EVERYONE realized that things were very serious when President Musharraf cancelled his visit to the Beijing Olympics. He would not let our only true friend down easily. The double-edged Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times” can be a curse and a blessing. In our case it is a curse most vile, which is even affecting China now. There's never a dull moment here. No wonder I get bored so quickly when I'm abroad. Wasn't it amusing to see Asif Zardari sitting next to the guy who had really done him in, taking the name of the president with such venom that it seemed that he might burst a gasket? Let's get things in perspective. To try and impeach the president is their constitutional right. But it's strictly a numbers game and has to be done exactly according to the procedure laid down in Article 47 of the constitution. The president can be removed or impeached only on three grounds: “…physical or mental incapacity”; “violating the Constitution” or “…gross misconduct.” This can only be done when… “Not less than half of the total membership of either House…may give to the Speaker National Assembly or…the Senate Chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of or…to impeach, the President; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charge against him.” If the notice goes to the Senate Chairman, “he shall transmit it forthwith to the Speaker” who shall, “…within three days” of receiving it “cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the President…The Speaker shall summon the two Houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after receipt of the notice by him.” Now comes the possible copout and confusion. “The joint sitting may investigate or cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded.” “The President shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation, if any, and before the joint sitting.” Unless this is poor language, the words “and be represented” could only mean that whether he chooses to be represented or not, the president has to appear himself if he wishes to give his point of view. Otherwise it would have been, “or be represented.” And the words “if any” means parliament may choose to vote and not “cause to be investigated” the ground or charge, which goes against due process as it removes the president's “right to appear and be represented during the investigation.” It couldn't be a mistake, because the words “if any” appear again. “If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of [Parliament] declaring that the President is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct, the President shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution.” Any result or any investigation? It doesn't say two-thirds of the members present but two-thirds of the total membership regardless of how many members are present. What happens if a significant number of members from either side are not present? They still have to reach the magic 295 number to succeed, and the fewer the members present the more difficult it will be. And “cause to be investigated” how? Obviously through a bipartisan parliamentary committee in which an issue can drag on for long if the actual intention is to only create the optics. Plus the impeachers must build a credible case that can be proved under intense scrutiny. When you're about to change the course of history, you don't treat it like a media circus. How did this happen? The coalition had reached flashpoint. Sharif was in a bind. Remaining in without the deposed judges being restored had become untenable. Getting out would force Zardari to replace him with Musharraf's Q-League. He would lose his Punjab government too. The new coalition would have support that matters. In five years they could cook his goose. By over-committing himself on an issue that he couldn't sell to Zardari, Sharif had painted himself into a corner. To abandon the deposed judges now would be tantamount to another political suicide. How to abandon them without losing credibility? Simple. Shift the focus from the judges to the president. Argument: remove Musharraf first “since he won't let them be reinstated while he is there.” No problem, since Sharif's real and only purpose is revenge. First he tried to do it indirectly through the judges. Now he could get Musharraf directly through impeachment. It was probably Zardari's brainchild anyhow. He was cornered too. If he joined Q his vote bank would also erode woefully as would his hold on a party in turmoil. His voters would say, “We voted you in to get these people out, not to bring them back in again.” Best to keep Nawaz in by helping him save face. Skepticism about Zardari's intentions is based on his earlier trashing of the Bhurban Declaration and now the sidetrack of the provincial assemblies passing resolutions that the president take another “vote of confidence” on the spurious grounds that they are part of his electoral college. But it's not part of the constitutional procedure and it's only procedure that matters. Is this a decoy to fool Sharif into not leaving? Are they buying time to buy numbers or to build a strong case because they feel they have a technically weak one? Is it to give the president time to exit so that they can avoid impeachment to avoid the possibility that he might win and get stronger? Problem is that when you buy yourself time you also give time to the other guy to gather his forces. Added bonus: it keeps minds away from the real issues. Can impeachment fly? The president cannot be removed for physical or mental incapacity, so that's out. As to gross misconduct, that's a value judgment. There is no Watergate or Lewinsky affair here. Violating the constitution? The October 12, 1999, countercoup has been legitimized by the Supreme Court and parliament through the 17th Amendment, while the November 3, 2007, emergency has also been legitimized by the Supreme Court. Like it or not, that's how it is. As to the morality argument, it only comes into amoral politics when you've lost the constitutional argument. What are the numbers? According to this newspaper, which is not famous for being pro-Musharraf, the impeachers lack 16 votes. This is where the many independents and tribal FATAs come into play. Who will woo them to their side is the question. Their market value must have shot off the charts. The impeachers will also try to woo the disgruntled Q-League members. Conversely, Musharraf will also try to woo them all and disgruntled PPPP members too. The sore Amin Fahim is not one vote but 30 to 40. If he supports Musharraf, impeachment will fail. Logic dictates though that Zardari would never have gone for Sharif's zero sum game unless he had made absolutely certain that he had the numbers. But you never know. He might be posturing again, to get Nawaz off the hook and save his coalition. Whatever, the three have gone from zero sum game to end game now. Worse, Pakistan could have entered the end game too. Someone and something have to get burned. The stance of the army and the perceived position of America will be crucial in swaying loyalties. Giving up without a fight is not in the president's nature; he has said that he will fight back, but constitutionally. He will not dissolve the National Assembly through Article 58 2(B) if he thinks he is going to win. It will be difficult to make dissolution credible. Rescinding the NRO that has let Zardari in or rescinding Sharif's conditional pardon that let him out will look like desperate ploys. All this may work after Musharraf wins, not now. His best option is to go for it and win. If he does win, he's a big player again. If he loses?“Nothing is permanent,” he once told me. If the president is sure of his numbers he should insist that the process be expedited so that we're done with it and can keep moving backwards. If he doesn't have the numbers, then he is in a bind 2(B) or not 2(B), that is the question. 2(B) and you've had it; not 2(B) and you've had it. The president is the best judge of what is the best course for Pakistan and only for Pakistan. If Musharraf goes Sharif could be the eventual winner, Zardari the big loser. Q will vanish. PML will reunite. With the common binding enemy gone and the PML reunited, Sharif could force early elections. The PML juggernaut will flatten the PPP. Either way, the government will no longer have Musharraf as their excuse for failure. Its writ won't run anywhere, as it doesn't now. The economy will collapse for lack of confidence and expertise. The extremists will gain. Eventually, another political failure will force the army to intervene again, whether it likes it or not. We have to keep ‘saving' democracy after all, don't we? __
