|
| December 13, 2007 | Thursday | Zilhaj 2, 1428 |
Slaughter in Algeria
Displays of barbaric ‘justice’
In trouble with the law
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press
UNTIL 1981 Parisians gaped back awe-stricken if you told them some New Yorkers loved writing obscenities on the walls and recording them as songs. Then, with the victory of President François Mitterrand that year, in rolled the great socialist tidal wave and ‘people’s culture’ was accorded official blessing.
ON the first anniversary of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s coup against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, he was asked in a media interview if Sharif would still be in office had he not sacked (or rather tried to sack) his chief of army staff a year earlier. Without as much as batting an eyelid, Musharraf told the interviewer: “Yes, I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t have been.” He variously described his coup as a counter-coup because in his words the prime minister had tried to ‘illegally’ dismiss his army chief. Most constitutional and legal experts argue that the former prime minister’s move may have been a suicidal attempt to hold his army chief accountable for the Kargil debacle or it could even have been an attempt to accumulate more power in his own hands. But significantly they couldn’t find anything illegal in Nawaz Sharif’s decision.
Regardless of the legality of the decision, many people didn’t appear uncomfortable with the coup since Sharif had launched a vicious campaign against his opponents and was also in the process of proclaiming himself amirul momineen through a constitutional amendment. Musharraf passed off as a reluctant coup-maker who vowed to clean up corruption, initiate structural reforms in the economy and the political system and then make way for an elected government. First the referendum — whose shortcomings Musharraf himself was to admit later — and then the 2002 election were to quickly disprove that hypothesis. Today when the focus is on the legality, or otherwise, of various political moves that will change the constitutional history of Pakistan, how the president perceives his actions is quite an enigma. For instance now President Musharraf has told a foreign TV channel that he imposed emergency rule (and by his own admission in an earlier interview acted illegally and unconstitutionally) because deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was “illegally trying to remove me”. His reason for his second coup was identical to the first: self-preservation.
It is plain that in pursuit of this goal Musharraf has felt no qualms about going to any length to secure his flanks. The Musharraf-backed Pakistan Muslim League could not muster a majority in the 2002 polls despite hearty support by the government machinery and security services. Therefore, some members of parliament belonging to other parties, most notably the Pakistan People’s Party, were offered a swap: the disappearance of their reportedly thick corruption files for accepting ministerial positions and deserting their party. It is pointless to debate whether forcing parliamentarians to switch loyalties was legal but it would not pass the morality test anywhere.
For someone who first cited terrorism and the spectre of a failed state to justify the proclamation of the Provisional Constitution Order and the imposition of emergency on Nov 3, it may not have been easy to be so honest five weeks later and admit implicitly that the true reason for proclaiming the PCO was a personal one garbed in subjective legal niceties. Would it be wishful thinking to hope that the day will dawn in Pakistan when the sole arbiter of what is illegal is not the army chief? Perhaps one day the superior judiciary will decide matters of law and constitution.
MORE than a decade has passed since the insurgency began, but Algeria is nowhere near normality. It is true the level of the insurgency has gone down, and the security forces have claimed important successes in killing some leading militant leaders, but acts of terrorism have continued, the biggest of them occurring in the capital city on Tuesday. The two car-bomb attacks killed 67 people in what has been described as the worst such case since 2003. The carnage appears to indicate a shift in the Al Qaeda high command’s strategy. Until recently, the militants had been targeting security personnel, government installations and foreigners. Tuesday’s near-simultaneous attacks show the Al Qaeda leadership has decided on bolder attacks, even if this means killing innocent Algerians and foreigners. This seems to conform to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s recent message to the militants to ‘cleanse’ North Africa of ‘the French and Spaniards’. The carnage in the heart of Algiers serves to underline the failure of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s national reconciliation policy, which offers amnesty to the militants in return for disarmament.
Evidently, Algeria is in a Pakistan-like situation. On the one hand are the religious extremists, on the other is a government that truly speaking lacks legitimacy and has failed to address the country’s socio-economic problems. Like Monday’s attack on the school bus near Kamra, Tuesday’s car-bomb blasts in Algiers show the militants’ determination to destabilise the country, no matter what the cost in terms of human suffering. The Algerian government is, no doubt, an elected one, but the low turnout — estimated at 15 per cent —in the May election testified to the people’s disillusionment with the electoral process. Even though the coalition government managed to retain power, it has failed to address Algeria’s grave economic problems: poverty is pervasive and unemployment among those under 30 is as high as 75 per cent. The militants are also employing subtle techniques — like the use of the Internet — to sow discontent and recruit unemployed young men to their cause. Algeria is an OPEC member, yet the widespread poverty and unemployment demonstrate the ruling establishment’s failure to follow policies that could alleviate the people’s suffering and inspire confidence in the democratic process. Without an overall development effort whose benefits could be felt by the people, reliance solely on force or empty reconciliation rhetoric is unlikely to work.
THE militants’ brand of justice was once again on display, this time in Bara (Khyber Agency) and Darra Adamkhel. On Sunday, a man accused of murder and abduction was put to death before a large crowd in Bara. Two days later, the local Taliban publicly executed a man in Darra Adamkhel for allegedly committing multiple murders. The tribal belt and even settled areas like Swat where militants beheaded four security men last October have witnessed such atrocities ever since the war on terror caused their numbers and influence to escalate. The truth of the matter is that so long as the state’s writ continues to be undermined by the presence of the militants, no amount of denunciation or hand-wringing is going to change the situation. Barbaric justice systems will continue to spring up wherever anti-state elements step into a political vacuum or where governmental apathy encourages inhumane tribal traditions. Sometimes these will have the support of local leaders, as in the case of the Bara execution, which was carried out by the Lashkar-i-Islam, apparently in consultation with village elders.
The law of the land must be binding for all, as parallel justice systems, besides their inherent illegality, are culture- or ideology-specific. To ensure that justice is based on universal, or at least state, values, those who dispense it arbitrarily must be evicted from their positions of influence. In the case of the Islamic militants, a military solution cannot be successful on its own to enforce the state’s writ. It must be accompanied by genuine development reforms that can earn the government the goodwill of the people and so make the latter more amenable to state authority, thus loosening the grip of the militants. The sooner the state ensures the rule of law in areas where its control has been diluted, the better it will be for local populations living under a draconian and flawed justice system.
The then minister for culture, Jack Lang, had himself photographed for a double-spread in Paris Match proudly smiling into the lens, surrounded by a hoodlum gang that called itself NTM. The translation of the full name of this musical group will be too much for the sensitivities of the readers of this newspaper; suffice it to say it wouldn’t have made the mother of whoever was listening very happy. In the background was a wall full of smut.
Soon enough graffiti made its appearance on the elegant granite façades of centuries-old houses and buildings. Parisians, though fed up, only grumbled mezza voce. By that time, criticising ‘people’s culture’ had become a taboo. It remains so today.
In the mid-90s the tall, gravely-voiced mayor of Paris who looked a bit like John Wayne stood up and spoke openly of ridding the city, and the country while he was about it, of “distasteful odours, obnoxious noises and vulgarity”.
Jacques Chirac had already been prime minister twice but had failed in his bid to dethrone Mitterrand in 1988. This time the French heard him. He became president in 1995, inheriting a budget in tatters after a decade-and-a-half of state-run economy. His very first attempt that year to repair some of the socialist damage resulted in a month-long paralysing transport strike and total surrender by Prime Minister Alain Juppé to the powerful unions.
The proposed reforms project was withdrawn and, from then on, a fright-stricken Chirac accepted everything as a fait accompli. During his 12 years of presidency, only once would he show some backbone by refusing to join President Bush’s coalition to attack Iraq in 2003.
Chirac left the Elysée Palace this year at age 75, no longer the straight-shooter he used to be but more of a bumbling, mumbling old-timer with an irrefutable conviction that inaction is the best way to keep out of trouble. His legacy: rejection of the European Union constitution by the French in a 2005 referendum, violent suburban riots the same year in which more than 10,000 cars were burnt all over the country and a staggering 1,142 billion euros budget deficit.
Before his election, besides being mayor of Paris Jacques Chirac was also at the head of a political party, the Rally for the Republic (RPR) that he himself had founded. It was no exception if he used his position to raise contributions for his party; all mayors did that.
But the affair assumed an extraordinary dimension when in September 2000 a videotape was made public. It showed RPR’s chief fund-raiser Jean-Claude Méry speaking into the camera about a whole series of misdemeanours allegedly personally authorised by Chirac. What lent an unusually dramatic touch to the revelations was the fact that Méry had already died of cancer a year earlier.
In the tape Méry claimed contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros were awarded by City Hall to companies in the public works sector in exchange for generous contributions to RPR. Lavishly-paid jobs were created for people who worked exclusively for the party but drew salaries from the Hôtel de Ville. For his hectic travels, apparently for the benefit of RPR, and other expenses, the mayor spent, between 1987 and 1995, a sum of 2.13m euros, etc, etc.
By the time the Méry tape came out of the closet, Jacques Chirac still had two years left to complete his first term in office. The judges wanted to interrogate him but he claimed immunity because of his official position. This was accorded, willy-nilly.
Meanwhile, honouring his election promise, Chirac cut short the ‘septennat’, the painfully long seven-year presidential mandate, into a ‘quinquennat’ the leaner five-year term. At election time in 2002, the French once again expressed their rejection of the Left by excluding Lionel Jospin from the second round by casting their ballots heavily in favour of the ultra-right firebrand Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first.
But finally, over a socialist and an ultra-nationalist, the voters opted for the safer, still-life continuity of Chirac who was elected for a second, abridged presidential term following a lacklustre, no-surprises run-off.
The judges brought up the unsavoury issue of the Méry tape once more and the president’s lawyers were again successful in convincing them that the presidential immunity still held course according to the law, at least until the new election in 2007.
That protection finally came to an end on June 16 this year; that is, exactly a month after Chirac left the Elysée Palace. On Jul 19 he was heard for the first time by the judges. On Nov 21 he was placed under formal probe on suspicion of misuse of public funds. His request to investigating judge Xavière Simeoni that he be questioned in his own Parisian apartment was rejected and he had to appear in her chambers in the Palace of Justice like any other citizen facing the law. The questioning lasted more than three-and-a-half hours.
“Many inaccuracies, sometimes excessively caricatured, are circulating concerning my case,” the former president wrote in an article in Le Monde, claiming the decisions he made as mayor of Paris were “legitimate and necessary”.
Chirac is the first former president in modern French history to be placed under judicial probe by an investigating magistrate. According to the law this procedure is likely to culminate in a formal indictment. Since after the Méry tape broke surface seven years ago, many of Chirac’s former associates at City Hall have been sanctioned by justice under six other allegations of misuse of power connected with the former mayor.
The last two charges, those of corrupt practices to finance a political party and of bogus jobs, directly concern Jacques Chirac, the most powerful man in France a mere six months ago.
There has been no evidence of personal enrichment. All this was part of the power play most politicians indulged in, one way or the other, in most countries. Times change!
Jacques Chirac may or may not be sentenced but, when the dust settles, he will not be remembered as someone who did something wrong. He’ll be remembered as a president who did nothing.
The writer is a journalist based in Paris.
Voters’ dilemma
It says much about the moral bankruptcy of Pakistan’s insurgents that yesterday one of their fanatical bigots sought to blow up a minibus containing children on their way to school.
Five innocent children were wounded in the depraved attack in which only the suicide bomber died. On Sunday two more children were among six slain in a suicide attack on a checkpoint in Swat. Terrorists who believe that killing children can advance their cause have nothing whatsoever to offer the human race.
These twisted and demented attacks come at a time when Pakistani politics is itself in flux as political leaders jostle for position. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif threatened last week to boycott the Jan 8 poll but Benazir’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) later changed its mind. Sharif, who as a convicted criminal is barred from running for office, was insisting until Sunday that his Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) would boycott the elections but then performed an about-face…
The interim administration appointed by President Musharraf in the run up to the election is largely made up of PML-Q politicians who Sharif and his people fear will use their strong political position to bolster their support among voters...
However, leaving these aside, ordinary voters will be looking with some despair at the political options. If they are opposed to Musharraf, their choice is between two politicians whose push for power and visceral rivalry appears to push the fundamental interests of Pakistan into the background. Whatever the demerits of Musharraf, he at least represents a degree of stability and continuity and will continue to do so as long as he maintains the confidence of the army he used to lead. With fanatics now murdering children to further their cause, can Pakistan afford a return to the venal old political knockabout? — (Dec 11)
Lebanon’s political crisis
Lebanon’s presidential vote saga has become embarrassing. The country has been without a president since Nov 23 when the term of Emile Lahoud expired.… [The] scheduled vote is all set to be postponed again, for the eighth time, underlining the deep division among the main factions and the irresponsible behaviour of some politicians who seek small political gains at the expense of the country’s stability, politically and economically. The crisis is being described as Lebanon’s worst political crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.
The ruling majority, backed by the West, and its opponents, led by Hezbollah, agreed last week on General Michel Sulaiman as a consensus candidate for the presidency. But differences over how to amend an article in the constitution that bans a serving public servant from running for office have delayed Sulaiman’s confirmation.
Now, it emerged that even if such agreement was reached, it will not ensure the vote will take place. Rival camps have already begun bickering over shares in the new cabinet and key government posts.
This will certainly derail all efforts, led by Speaker Nabih Berri and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, to reach a deal. Both have warned that stalling could further destabilise Lebanon, which has been in political deadlock for more than a year.
In May, a terrorist group, affiliated with Al Qaeda, saw the political vacuum to make a refugee camp in the north its base.
The army lost at least 200 soldiers before it managed to reclaim the camp after four months. Other groups have attacked UN forces in the south and continue to threaten more attacks.
The country is in danger of spinning out of control if its politicians do not rise up to the challenge and ‘sacrifice’ their little gains for the sake of the national interest. — (Dec 10)