The Third Martial Law

The PCO restricted the civil courts, outlawed all political parties except a few rightist religious parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, deemed the advocacy of any secular ideology or program to be a crime and empowered General Zia to amend the constitution at will. Under the PCO, political activity was allowed only with the President's permission, all court judgments invalidating his orders (including those which amend the constitution) were retroactively over-ruled, [8] and the "Chief Martial Law Administrator" (alias General Zia) was empowered "for the purpose of removing any difficulties, or for bringing the provisions of this Order into effective operation", to "make such provisions as he may deem to be necessary or expedient", including the appointment and dismissal of Supreme Court judges."

A nominated Federal Assembly was created under the PCO. Article 4 of the PCO declared: 1. There shall be a Federal Council (Majlis-e-Shura) consisting of such persons as the President may, by Order, determine. 2. The Federal Council (Majlis-e-Shura) shall perform such functions as may be specified in an Order made by the President.

On March 25, 1981, General Zia fired 19 Supreme Court and provincial high court judges when they refused to endorse his "Provisional Constitutional Order." Feeling that he had been badly used, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Anwarul Haq, who had headed the bench which approved Bhutto's hanging, refused to take the oath. The former Chief Justice of the Lahore Court, Molvi Mushtaq Ahmad, who had sentenced Bhutto to death in the first place, although willing to take the oath was not asked to do so. While sacking the judges, General Zia explained: "We want the judiciary to mind their own business and not to meddle in anything else. Power is an intoxicant. Please do not get me wrong. I personally have not been intoxicated with this. I want to share power, but I refuse to share power with those who do not entitle themselves [9]." Commenting on Zia's PCO, the Times London said: Pakistan is at present governed by the "Provisional Constitutional Order" of March 1981, a document which has few parallels anywhere in the frankness with which it institutionalizes the unfettered arbitrary power of a single man [10]."

While General Zia was at the helm of affairs, tightening his grip on the levers of state power with each passing day, he shared power and authority with a select band of army commanders. A general here and there who did not fit into Zia's own scheme of things such as Lt. General Faiz Ali Chishti and Lt. General Ghulam Hassan Khan [at one time his adviser on the National Security) were conveniently eased out.

THE NEW POLITICAL ORDER

After more than five years of autocratic rule General Zia promised on August 14, 1982, that the blueprints of a political system on Islamic principles would be announced within a year. In a speech on the occasion of Pakistan's 34th independence day he said that "propelled by the Islamic spirit, the government would evolve a political system becoming of a country created in the name of Islam." He said his government was not, in any way, comparing its efforts with those of the Khulafa-e-Rashdeen (the first four caliphs of Islam, but it really believed that it would continue to strive to attain the level of social development which was prevailing in their times.

Contrary to the earlier leaders of Pakistan from Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to the executed Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who expressed their conviction that Islam stands for democracy, General Ziaul Haq claimed that an Islamic political system does not envisage a majority rule since Islam stood for national consensus on major issues confronting the people. It was also argued that in a truly Islamic system political parties would be totally redundant. In a society where ideology dissensions are allowed political parties may have some integral role in the formation of a consensus for a particular economic or social program. In an Islamic society the social values are predetermined by the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. In the presence of the expressed injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah there is no scope for ideological dissension or disagreement. The legislature as such can only have a role and such powers as are not in conflict with the dictates of the Quran. "In Islam, there could be only two parties -- the party of God and the party of Satan. My personal view is that political parties are nothing but sources of divisiveness within the community," General Ziaul Haq told foreign reporters in Rawalpindi on July 23, 1988. His specially appointed Islamic Ideology Council had declared political parties as un-Islamic.

At the same time the official media claimed that in Pakistan more damage had been caused to the national fabric by political parties than by any other organ of the state. Political parties help to polarize people around a certain program even if it is against the national interests. The premier example of this was cited the role played by the Awami League in order to secure Bangladesh. To justify the dissolution of political parties in the country it was further argued that the efficacy of political parties is being called into question even in highly developed western democracies. The conclusion drawn from this argument was that the future political system should be based on institutions in which political parties should be banned altogether from participating in national politics at all levels. But the authors of the so-called new Islamic political system forgot that even the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was brought into being through elections on party basis.

As a matter of fact, General Zia did not believe in any form of democracy which was confirmed from what is said to be his last interview with Frankfurter Rundschau, a major West German daily, published on 19.8.1988 - two days after his death in a plane crash. In a three hour conversation with the newspaper's correspondent in Islamabad, General Zia said Pakistan was too under-developed to have a democratic system. He cited 20th century Austrian-born Philosopher Karl Popper, whose theory he said was that a political system cannot work with more than two or three political parties. In developing countries, he continued, where some institutions do not exist yet "particular methods must be used" to foster the development of a "positive" political system. "I'm not in a hurry. I don't believe in revolution, but in evolution," General Zia concluded.[11]

REFERENDUM

In the mid-1983, General Zia realized that despite his extremely repressive and barbaric measures, which included whipping the dissidents, the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) had not only survived but had also gained strength. Faced with the inevitability of a return to civilian rule, the general tried to make his position secure by getting himself elected as the head of state through a process, in which the people were asked to vote for their religion. On December 19, 1984, a referendum was held on the Islamization policy of the martial law regime. Announcing the referendum plan, General Zia said that if the people say yes to his Islamisation process he would consider it as an endorsement of his rule for the next five years.

The people were asked a loaded question: "Do you endorse the process initiated by General Mohammed Ziaul Haq, the President of Pakistan, for bringing the laws of Pakistan in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and for the preservation of the Islamic ideology of Pakistan, the continuation and consolidation of that process, and for smooth and orderly transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people."

Given that the country was created in 1947 specifically as a Muslim state, and that 95 per cent of the population is of that faith, it is inconceivable that even a sizable minority, let alone an actual majority, would dissent. And therein lies the General's strategy, said The Times, London on Dec. 20, 1984. The Gazette, Ottawa [12] described the referendum exercise as an insult to the intelligence of the helpless masses and said: "The referendum will not bestow upon Mr. Zia the aura of legitimacy --international and domestic -- he so desperately is seeking." There was no criticism of the referendum in the Pakistani press since any criticism of the political manoeuvring was outlawed.

The entire operation was planned with military thoroughness. Faced with an obviously one-sided contest, the MRD called for a boycott. The opposition leaders were detained throughout the country a week before the referendum. Troops patrolled the streets in Karachi. "Unauthorised persons" near polling stations were banned, making an independent check of the turnout virtually impossible. According to official results, out of the total 349,92,425 registered voters 217,501,901 had exercised their right of franchise. The percentage of the 'yes' vote was 97.7 of the total polled votes. The voting figures included a record 4 million postal ballots cast by the government employees and their families. Except for a faction of the Muslim League led by Pir Pagara, and the Jamat-i-Islami, no political party in the country accepted the official result of the referendum. The MRD leaders asserted that independent accounts of voting showed not more than five per cent turnout.

The London weekly Economist described the referendum as an exercise so absurdly rigged that most communist governments would have been ashamed to mount it.[13] International Commission of Jurists said "Zia manipulated the referendum on his Islamisation policy in order to remain in power for a further five years. His subsequent amendments to the constitution giving him sweeping powers, the continuing use of martial law, charges of torture and increasing control of the media -- all cast severe doubts on President Zia's claim to be working toward restoration of democracy."[14 ]

NON-PARTY ELECTIONS OF 1985

The referendum was the first step of General Zia's two-phase policy to curb the process of genuine democracy in Pakistan and maintain his autocratic military rule under the cloak of a civilian administration. In January 1985, the General announced a plan to hold elections on non-party basis. The move was clearly aimed at not allowing the Pakistan People's Party to participate in the elections. General Zia did not specify the powers of the new National Assembly and the provincial assemblies.

The elections were finally held on February 25, 1985 and polling for the provincial assemblies took place three days later. More than eight hundred prominent politicians were arrested in a pre-election crackdown; campaigning was forbidden by a ban on political parties, processions, rallies and even loudspeakers. However, the voters took both the government and banned political parties by surprise. They ignored the call of the MRD to boycott the polls. The verdict was a rebuff for the government, for the opposition and for the religious parties which cooperated with the martial law regime. Apart from six cabinet ministers, a presidential adviser, two provincial ministers and three city mayors were defeated. Over half of the members of the nominated majlis-i-shura were not returned to the new house. Virtually the entire leadership of the Jamaat-i-Islami was wiped out. The party won only eight of the 63 national seats contested. Karachi, the traditional stronghold of the party, turned it down.

However, with all these upsets, the feudal character of the new house remained unchanged. The National Assembly continued to be dominated by the rural landlords. The only change was that the younger generation of landlords had taken over from their elders. The social background of the new members of parliament can be judged from the following figures: Landowners 117 Tribal leaders 17 Religious leaders 6 Urban professionals 8 Ex-army officers 7 Student leaders 2 Businessmen 42

The feudal families which had been discarded by the electorate in 1970 have returned to the assemblies. The National Assembly, the Senate and the four provincial assemblies were dominated by landowners. Nearly 75 per cent of the 847 members of these bodies were big landlords. It is not surprising that none of them raised a voice against the arbitrary amendments made by the General to the 1973 constitution, to which most of them were signatories. The assembly approved a law to write off loans worth billions of rupees owed by the politicians to the nationalized banks.

THE 8TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

In March 1985, General Zia picked up Mohammad Khan Junejo, a hitherto unknown landlord from Sindh to become Prime Minister. Just three days before the first session of the newly elected National Assembly, on March 17, General Ziaul Haq, decreed constitutional changes which gave him sweeping powers to choose the Prime Minister, the armed forces chiefs and the four provincial governors. In addition, he had absolute power to decide his powers under the constitution and indemnity clauses ensured that he would not be questioned. His only concession to the elected assembly was not to give himself a veto of legislation, but delay proceedings for 45 days. However, he had assumed power to dissolve parliament whenever he thinks fit. He did dissolve the National Assembly and provincial assemblies and disbanded central and provincial governments when he thought fit in May 1988. Article 8 of the constitutional amendments, which were called "The Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985," said that any laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void, shall not apply to the president's orders.

The Junejo government persuaded the National Assembly to pass the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The agenda for the amendment was President's Order No. 14 of 1985 which incorporated severe constitutional changes for ratification by the Assembly. This finesse was necessary because General Ziaul-Haq had agreed to support and defend the 1973 constitution in the Nusrat Bhutto case (1977)."[15] The National Assembly passed the 8th amendment unanimously, under threat of martial law, on 17 October 1985. Martial law remained in force while the National Assembly discussed the 8th amendment and was lifted on December 31, 1985, two and half months after the house had approved the amendment.

Criticizing the 8th constitutional amendment, International Commission of Jurists said "its foremost purpose is to uphold the rule of the present President, Ziaul Haq. The constitution contains nothing to prevent the President from reintroducing martial law."[16] Writing under the title "Zia moves to consolidate power" the Financial Times London said: "The constitution has been personalized by Zia."[17]

However, General Zia, who had nominated Mohammed Khan Junejo as Prime Minister for his obvious weak political personality, found his protégé as an obstacle in his schemes. Gradually differences between Zia and Junejo emerged as the Prime Minister tried to assert his authority as head of an elected government over such issues as top military appointments and Afghanistan. First they clashed over Zia's refusal to sign the Geneva accords that would pave the way for a withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Junejo had organized a round table conference of opposition leaders to get his way. Junejo challenged the appointment of two generals and also demanded that General Zia should quit as the army chief of staff - a position he held since 1976. The Ojheri camp disaster in which hundreds were killed as thousands or rockets had been rained down over Islamabad. Junejo demanded punishment for the army generals responsible for the catastrophe while General Zia - who kept the portfolio of the Army Commander-in-Chief even after the lifting of martial law by extending his own term of office - could not afford to antagonize his constituency. The report blamed General Akhtar Abdul Rehman, Zia's most powerful ally and rumors were spread that the dump, which served as a store for US supplied arms for the Afghan "mujahedeen", had been blown up deliberately just before the arrival of a US defense audit team, to cover up the fact that some Stinger missiles had been sold off to neighboring countries.

The Final showdown took place on 29 May 1988. President General Zia, under article 58 of the amended constitution, dismissed Prime Minister Junejo's government and dissolved the national and provincial assemblies. In sacking Prime Minister Junejo, who had just returned from Manila after a foreign tour, General Zia stressed the delay in furthering the process of Islamisation. The 9th constitutional amendment bill - to declare the Shariah as the supreme law of the land - was passed by the Senate but was pending in the National Assembly. General Zia made the following allegations against the Junejo government:

• 1. Law and order in the country had broken down to an alarming extent resulting in tragic loss of human lives.
• 2. Life, property, honor and security of the citizens was rendered totally unsafe.
• 3. The integrity and ideology of Pakistan have been seriously endangered and doubts generated in this regard.
• 4. The president's conscience always pricked that he had not fulfilled his promises regarding the enforcement of Islam made to the people in the referendum of 1984.
• 5. Public morality had deteriorated to an unprecedented level.
• 6. A situation had arisen in which the government of the federation cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of the constitution necessitating an appeal to the election.

SHARIAH ORDINANCE

On June 15, 1988, two weeks after dissolving the national and provincial assemblies (elected on non-party basis) and disbanding ministries (formed on party basis), General Zia promulgated a new Shariah Ordinanceto declare Shariah as the supreme law of the land with immediate effect. Article 3 of the Act for the enforcement of the Shariah said "the Shariah that is to say, the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, shall be the supreme law of Pakistan.

Explaining the reasons for taking this dramatic step, he said it was unfortunate that the enforcement of Shariah could not attract due attention of the members of the National Assembly, which the nation expected of them. Under the Shariah Ordinance, Ulema were eligible to be appointed as judges of the court which were empowered to challenge almost all existing laws of the country.

However, it was apparent that the whole exercise was primarily meant to put extensive powers in his own hands to be exercised through his nominees on various courts. The president was given powers to make rules for the appointment of the Ulema judges to the courts. Even Ulema of different schools of thought denounced the Shariah Ordinance and described it a move seeking cheap publicity. A Jamat-i-Islami leader declared that the Shariah Ordinance does not conform to the Shariah and it has been enforced by the rulers to save themselves from accountability. Jamiat-i-Ulema Pakistan expressed the apprehension that leaving the interpretation of Quran and Sunnah to the Ulema will open a new pandora's box.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

General Zia's 11 years rule has a record of disloyalty, broken oaths, betrayed promises, illegal acts and extreme violations of human rights. He abolished habeas corpus, extended civilian jurisdiction to military courts and the judiciary was tamed to concur. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, highly publicized public executions were carried out, and people were flogged publicly and in prisons. Arbitrary arrests and imprisonments without trial had become the norm.

Unlike previous military governments, General Zia's regime deprived the judiciary of its power to review the decisions of martial law courts. Citizens had no recourse against any violations of human and legal rights by these military courts, which exercised wide civilian jurisdiction. Similarly, in a development hitherto unknown in Pakistan, the army's field investigative units were responsible for internal security; their powers, too, were unchecked by constitutional or legal provisions. Victims reported that their interrogating techniques were harsher than those of their civilian counterparts.