The case for and against a boycott.... Bilal Hassan Minto

In speculating about how the present turmoil in Pakistani politics will settle, many commentators have laid a lot of importance upon the US factor. One common refrain is that since its war on terror the US has all its eggs foolishly placed in just a single basket called Musharraf, it wants him to continue to be in charge of this Islamic Republic. The trouble with this is that, as soon as Martial Law is lifted, Musharraf will become an ordinary civilian president with only Article 58 (2) (b) of the constitution available for use against a future government. It is unlikely that this power to dissolve the Parliament is all that the US, and Musharraf himself are counting on for arm-twisting the next government. Two other possibilities may therefore be under consideration by our American masters. First, to transfer some of their eggs to another basket, namely a weak, but elected government which will work with a weaker than before Musharraf so that the two can dance to the US's tune with the possibility of one being used against the other if need be. The second is that before he lifts Martial Law, but after the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers (December 14), Musharraf will make sweeping amendments to the constitution giving himself huge powers and secure his place as the US's indispensable ally. If making further amendments to the constitution that give Musharraf more powers is a possibility -- and given his love of power, it certainly is -- the political parties not boycotting the elections need to rethink their decision. It must be understood that Musharraf does not need a future parliament to ratify any amendment that he has or may still make in the constitution. His Supreme Court has already given him the authority to amend the constitution without requiring that such amendments be approved by the next parliament. While it is true that the Supreme Court has laid down some parameters within which they may be made, a challenge to these amendments on the ground that they are outside those parameters will again come for decision before this, same Supreme Court. Its likely decision is anybody's guess. How then, do the parties going into elections, expect to undo these amendments or other laws (which could well include a repeal of the NRO) when by all forecasts none of them is expected to get even a simple, let alone two third majority in Parliament? Not only will those who form a coalition government be unable to undo any of Musharraf's doings, with Article 58 (2) (b) and our intelligence agencies in attendance, they will also be especially vulnerable to threats of destabilization. And where will these parties go to protest the massive rigging that they know will take place? By contesting elections --whether under protest or otherwise -- they would have accepted the entire body of the law under which elections take place. The phrase "participation under protest" is not recognized by these laws and withdrawal from elections or boycott means nothing if nomination papers have not actually been withdrawn. Also, under these laws, challenge to the validity of an election can only be brought before "election tribunals" which comprise of the existing PCO High Court judges. As it is, election cases take ages to conclude. Add to this, the fact that these courts will not be in a hurry to decide a charge of rigging against Musharraf's electoral machinery and there you have it: a sure shot delivery of justice in a decade or so. Going to the election tribunals not being an option, would these parties be able to launch agitation? Today, even though their credibility with the people is low, they are being urged -- by lawyers, by growing number of students, by journalists, and by what exists of civil society -- to boycott and start a movement which these groups will lend support to. These parties are being told that now is the time for a movement and that the protests started by these groups will soon dwindle if left on their own. While these groups are still sustaining their protests, no party has joined them on a single occasion save for a photo session at the Press Clubs. The possibility of launching a post-election agitation when these groups and a cynical populace would have become even more cynical and mistrusting of these parties because of their participation in the elections, is, very slim. One argument against boycott is that it will give the establishment a free hand to install their handpicked people in government. That is stating the obvious but it is hardly an argument. The point of boycott is not just to boycott and then sit at home waiting for someone to take notice, sympathise and come to rescue. The point of boycott is, firstly, to take away the election's legitimacy and secondly, to mobilize a movement to force the establishment into conceding that the only elections acceptable are those that are held under the dispensation that existed on November 2. This is not the Zia era of 1985. Musharraf's power today is considerably less than what Zia's was then. A few thousand lawyers thinned out over the whole of Pakistan were able to sustain a movement for over four months that eventually gave the judiciary the confidence to throw out Musharraf's reference against the Chief Justice at a time when he still ruled strong. But it appears that despite the fact that Musharraf is much weaker today and despite the ready made support that lawyers and civil society are willing to lend them, the political parties are not confident and afraid to even attempt to launch a movement. Perhaps they are only worthy of the kind of elections they are about to get. The political parties are being urged to adopt a politics of "reconciliation" by those who would like the coming farcical elections to be perceived as "legitimate". It is not entirely clear as to what this rhetoric means other than an invitation to do deals and become part of an unstable future governmental set up acceptable to the establishment. It is even more unclear as to how one reconciles with a whole scale massacre of the judiciary, arbitrary mass arrests and detentions, a media gag denying freedom of expression and information, or a dictator's tampering with the constitution. Politics that entails reconciling with all of this is just what the political parties need to adopt if they wish to lose even the last iota of the little respect and credibility they may still have in the eyes of the people. The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan currently wondering whether he will continue to practice or not.