Feeling over-confident and convinced that he is not accountable to anyone, President General Pervez Musharraf was apparently unable to gauge the level of opposition to his controversial move to suspend Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and send a reference against him to the Supreme Judicial Council. As it appears, most Pakistanis have not supported the president's action and this became clearly evident with the outpouring of sympathy and goodwill for the wronged chief justice. This could also be interpreted as a sign that majority of people have become fed up with the uniformed president and all those sharing power with him and are now ready for a change.

President Musharraf until now has survived every challenge to his rule. Seven and a half years after his bloodless coup d'etat against Nawaz Sharif, he has managed to retain the loyalty of the armed forces and built a political constituency for himself by patronising the PML-Q and other likeminded parties. He has also set up and strengthened a system of local councils that is inherently indebted and loyal to him.

With help from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the intelligence agencies, he has triggered defections and weakened opposition political parties. Like Nawaz Sharif's second term in office as prime minister after his 'heavy mandate' electoral victory in 1997, President Musharraf has gradually and systematically removed any hurdle to his quest for absolute power.

There were certainly political motives for the removal of Justice Chaudhry and one would not be wrong by suggesting that the move was aimed at taming the judiciary, already under pressure, with an eye on the coming elections for the president and parliament.

As an army chief, General Musharraf ousted an elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, when the latter used his constitutional power and sacked him on October 12, 1999 and replaced him with General Ziauddin Butt. Subsequently, he got rid of Mohammad Rafiq Tarar, duly elected as president in accordance with provisions of the Constitution, and occupied that position as well. The president by now has worked with three handpicked prime ministers. He appointed and removed Sardar Zafarullah Jamali even though the latter was willing to do his bidding and was not shy to refer to the president as his boss.

In a bizarre move, the president got Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain to act as a stand-in prime minister for less than two months so that finance minister Shaukat Aziz, his real choice for the job, was elected MNA and ready to take over. Shaukat Aziz is still in place but the president could seek a new prime minister, perhaps more political than the apolitical one that we presently have, if polls do take place.

However, the future political scene will be determined by the ongoing judicial crisis now gripping the country. It would be naïve to attach too much hope with the ongoing agitation spearheaded by the lawyers' community. The power game in Pakistan is heavily stacked in favour of the all-powerful military, which has intervened frequently to protect its interest and has time and again ruled the country by co-opting politicians and giving them a share in the government.

The international situation too is conducive for President General Musharraf as the US and its western allies have found it convenient to deal with a strong military ruler capable of achieving the objectives of America's war on terror. Also beneficial for the government and the military is the division in opposition ranks, evident from PML-N's reservations over the PPP's lukewarm participation in the campaign in support of the chief justice of Pakistan and the distrust that characterises the relations between the PPP and the MMA. The ongoing agitation, which is more of a no-trust in President Musharraf, could easily run out of steam.

In the past, lawyers have been in the forefront in the struggle for democracy and fundamental rights. Those wanting a change surely wish that the current judicial crisis would serve as the beginning of a movement against the government. Opposition politicians have rallied to the cause of Chief Justice Chaudhry and are banking on him to give a shot in the arm to their hitherto ineffective campaign to remove President Musharraf from power.

No doubt the people felt outraged when the chief justice was summoned to the president's camp office in Rawalpindi and photographed facing the uniformed General Musharraf as if answering a charge-sheet. Five hours later, he was allowed to go home but without the protocol that he allegedly loved and is normally reserved for any chief justice of Pakistan. By then, he had been made dysfunctional, put under virtual house arrest and replaced by an acting chief justice.

His manhandling and humiliation at the hands of the police on the day of his appearance before the five fellow judges making up the Supreme Judicial Council was so visible and uncalled for that the Acting Chief Justice Javed Iqbal took suo motu notice of it and served notices on senior police officers. By the way, Chief Justice Chaudhry had earned gratitude of many helpless citizens by taking suo moto notice of violation of their rights as reported in the media or brought to his attention through letters. No wonder then that relations of missing persons, who disappeared as a consequence of the controversial war on terror, and others who benefited from Chief Justice Chaudhry's judicial activism, are now praying for his victory in the tussle with the rulers.

Much more is at stake in the ongoing battle between the President of Pakistan and the chief justice. For once, PML-Q head Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was right when he said that this was a tussle between the military and the judiciary. As a seasoned politician, he knew what he was talking even though his intention was to absolve himself and his party of any responsibility in the judicial crisis that has engulfed the country.

But it is an unequal battle because the military is united behind its commander-in-chief General Musharraf and the judiciary, particularly those holding positions in the superior courts, is divided. It is true that lawyers have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the judiciary and enjoy the support of political parties and the masses. However, the judges would have to rise to the occasion if they want the judiciary to survive as an independent institution.

In the past, the judiciary sanctioned military takeovers and administered oath to all those who ousted democratic governments. Such a record cannot serve as an inspiration for those wanting a regime change or real democracy.



The writer is an executive editor of The News International based in Peshawar. Email: bbc@pes.comsats.net.pk