The “long march” to Islamabad undertaken by thousands of Pakistani lawyers and activists advocating for the restoration of an independent judiciary represents a resounding call for democracy amidst Pakistan’s political volatility and oppressive rule by President Asif Zardari teetering it towards chaos.

Due to corrupt, ineffectual leadership – a role admirably played by Zardari - and a series of military dictatorships – most recently exemplified by General Pervez Musharaff – Pakistan’s Constitution and democratic processes seem as malleable as Play-Doh putty.

In 2007, Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry – one of the most respected and popular personalities in Pakistan – challenged Musharraf’s autocratic decision to run for President while remaining Chief of the Army. Musharaff declared Martial Law and unilaterally removed Chaudhry along with 60 other judges. The U.S. ally in “The War on Terror” suspended the Constitution and the Parliament, shut down independent TV stations and arrested thousands of activists, dissidents and lawyers.

Zardari rode the “democracy card” promising several times to immediately reinstate Chaudhry if elected. However, Zardari also received a Christmas present in 2007 with a loathsome piece of Machiavellian legislation entitled the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Chief Justice Chaudhry initially moved to suspend the unlawful Ordinance, which was subsequently signed into power by Musharaff, granting amnesty to politicians, bureaucrats and political workers accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder and terrorism. No wonder Zardari, a convict with major corruption charges pending in four countries in 2007, never kept his promises thus prompting the “long march” and protests engulfing the country.

Presently, the increasing instability of Pakistan, which barely avoided bankruptcy, faces rapid Talibanization of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and suffers from increased suicide bombings and terrorism, has effectively removed Zardari’s Cheshire grin forcing him to use Musharaff’s 2007 “State of Emergency” playbook.

In the surreal soap opera that is Pakistani politics, history now presents itself as a rerun.

Zardari recently allowed the police to arrest nearly 700 protestors in Punjab, detain nearly 450 opposition party workers, and block the broadcast of independent news channel Geo TV. Most foolishly, Zardari’s Supreme Court disqualified popular political opponent Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s twice former Prime Minister, and his brother Shahbaz Sharif from holding elective office.

Muneer Malik, one of the most prominent attorneys in Pakistan spearheading the lawyer’s movement, almost died in prison after his 2007 arrest following Musharaff’s State of Emergency. With regards to Zardari’s current crackdown, he emailed me on Friday and wrote: “I am trying to make myself scarce to reach Lahore by tomorrow to join the long march. I was arrested yesterday and released late last night. I don't know if I will be arrested again.”

Similarly, Ali Zaidi, a spokesman for popular cricketer turned politician and activist Imran Khan, emailed me describing how the police were destroying their party’s offices, smashing equipment, and fastidiously searching for Khan, who is currently in hiding.

Ironically, one of the greatest beneficiaries of this chaos is Sharif, who holds considerable power and influence in Pakistan’s most populous province of Punjab. Apparently, Zardari was just issued an ultimatum by Prime Minister Gilani and Chief of Army Kayani that he would be removed from office unless he complied with certain conditions, one being returning political control of Punjab to elected members of parliament – loyalists of Sharif.

Nawaz Sharif, who himself resigned as Prime Minister under corruption accusations, ironically has transformed himself into the greatest advocate for the judiciary, which is absurdly comical due to his history of stifling dissent. He humiliated his own Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah in 1997 due to the latter’s principled stand in ordering the release of civil servants unjustly arrested by Sharif’s order. He also issued “The Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance, 1997" curbing the press and freedom of expression. One can safely assume this latest exhortation for democracy by Sharif is just a cynical ploy for another power grab.

As back channel diplomacy is in full effect with U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke talking to Zardari and Sharif, the United States would be remiss to neglect the lawyer’s movement, which is representative of a moderate, democratically inclined Pakistani electorate.

The U.S., which provided substantial support to General Zia and Musharraf’s respective dictatorships, should use its diplomatic resources to force the reinstatement of Chief Justice Chaudhry and the independent judiciary. As Malik told me, “Absent a revolution the only hope is to empower the people through a fearless and independent judiciary and thus chip away the domination of the military bureaucratic- Zardari establishment.”

By playing musical chairs in supporting Pakistan’s recurring cast of rogues, both Pakistanis and the U.S. now risk playing a deadly game of Russian Roulette in light of the drastic rise in extremism igniting the AF/PAK region.

It would be a symbolic and fitting bookend to the 60 year ordeal of Pakistan if the lawyer’s movement sowed the auspicious seeds of Pakistan’s heralded democracy planted by her political and philosophical forefathers, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allamah Iqbal, who coincidentally were attorneys as well.

Although the road to that realization is beset with volatility, dissension and violence, the long march defiantly moves forward.

(Note: Pakistani President Asif Zardari agreed to reinstate Chief Justice Chaudhry late Sunday evening.)

Congratulations to all Pakistanis! This will symbolize for the common man that they have a say in how their country is run and and Islamabad will have to reckon with their strength instead of caving into American pressure and/or being afraid of al-Qaeda and the Taleban. Iftikhar Chaudhry has demonstrated that he has the guts to challenge the establishment and all that is associated it, including the ISI and other intelligence agencies. Good show!

Pakistan's problems began when it's first prime minister Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan told the Jewish Lobby in New York in 1950s - in response to its demand for Israel's recognition in return for a large US financial aid - "Gentlemen, our soul is not for sale."

Since his assassination - Pakistan has gradually became an American colony, where US ambassador is the "king-maker". Zardari & Co. could be the worst elites Washington's Zionist government could find amongst Pakistanis.

“It is essential that we strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans,” - David Ben Gurion, first prime minister of Zionist entity.

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/pakistan-terrorists-attack-cricket-team/

>>>> Congratulations to all Pakistanis!

I doubt this is a showing for ALL Pakistanis because all those police and army personnel and Taliban loving esoterics are Pakistani too. Though its definitely in their interests that people who respect liberty and civil rights start assuming greater political responsibility for their countries future. But I've found many pakistanis do in fact consider their military the doyern of their society and resort to blaming India and Israel and the US for their problems instead of the institutions that have been made to fail so spectacularly.

Still, this is one step in a very long walk to just governance for All Pakistanis.

Those of us who are free Muslims must lend as much political, economic and physical support to the broader democratising movement as we can, so we can liberate the lands of Islam. We should not just offer sanctuary and asylum, but we need to mobilise and develop our political muscle in our adoptive countries to pursue the cause too.

Ghulam:
"I doubt this is a showing for ALL Pakistanis because all those police and army personnel and Taliban loving esoterics are Pakistani too."

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right. This is not going to be easy and it still remains to be seen what kind of a Supreme Court he will run because this is still very fragile. And I absolutely agree with you about what we as Muslims living in the freer western democracies (and in others) have to do.

But still, for now it is time for people to celebrate. This country has not stopped, from the beginning of 2006 till now, to catch its breath, jumping from one pathetic crisis to the next in a matter of days and it deserves one moment of relief. Some high ranking law enforcement officials have resigned in protest against violence perpetrated against protesters in Lahore. Some sense by human beings in this chaos is welcome.

Questions: Does "agreed to reinstate" Chaudry equal reinstatement?
Will Chaudry 'owe' something to Sharif because of this? To what degree to the lawyers represent the interests of the poor?

>>> Will Chaudry 'owe' something to Sharif because of this? To what degree to the lawyers represent the interests of the poor?

Any pursuit of the principles of the law remains a concern of a secular judiciary. The Shariah itself has been mobilised for more public moralising than anything else. Ulema think of the law that is being upheld as English/Western/Kuffaar law. The end result is that this is considered a political issue and not an ehtical or Islamic concern. Its not considered an injustice if the system of law is upheld or isn't.

The lawyers represent the interests of the poor to the extent they maintain access to the courts and the expediency of the judgements. That is still an issue that must be translated in real terms. If poor and rich are not practically equal before the law, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are.

"The lawyers represent the interests of the poor to the extent they maintain access to the courts and the expediency of the judgements. That is still an issue that must be translated in real terms. If poor and rich are not practically equal before the law, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are."

I think this is right. This movement and the public sentiment associated with it was really a recasting of constitutional politics and the separation of powers among the state's branches into the issue of justice and equality. The restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry was more a symbolic desire among the masses as a step to acheive this. And although the chief justice had stood upto Musharraf and the intelligence agencies in cases dealing with state corporations and missing / tortured / Gitmoized Pakistanis, his major role as chief justice is to adjudicate separation of powers which is a minefield in Pakistani history because it seems that every branch has overstepped its dignified boundaries. Afterall, Iftikhar Chaudhry was also someone who legitimized Musharraf's role.

The issue of justice, equality and the rule of law goes much beyond the restoration and it still remains questionable in Pakistani society. Every party in this crisis has to, and must realize as such, act more responsibly than they ever did before because otherwise the street will erupt with fury.

Curiously, the lawyers movement and the associated movements in the media and popular culture supporting the restoration and the themes of justice and equality have not taken up the issue of what is happening in Swat. Even as Iftikhar Chaudhry came back, the "Pakistani Taleban" ordered that the judges and lawyers vacate courts there to make way for the shariah and qazi courts. The silence on the part of the lawyers movement is quite telling - that even though they can organize on a "secular" platform and resist tyranny in the "secular" sense they have no idea how to displace the apparent authority (intellectually and politically) that the Taleban (of-course, they also wield authority through the barrel of the gun) have. It's an example of an ummah-wide problem and symptomatic of the crisis of authority in Islam.

>>> Even as Iftikhar Chaudhry came back, the "Pakistani Taleban" ordered that the judges and lawyers vacate courts there to make way for the shariah and qazi courts... It's an example of an ummah-wide problem and symptomatic of the crisis of authority in Islam.

I think of these issues in real/practical terms. You cannot get a fair trial in a Taleban court if you are a woman, clean shaven, poor, shia etc. The courts fundamental premise cannot exist unless it is overshadowed by a constitution that protects ALL human rights as conceived in the 21st century.

That failure is the reality of the application of the Shariah in countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A failure of justice. Add to that an already self-censured public voice regarding the perceived religious realm and you end up with growing nightmare. Maybe its a matter of priorities? Maybe maybe maybe..

The crisis of authority in Islam is in fact a perpetual problem since the Ummayad dynasty. So how can even think that 21st century Muslims can repair this problem 1400 years later without even representative political structure? We need a real, practical and just solution. That IS the Islamic solution. A non-sexist, non-racist legislature with elected officials overseeing government and freedom of religion. It may be western but it works. And we need something that will work.

"The crisis of authority in Islam is in fact a perpetual problem since the Ummayad dynasty."

Are you speaking here of political authority? In which case I would agree. I was speaking more of the intellectual / religious authority. And if that is the authority you are referring to, then I don't think your statement is true.

>>>> there can be doubt about their motivations, or how they understand their own statement, or that their understanding and your own understanding of their statement are the same.

That gives me alot to think about. Perhaps I criticised Solomons beliefs when I should have identified notions I consider flawed or opinions I consider contrived. He after all asserted that Pakistanis are trained to fight non-Muslims violently and be good only to Muslims.

>>> I do not believe that holding ourselves accountable on an individual level precludes our collective responsibility, but I do believe that it underpins it, and that without personal responsibility, the collective effort will fail.

That's brilliant. I couldn't agree with you more. Your premise of individual responsibility can be based on some fundamental premises of rationalist philosophers that the human being is conscience, self aware and exercises choice. Its also inclined to a materialist philosophy regarding our the physical nature of the universe. This however does fly in the face of some Muslim philosophy which is practiced. The more salaah we make doesn't change that poverty is eradicated through a functioning economy etc.

>>> ... I was speaking more of the intellectual / religious authority. And if that is the authority you are referring to, then I don't think your statement is true.

That depends entirely on what you think the role is of a religious authority. An authority is by nature an exclusive institution. I don't see the Muslim practice of religion evolving out of any authority other than open discussion and a sincere pursuit of the truth.