For quite a few days now, ours has been a media space of pandemonium, thanks to the tumult surrounding Musharraf’s trial. While most of the voices have called for his head, a few could be heard eulogising him also. There is a host of variant versions of the two broader categories as well.
Most of our political and media tin gods are demanding that Musharraf be made an example of — by hanging him to death, preferably. “Musharraf is an outright criminal, a humiliating death is the most suitable reward for his sins,” hardliners are shouting. New examples of eloquence are being set in describing the insult inflicted by dictators on two of the most popular elected prime ministers in the history of the country. “It is not the prime minister they oust, it is the masses they insult when they do so,” we are told. “It is time we repay them in the same coin so that no such time shall ever befall us again,” they can be heard declaring. We are told, “We must fear none in dispensing justice, for justice is what makes a people sublime.” They encourage the meek by quoting Churchill and other intellectuals. “No one should get away with their crimes; everyone must actually be made equal before the law.” Suddenly, religion finds its way into the argument as various traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) start getting quoted.
Moderates among them are lecturing us on the virtues of trying a dictator with the solemnity of a ripe professor teaching crude teenagers: democracy is the only way forward and it is time we decide we are committed to raising our stature in the community of nations by proving we have grown up. We must move on to a higher level of mass welfare by declaring that none is going to rule us without our consent — not any more.
There is a whole class of extreme right-wingers also demanding a similar fate for Musharraf, for totally different reasons though. The constitution and democracy, of course, they do not care much about. Most of them think democracy to be a shirk (blasphemy) of sorts, instead. They want Musharraf’s head for his secularism, the damage he has caused to Islam and jihad, and the ‘atrocities’ he has committed against the faithful.
There are, in a minority though, those with a counter-narrative. Their argument, for the sake of honesty let us not deny, is equally plausible. What comes first, the constitution or the country? This is what they ask. What is more important, the welfare of the people or the futile exercise of elections and changing governments? For the common man, if any time has brought respite, it has been that of dictators. They ask us to compare the unemployment and inflation rates or the law and order situation, for example, of Musharraf’s era with the democratic ones preceding and succeeding it. They point towards the shameless looting of resources by elected governments. They allude to the preconditions of a true democracy, which do not exist in our country: people are illiterate, there are prejudices of caste, clan and language, votes are either willingly sold for meagre returns or bought at gunpoint. Democracy in such conditions is worse than dictatorship!
Some point to the hypocrisy of the politicians, journalists, lawyers and judges who once served the dictators and reaped the benefits of their associations but now they are the self-styled champions of democracy. Then there are those who do not want Musharraf to be tried for the simple reason that he cannot be. It would bring a disaster, they fear, as it is more than obvious after recent developments that the army is with Musharraf. It might jeopardise the very democracy of ours that we are trying to strengthen by trying Musharraf. It will further add to the pile of problems this country already has.
Save the extreme right-wingers, every other argument will make perfect sense in isolation. Who on earth will disagree that democracy is the best and only sustainable form of government? Who will also not agree that Musharraf’s era was by far better from the point of view of a common man than any of the PPP or PLM-N ones? Who can deny the importance of holding everyone equal before the law? However, who does not know it is currently next to impossible to hang a general? Who does not know Musharraf subverted the constitution twice but who also does not know Nawaz himself is a progeny of another, inarguably worse dictator than Musharraf? Go on asking yourself similar questions and their answers will make perfect sense to you in isolation but combined they will cause maddening confusion.
What then is the solution? Another NRO — a bigger one. As everyone is a criminal, it is unjust to hang one and leave all others, and it is impossible to hang all. So let there be a truth and reconciliation commission. Let the generals and their aides confess to their crimes and be pardoned. From this moment on, however, they shall not act in a manner unconstitutional. And if they do, they will be hanged. Let the politicians confess to their corruption, return the loot and be pardoned. From this moment on, however, there shall be an independent accountability bureau and anyone found involved in corruption shall be hanged. Sounds crazy? Yes, it does but do we have another solution?
The author is a freelance writer