close
Friday March 29, 2024

Why martial law is damaging?

By Mazhar Abbas
July 05, 2017

Politics and politicians have always been treated as 'negative elements' within the powerful elite, who’ve often been blamed for providing an excuse for imposition of martial laws. The politicians are termed corrupt, and have been blamed for lacking capacity and capability to run the system. These have been some of the excuses which have been given to justify, legitimise, the unconstitutional rules called martial law. Ironically, the same dictators then used their handpicked as clean politician, who supported them.

This cycle is going on in this country since 1958, but the worst martial law was imposed on July 5, 1977, which continued till 1988. Politicians too are responsible as they allowed themselves to be used with a ‘price tag’.

The martial law is damaging for the country, because it is not a system but misrule. It caused colossal damage to institutions and left the system more unstable every time. Forty years have passed after imposition of a martial on July 5, 1977, but we are yet to recover from its damaging  effects. We are still facing threats of terrorism, extremism and unstable democratic system.

The military dictators, in a bid to prolong their rule, seek legitimacy from handpicked judiciary and selected politicians. It has often been claimed that the martial laws were imposed because of deadlock or vacuum, but historically each dictator came up with his constitution, political and so-called accountability system.

Thus, the breed of politicians produced by these long military rules, direct or indirect martial laws, lacked vision, ideological outlook and conviction to make the system better. Accountability in this country has often been used as a pretext for change of political loyalties, for which both carrot and stick strategies were used.

Late General Ziaul Haq imposed his martial law on July 5, 1977 and claimed that it had come as the last resort due to a deadlock over a political solution to crucial issues, though the fact remains that it was imposed when the deadlock between the PPP government and the opposition PNA had ended and both sides had agreed on fresh elections in 90 days under an interim government, with 50 per cent representatives from both sides.

Zia promised elections on Oct 18, 1977 and said he had no other intention and the army would go back to barracks after polls. He was told by his close aides and a bunch of advisers that the PPP’s party was over, and the PNA would get simple majority.

Like any dictator, he started manipulations as he wanted the PNA, an alliance of nine parties, to merge into one party. However the PNA leaders said that that was not possible. As soon as Bhutto was released and the PPP started election campaign, Zia and his administration got nervous and a month before scheduled polls date, an intelligence report predicted the PPP victory and chances of Bhutto's return to power.

This not only changed Zia's strategy but he also started adopting a path that the Pakistan could not recover even after 40 years. He knew that Bhutto was the biggest hurdle to his vision of Pakistan and military rule, and he used both anti-Bhutto politicians of the right and left wings as well as the judiciary. He first postponed elections without citing any reasons, rearrested Bhutto in a murder case and within two years, executed him, ignoring all international appeals on April 4, 1979. He and his cronies thought that with the death of Bhutto, the PPP would also be finished as no one from the family would lead the party in such circumstances.

From July 5, 1977 to April 4, 1979, he used one of the worst tactics like public hangings, flogging, torture, mostly of PPP leaders and thousand of workers.

Some PNA parties soon realised that Zia only used them in order to get rid of Bhutto. After ZAB's execution, he also distanced himself from most of the PNA parties and introduced his own brand of political system, in the name of Islam. He thought that since the PNA had launched a successful campaign in the name of Nizam-e-Mustafa, he could use this slogan to prolong his rule.

After getting judicial legitimacy with the PCO judges in the name of the law of necessity, he crushed anti-Zia movement particularly in Sindh, under the banner of new alliance, the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD). But, he felt its impact and thus in 1984, he sought political legitimacy through a referendum. He put the question that if the people wanted Islamisation in the country, then he would rule the country for five years. Even the parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, which supported Zia till his referendum, got divided. Its veteran Naib Emir Prof Ghafoor Ahmad walked out from Shoora for supporting Zia in the referendum. He said, "Zia has no right to rule after 90 days in 1977."

Ghafoor Ahmad was also against Bhutto's execution but remained silent after its Emir decided to back Zia on this question.

The 1979 Iranian revolution and the 1980 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan came as blessing for Zia. Americans needed Pakistani soil to counter Soviet Union. It named the war against Soviet as Jihad-e-Afghanistan. Pakistan got massive financial and armed support from the US. In the process, Zia investigated over 50,000 Mujahideen from Arab countries, majority of whom never returned to their native countries and formed proxies in Pakistan.

Zia then saw the JI as a threat to his rule and some of his ideals and in 1985, imposed a ban on student unions to crush student politics, predominated by Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba (IJT) and some progressive parties. When both right and left wing student parties joined hands and launched a successful movement, Zia used JI emir, the late Mian Tufail Mohammad. Suddenly, one day the JI chief asked the IJT to stop protest. Even Jamiat leaders were disappointed with the JI emir's stand.

By the time the MRD emerged as a strong opposition alliance. Although both Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto were in exile, Zia felt insecure in getting his vision of political system implemented.

Thus he then used sectarian and ethnic card for divide and rule. Fearing the MRD success in any elections, he introduced, 'non-party' based political system for holding elections in 1985. This system not only brought an end to ideological politics in the country, but also encouraged birdari, cast in the mainstream politics. This also gave new lease to electable politics, which Bhutto had proved wrong in 1970.

Even Mian Nawaz Sharif was the product of non-party system and was brought in to counter the PPP and Bhuttos. Its purpose was to divide politics on regional basis. He was so scared of Bhutto's ghost that he encouraged ethnic division of Sindh. Many believe that 1988 massacre in Hyderabad, 15 days before the 1988 elections, completely polarised the mandate.

He feared anti-Zia sentiments in Sindh; so, on the one hand he used separatist leader, the late GM Syed against the PPP, and on the other hand picked a non-entity politician from Sindh, the late Mohammad Khan Junejo as the PM in 1985 non-party based National Assembly.

He soon got disappointed with Junejo, who against Zia's advice, lifted ban on all political activities, restored freedom of the press and also took some bold initiatives in domestic and international affairs.

Former DG ISI Gen Hameed Gul saw Juenjo as a hurdle to Afghan policy, and the establishment was also not happy with his policy of allowing return of Benazir Bhutto. Thus, after he ordered an inquiry into Ojhri camp and signed Geneva Accord, after taking the opposition into confidence, writing was on the wall for Junejo.

Zia sacked him, using his own constitutional power of 58-2 (B) in May 1988, and created split in the PML. He used Nawaz Sharif, who was chief minister of Punjab, and staged a coup within the PML. Benazir Bhutto, who had returned in April 1986, became so popular that Zia and his cronies were left with no option but to go for another kind of PNA against her.

Zia's long and most controversial rule ended on August 17, 1988 when he, along with some other senior generals and the then US ambassador, was killed in a mysterious plane crash, but his legacy lives on.

When former president, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, announced elections within 90 days, former ISI chief Gen Gul-backed Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) was formed to counter the PPP's possible landslide victory.

It can be said safely that Bhutto ruled Pakistan for 40 years from his grave, while Zia's philosophy became so threatening that Pakistan could not come out of the menace of terrorism and extremism till today.

Bhutto's legacy died down after Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but the PPP protected the 1973 Constitution to a large extent, while Zia's legacy lives on as a threatening challenge to the state.

One thing is certain whether in the name of deadlock, vacuum or as the last resort, continuity of democratic system is much better than a martial law. Both need to learn from history for progress. Independence of judiciary and media are strong pillars of the state, but Parliament and Constitution have to be supreme as well as accountable to the people.

 

This writer is a senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang.

Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEO