir comes to Pakistan and lands in jail the heat for the Generals will be too unbearable.
Once out on the streets, she should articulate the extreme resentment felt against the Americans for pursuing their "war against terror", a euphemism for a crusade against Muslims.
The opposition within the assembly under the existing circumstances cannot accomplish much. There has to be a holistic approach towards democracy, which involves strong civic society, free Press, independent courts and upright bureaucracy.
In the absence of all that, the opposition within the assembly is simply helpless in confronting the military might. Army has permeated every segment of society, so much so that all of the three officers recommending a retired Major for promotion in a civil organisation were former military men. It is impossible for the opposition to dislodge the military barring a national catastrophe.
Another hope is for the civil organisations to crumble from within as a result of the military mass exceeding the critical level, which must result from total management failure. After all how long and how much could an organisation bear in terms of lack of competence and integrity.
In one case, one saw a retired major who had been removed by the military on disciplinary grounds being recommended to be absorbed by his fellow colleagues serving the organisation on the ground that it is all right for civil organisations to lower its standards of probity.
The opposition even during brief democratic interludes has been guilty of failure. In 1992, we had massive floods. Mangla Dam was threatened. It was suddenly opened with catastrophic consequences in loss of life and property. A high-level inquiry committee was appointed.
Some opposition leaders, including Farooq Leghari, were put on it. One thought that there would be objective assessment and a critical analysis of the causes of floods and the role of management failure, if any. But one was disappointed at the collusion of both the government and the opposition leaders in sweeping everything under the carpet.
The result was that no individual was found culpable. The almighty had to bear the blame. They both were beholden to Wapda high-ups for small favours. Do you know that you cannot win National Assembly seat without help from Wapda? The candidate promises electricity and the engineer dumps poles before polls. And that is that. Nothing happens afterwards.
The real facts of the catastrophic were miserable failure of Wapda management right from top to bottom. 14 crucial hours had been wasted because the small guy guarding the lake could not access the executive engineer between 8 pm and 10 am to be able to inform him of the impending threat from ever-rising waters. When the officers finally showed up in their office next morning, it was too late.
Chief Engineer In-charge of Mangla did not have the authority or simply lacked the mental capacity or habit to decide. He had to seek the approval of the higher-ups in Wapda, Lahore. Once the permission was granted and the gates were suddenly opened without warning to save the dam, it was too late and the people downstream paid the price in life and property.
Then there was this case of Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly which is a watchdog of government expenditure. Those were the perilous days of Ziaul Haq, but not for the Generals. A former General, who as Chairman Wapda, had acted in total breach of all rules by changing the approved scheme of Guddu Power station substantially, and to cover up his malafide added an unauthorised mosque.
Times had changed and there was democracy all around. the Chairman of the PAC, one Hamza harangued all those present that he would like to set the process of accountability ablaze by taking strong action against the guilty. Instead of playing my assigned role of defending the wrong and dishonest action of the general, i supported the recommendation of the Auditor-General and recommended action. But the pusillanimous PAC boss was bewildered at the approach. He averted all suggestions to recommend action against the erring general. With that kind of leaders heading the PAC, what hope could one have in other politicians?
But what is the ARD doing? Has it played an effective role in confronting the military? Has it shown unity of purpose? To all these questions the answers are in the negative. The opposition as represented in the ARD is lacklustre and does not fire the imagination of the people.
Raja Zafarul Haq and Amin Fahim are not the kind of leaders who would inspire the crowds. One has to put up with the second and third-rate leaders who have stuck to the party in the hope of winning offices when the fortunes change.
Our leaders, with a very few exception, lack intellectual capacity to do real hard work to confront the government. The questions that they ask in the national assembly lack homework and are generally mundane and are therefore ignored or elicit half replies.
Follow-up action on those questions lacks input and therefore renders the whole exercise ineffectual. The only form of asserting their presence is their frequent walkouts, which have lost their sting having been devalued by repetition.
The government takes the walkouts in a stride and uses their absence to fast forward their pet pieces of legislation. The latest example is imposition of export controls on nuclear material.
The opposition has during the last two decades not acquitted itself well. No national assembly dissolved by a Chief of Army Staff directly or through the President has ever protested the dissolution by holding a meeting on the road in front of the National Assembly.
This is because they lack the courage and character to stand up to the tin pot dictators. Unless the society offers a determined opposition to the military, the opposition alone cannot do much.