PAKISTAN is a country replete with ironies. I don’t suppose many readers noticed that while informing us of the coup against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the same issue of this newspaper carried a brief report about an official study called Vision 2030. This exercise in futurology predicted that Pakistan would be a ‘fully functioning democracy’ 23 years from now.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not holding my breath in the unlikely event that I’ll be alive then. Just in passing, I wonder if the earnest authors of this study paused to reflect on why it should take 83 years for democracy to take root in Pakistan when India, a neighbour that inherited the same institutions and laws that we did, should be a ‘fully functioning democracy’ from the day of its independence in 1947.

Lack of space does not permit a full exploration of this theme. In any case, many others have advanced various theories to explain why democracy has failed in Pakistan. One theme that is common in all these discussions is the role of the army. Acting like a colonial power, it has destroyed democratic institutions and eroded confidence in the system through its repeated direct and indirect interventions.This latest manifestation of the army’s contempt for democracy is in line with the attitudes it inculcates among its officer corps. It was the self-styled field marshal Ayub Khan who famously commented that parliamentary democracy was ‘against the genius of the people of Pakistan’, and introduced the system of Basic Democracy after cobbling together the Council Muslim League. Both were consigned to the dustbin of history after his departure.

General Yahya Khan demonstrated his commitment to the democratic process by unleashing his army against East Pakistan, and killing or locking up the leaders who had secured a majority in the elections supervised by him. In the process, he triggered a savage civil war that led to the creation of Bangladesh, and the capture of 93,000 army officers and soldiers by India.

Enter General Zia in 1977, after staging a coup against an elected government. Before hanging Bhutto, he declared that the 1973 Constitution was just a document that he could tear up whenever he chose. During his malign dictatorship, whatever was left of Pakistan’s democratic institutions was thoroughly gutted. Perhaps crucially, the higher judiciary was subordinated to GHQ to an extent never deemed possible earlier. The fact that the Chief Justice currently suspended by Musharraf was summoned to Army House and made to hang around for five hours speaks volumes for the contempt the generals have for civilians, no matter what their status. That Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry agreed to go at all is a sad comment on how low the prestige and self-respect of our judges has sunk.

During a visit to New York soon after 9/11, Musharraf was asked by a reporter when he intended to restore democracy in Pakistan. Angrily, he launched into a diatribe against politicians, and snapped, in effect: “If it’s a façade of democracy you want, I’ll give it to you!” And that’s just what he has given us: a façade of democracy without any substance.

One reason we cannot expect military dictators to respect democratic norms is that over the years, they have been trained either to give orders, or receive them and carry them out. This is diametrically opposed to the democratic ethos of discussion, debate and the need to develop a consensus. So when Musharraf comes across somebody who does not snap to attention, clearly he has to go.

We have been repeatedly told by government spokesmen from Shaukat Aziz downwards that the humiliating ouster of the Chief Justice is ‘legal’ and ‘constitutional’. Over the years, we have learned to expect the worst when these weasel words are thrown at us by the government. These are terms lawyers use to win cases for clients by exploiting loopholes in the law. I do not recall those in power announce that they are taking a certain unpopular step because it’s the right or honourable thing to do. ‘Legal’ and ‘constitutional’ are warning signals that yet another undemocratic step has been taken.

While protests continue, and the ramifications of Justice Iftikhar’s removal are heatedly discussed in newspaper articles and TV talk shows, what exactly has Musharraf gained through this arbitrary act? Certainly he could have a more pliant Supreme Court. The fact that other judges have not resigned in protest is an indicator that Musharraf’s tactics of ‘shock and awe’ have worked, at least in the short term.

Given the many other problems he is facing, was it really worth it to stir up this hornet’s nest at this particular time? With the chaos on our border with Afghanistan, and the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan, as well as the elections to be held this year, one would have thought that the last thing Musharraf would want is yet another crisis.

But perhaps it is these very problems that have driven him to this desperate measure. Justice Iftikhar had become a thorn in the military’s side by demanding that opponents of its harsh policies in Pakistan’s troubled border provinces be given their rights. Many of them have “disappeared”, allegedly into the gulag of secret prisons and safe houses maintained by our security services.

These human rights abuses have been highlighted and criticised repeatedly in Pakistan and abroad. But when the country’s most senior judge takes up these cases and criticises the army for its illegal actions, the matter cannot be brushed off with the usual stock denials. The fact that many of the victims were released by intelligence services at Justice Iftikhar’s intervention proves their involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

However, this judicial activism robbed Musharraf of what he regards as a key weapon against Pashtun and Baloch insurgents. The thought of having to deal with such an independent judge in the elections, as well as during much of his projected next term, must have disturbed his sleep.

Another factor was Justice Iftikhar’s cancellation of the Steel Mill’s privatisation last year. This deal, fronted by a Karachi stock-broker who is rumoured to handle Shaukat Aziz’s personal share portfolio, was overturned by the Supreme Court. According to the judgment, it was not transparent, and had been carried out with ‘indecent haste’. Given his close interest in the matter, the rebuke from the Supreme Court must have stung the prime minister. In all probability, he must have led the anti-Iftikhar chorus singing into Musharraf’s ear.

Whatever the backstage moves, the die is now cast, pitching Musharraf against most of Pakistani civil society. Nothing good can possibly come of this unnecessary confrontation.