AS I write this from our home in England, I can only feel sorry for all my friends participating in the ‘long march’ currently underway in the baking heat of Pakistan. When I flew from Karachi earlier this week, the temperature was already rising.

Clearly, many of those now gathered in Islamabad to demand the restoration of Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are idealists who feel deeply for the cause they have taken up. But many are not. Let us be clear that many in the ranks of the marchers are seeking to benefit, whatever the outcome of this movement. These elements have no concern for an independent judiciary, and their game is purely political. The sudden presence in their movement of retired generals, who were once the lynchpins of past military governments, should give activists a reason to pause and reflect.

Some of the most vocal players in this drama are the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaf (TI). Significantly, both parties boycotted the February elections, and thus have no stake in the system. Indeed, after the results of the elections were announced, members of both parties must have felt rather silly, as they had insisted that without an independent judiciary, fair elections were simply not possible. Imran Khan repeated this mantra ad infinitum before the elections. Oddly, none of the television talk show anchors have asked him to explain his boycott now.

Another boycotter was Aitzaz Ahsan, an old and valued friend. I had lunch with him before the elections, while he was under house arrest. We talked about a number of things, but the conversation kept returning to the issue of the judiciary. I pointed out to him that his fight for an independent judiciary was not incompatible with a wider struggle for democracy, so his boycott of the elections was unnecessary.

The idealists out on Islamabad’s streets make the point that we cannot have real democracy without an independent judiciary. True. But equally, we cannot have an independent judiciary without democracy. So if the long marchers succeed in toppling the frail democratic government that is struggling to establish itself in Pakistan, who gains?

Already, the drawing rooms of the country are full of snide criticism of the inability of the coalition to get its act together. Many newspapers and television channels are echoing this view. They forget that the government has been in power for barely three months, and the PML-N has done little to help by pulling its ministers out of the cabinet. Musharraf was in power for nine years, and one seldom heard the same level of carping until he lost his grip over a year ago.

If the standoff between the lawyers and the government continues, and the resultant paralysis in Islamabad persists, I have little doubt that we shall soon hear voices calling for the army to take over yet again. Those left out in the cold, and those who have traditionally fed on the crumbs from the table of military juntas, are probably already sharpening their knives.

When we separate the constitutional aspects of the ongoing crisis from its political angles, we look for winners and losers. The fact that Nawaz Sharif has consistently championed the judges’ cause points to his expectations of a dividend, no matter what the outcome is. A few weeks ago, I had written that he was in a win-win situation. If the Chief Justice is restored, it is unlikely that Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif’s nemesis, will stay in the presidency for much longer. And if the crisis drags on, weakening the system and forcing fresh elections, the PML-N will benefit from its stance.

But while the cause of the judiciary resonates deeply in the legal community, political parties are not as enthusiastic. The PPP, the ANP and the MQM are all luke-warm. Apart from the PML-N, the JI and the TI, the issue is not seen as vital when compared to the fuel and food price hikes, the security situation, and the energy crisis. Indeed, the entire controversy is threatening to take on a ‘Punjab vs. The Rest’ hue.

Before the elections, all democratic forces supported the judges in their struggle against dictatorship. Musharraf’s disgraceful treatment of the judiciary brought about his own downfall, and galvanised the nascent movement to restore democracy. For most of us, the issue of restoring the judiciary was just one aspect of the anti-dictatorship struggle. But with the elections, the defeat of the PML-Q, and the marginalisation of Musharraf, the issue of the judiciary should have become subordinate to the larger compulsion of protecting the emerging democratic order, and making it work.

So why didn’t things work out this way? Why are the marchers risking the collapse of the system? Surely they don’t imagine for a moment that the judiciary will remain independent if martial law is declared. As I said earlier, there are forces that are willing to risk all the political gains we have made in the last few months in order to make a grab for absolute power. A share of the government is not enough: they want it all, and they want it now.

Fortunately, we seem to have an army chief who genuinely wants to keep out of politics. But things can change. If the crisis is not resolved soon, and the economy continues to slide, there would be pressure on the army to step in. Alternatively, there could be a demand for fresh elections on the grounds that the present dispensation has become non-functional. The third possibility is that the coalition would collapse, and the PPP would go into partnership with the PML-Q, the ANP and the MQM. This would be a shaky alliance, forever on the defensive in the face of a popular Nawaz Sharif.

In all these scenarios, Asif Zardari’s position within the PPP would be weakened. Some senior members would blame him for the collapse of the government, and make a bid for control of the party. Indeed, without Benazir Bhutto’s presence, the PPP could divide along provincial lines. Once again, the big winner would be Nawaz Sharif. And we know from his party’s storming of the Supreme Court during his second stint in power just how committed he is to the independence of the judiciary.

So without wishing to sound cynical, or to belittle the idealism inherent in the lawyers’ movement, I would urge everybody to think about the consequences of their actions.

irfan.husain@gmail.com