Answering the plea of the federal government, the Supreme Court (SC) has suspended Sindh High Court’s (SHC) ruling which sought the removal of former President Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL). The next hearing of the case will take place in four weeks, as a 5-member special bench of the SC will attempt to reach a final decision with regards to Mr Musharraf’s travel plans. Till then, the former dictator will most likely stay stuck in his homeland, and continue to be a consistent irritant for civil-military relations. The military doesn’t want its ex-chief to be prosecuted and convicted in what most say is an open and shut case of abrogation of the constitution, which amounts to treason. Mr Musharraf’s former boss, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is refusing to budge as his government continues to pursue the case despite facing tremendous pressure from the powers that be and entities forever loyal to them.
Some say that it’s just Nawaz Vs Musharraf; a case of personal vendetta and larger than life egos. Others view it as a contest between democracy and dictatorship; the beginning of rule of law, an end to the reign of holy cows, civilian ascendancy. Regardless, the game is on and seasoned performers are back on the stage to put on a familiar show, which never fails to mesmerise the forgetful audience. Nawaz is being reminded that there are bigger fish in the sea and they don’t always swallow to regurgitate like 1999. Media channels bashing the PML-N government day and night as well as the judiciary, Mr Tahir-ul-Qadri’s ‘revolutionary’ homecoming along with the resurfacing of Chaudharies of Gujarat, and the growing sternness in the tone of certain ‘defence analysts’ – all point towards the glaringly obvious. It is also interesting to see the argument – that the military is engaged in North Waziristan and so, it simply doesn’t have the time to harass Nawaz – be accepted as legitimate. The powerful institution’s ability to multi-task will surprise the ignorant and is quite well-known to pretenders.
Forget about the outcome for a moment, and focus on the process. Does it say something which a verdict may never tell us so clearly? Does it point towards the severe imbalance of power between state-institutions? Does it say anything about rule of law in the country? Even those who’ve always stood with democratic forces find themselves advising Nawaz to let Musharraf go for self-preservation and democracy. They are willing to compromise for the greater good. And that’s all there is to it, isn’t it? Forcing people to compromise on principles while convincing them how it’s actually for their own benefit. And it may very well be true which makes it even worse.