In Pakistan Benazir Bhutto’s Dismissal is Deja Vu All Over Again

by M.M. Ali

On the same day Americans went to the polls to elect a president for the next four years, President Farooq Ahmed Leghari dismissed the government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan two years before the end of its five-year term. As Pakistanis had feared or hoped for some time (see the Nov./Dec. 1996 Washington Report), her administration was forced to leave office prematurely, just as she had been in 1990, on charges of “corruption, nepotism and mismanagement.” Again it was the now-infamous Eighth Amendment in Pakistan’s constitution that was invoked by the president to remove an elected prime minister and the National Assembly.

Six years ago, it was Ghulam Ishaq Khan, a non-party president, who dismissed Bhutto’s government. This time, however, she was removed by a member of her own People’s Party.

Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the years of authoritarian rule that have atrophied democratic institutions and opened up opportunities for a succession of short-sighted, self-aggrandizing and unscrupulous leaders and their coteries. Military dictators have run the country intermittently for 24 of its 50 years of existence by banning political parties and prohibiting political activities from university campuses, the traditional nurseries for politicians in the subcontinent.

Not every calamity, however, can be attributed to the army. The old adage that “he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it” applies all too well in the case of Benazir Bhutto.

The Charges

The proclamation issued by President Leghari reads in part: “Whereas during the last three years thousands of persons in Karachi and other parts of Pakistan have been deprived of their right to life…instead of ensuring proper investigation of these extra-judicial killings, the government has taken pride that in this manner the law and order situation has been controlled…Powerful members of the federal and provincial governments, who are themselves accused of crime, influence and control the law-enforcing agencies…The government has… sought to undermine the independence of the judiciary that is guaranteed by the constitution…The prime minister and her government have deliberately violated on a massive scale the right of privacy…through illegal phone-tapping and eavesdropping… Corruption, nepotism and violation of rules in the administration of the government and its various bodies has become so extensive that the orderly functioning of the government…has become impossible…Public faith in the integrity and honesty of the government has disappeared.”

Differing only in the details, the charges resemble those leveled in 1990 when Benazir Bhutto’s first administration was summarily removed from office. However, people who know Leghari believe that while he may have agreed with the decision, he was not the sole author of the strongly worded proclamation that went out in his name. It was no secret that army chief of staff General Karamath was equally unhappy with the Bhutto administration and many think the army brought about the change.

Nevertheless, when President Leghari or intermediaries raised rumors relating to corruption or violations of law and order in recent meetings with Prime Minister Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, those meetings were far from friendly. Now the president has promised elections within 90 days as required by the constitution.

The Eighth Amendment

The ousted prime minister is challenging in the courts the charges leveled against her administration. The question she is asking the Supreme Court of Pakistan to rule on is whether there was sufficient cause for such an action.

The Eighth Amendment that enables the president to remove a prime minister was added to the constitution by a former president, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, to give him leverage over his prime minister. He used the provision to get rid of Prime Minister Mohammed Khan Junejo. Subsequently President Ghulam Ishaq Khan used it first to dismiss Benazir Bhutto and her government and later the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. Now Farooq Leghari has used the Eighth Amendment to remove Benazir Bhutto’s second government.

Although supporters of parliamentary democracy may dislike the Eighth Amendment, their objections are weakened by Pakistan’s history of maladministration by elected governments. In fledgling democracies with fragile economies, facing rampant corruption at all levels and an absence of law and order, provisions like the Eighth Amendment find public sanction. There was visible rejoicing in several major cities in Pakistan at the Nov. 5 change.

The questions being asked today are whether the interim government headed by Prime Minister Meraj Khalid, 80, a veteran politician who has been out of the main political loop, is likely to usher in an era of clean government, whether Farooq Leghari should head the cleansing process, and whether during the interim period negotiations can be conducted with the IMF and the World Bank to ameliorate Pakistan’s economic malaise.

Meanwhile, political observers are questioning the frequent use of the Eighth Amendment, which was designed to meet only an emergency situation. The normal constitutional procedure for the early removal of an elected government is when the ruling party loses support of a majority in the legislature.

The interim government also has plans to carry out a national census, which has not been conducted for a very long time. The government also wants to bring charges against criminals and wrongdoers, and to bar those convicted from running for public office for some time. Observers doubt that all this can be done within 90 days. The interim may have to be longer.

One way of dealing with all these questions is to remove Leghari from the office of the president, and also install a new interim prime minister in January, initiating a second 90-day interim period to gain time to prepare for elections and still remain within the constitutional framework. The present interim government has announced Feb. 3 as the election date.

On Nov. 2, three days before Leghari’s decision, The Washington Times had reported: “A visiting International Monetary Fund (IMF) team announced that it had reached an understanding with [Bhutto’s] government, under which Pakistan will immediately get $160 million of an emergency loan suspended in April, with the $240 million balance by March 1997.” Quoting a political analyst from Islamabad, the paper said, “Despite the scandals, Mrs. Bhutto should be allowed to finish her term, if only to give democracy a fighting chance in Pakistan.”

It appears, therefore, that what the interim government now is trying to get from the IMF was already in the works. With regard to charges of corruption and the breakdown of law and order, most were old stories, with the exception of the mysterious death in a shootout with Karachi police of Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir’s estranged brother and political rival. There was nothing to suggest an impending national disaster when President Leghari, supported by the army, moved in the early morning hours of Nov. 5 to oust the Bhutto government .

There now are efforts to disqualify both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from participating in the upcoming elections. The interim prime minister has said: “Those who have plundered the national wealth will be made to go through a comprehensive, transparent and speedy process of accountability.” Not many are willing to believe that such an accounting can be achieved by the promised Feb. 3 election date.

All this may be intended to clear the way for Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former cricket captain, who now heads his own recently formed political party, Tehrik-e-Insaf, to become a future prime minister. In a highly publicized meeting, President Leghari recently received Imran Khan in Islamabad, feeding into the rumor mill.

Appointments to the new interim cabinet, and of new governors and chief ministers in the provinces, particularly Mumtaz Bhutto (Benazir's uncle) in Sindh, clearly show that the People’s Party is being split into pieces.

Going into the elections, one People’s Party group remains with Benazir, although since Nov. 5 many have announced they are leaving the party. Another group had been with her estranged and now deceased brother, Murtaza. Yet another People’s party faction belongs to Mumtaz Bhutto, who does not support Benazir.

People’s Party factions in Punjab are further split between Leghari and others. It therefore will be almost impossible for Benazir to field a united People’s Party platform if elections are held as scheduled in early February.

Her principal political rival, Nawaz Sharif, whose name appears on several lists of bank defaulters, also finds his Muslim League badly fractured, with its support both in rural Punjab and in Sindh province fast waning. An early grouping of right-wing religious parties has been formed by Maulana Husain Ahmed of Jamaat-i Islami. These parties, which have yet to prove their strength at the polls, cannot themselves win the majority but they can tilt the scales in close elections. There is talk of forming a national government but keeping out Benazir Bhutto.

Meanwhile, World Bank/IMF operatives may be able temporarily to stabilize the country economically, but they cannot fix the political malaise created by the successive military regimes, wrote The Christian Science Monitor in a Nov. 20, 1996 editorial: “What Pakistan needs is a stable, civilian-run government, based on respect for democratic processes and a commitment to root out corruption.” It’s a problem more easily defined than solved.

Commenting on the pace of the peace process, Dr. Stein noted that perceptions of time are markedly different between the Egyptians and the Israelis. Egypt wishes that Israel would “work with a clock” instead of a “calendar,” while the Israelis are more comfortable with a slow negotiation pace. “Israel’s fear,” Dr. Stein said, “is that she is being cut down to size in phases, and ultimately at some point down the road there will be another major Arab onslaught against the state of Israel. This perception about the future plays a heavy role in Israeli decision making.”

Bahgat Korany argued that the Camp David agreement was pivotal in international diplomatic relations since it was signed by three countries, reinforced Egypt’s role as a regional and central superpower, and, by initiating a new set of norms, principles and behavior, created a “new regional order” in the Middle East.

Dr. Korany said that prior to the signing of the Camp David agreement, world perceptions of the Middle East were markedly different than they are today. Korany suggested that the third economic summit in Cairo can be seen as having its origins in Camp David.

Concluding, Dr. Korany asked, “If Camp David is a victorious regional order, is it a triumphant one? Is it a full international regime? Is it capable of mobilizing not only statesmen but people to defend it? And to achieve stability beyond whimsical leadership and radical social movement?” History has shown, he said, that the establishment of order precedes the establishment of full justice. In the case of the peace process and in following the vision of Camp David, Dr. Korany argued that justice must follow swiftly, without delay, and that order needs to be legitimized by the people, not only by the leaders and diplomats of each state.

Established in October 1992, the AUC Forum is a semi-annual panel discussion held in New York to examine economic, social, and cultural issues of importance to Egypt and the Middle East. The next Forum will be in May 1997. For further information contact Mary Judith Sundstrom at The American University in Cairo, 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 517, New York, NY 10017-1889, (212) 421-6320.