Democracy has made a rather uncertain comeback in Pakistan. And, the execution of Mir Aimal Kasi in Virginia has opened up a can of worms over his illegal extradition from Pakistan. Iffat Malik reports from Islamabad Click to view caption Three years of military rule in Pakistan came to an end on Saturday with the convening of a newly elected National Assembly. However, the event was immersed in controversy and uncertainty as members of parliament debated the legality of changes introduced by President Musharraf, while jostling to form a coalition government. Elections for the National Assembly, as well as for four Provincial Assemblies, were held on 10 October 2002. No single party emerged with an outright majority, sparking off weeks of bargaining and manoeuvring in the hope of forming a coalition. Most of the dialogue was between the three main parties: the pro-government Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Islamist, Muttahida Majlis- i-Amal (MMA). They secured 118, 81 and 60 seats respectively. Eventually, their failure to reach an agreement led Musharraf to postpone convening the National Assembly. It should have met a week earlier. The first day of the Assembly was devoted to oath-taking by the new Members: the issue of who would head the government was put off for later in the week. But even that relatively straightforward matter became mired in controversy. PPP, MMA and other "opposition" party members refused to swear an oath that endorsed the constitutional amendments passed by President Musharraf. Only when it was pointed out to them that the oath was unchanged from when the constitution was originally framed in 1973, did they change their minds. The constitutional amendments passed by Musharraf are the biggest stumbling- block to agreement on a coalition. Both the PPP and MMA oppose the amendments, especially new provisions that set up a National Security Council (chaired by the president and including all the armed forces chiefs), allowing the president to dissolve the Assembly. Critics argue that these presidential powers reduce the Assembly's role to that of a puppet in Musharraf's hands. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the MMA's nominee for prime minister, made it clear that, "we do not accept amendments in the constitution and will continue our struggle to undo them." Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of Jama'at-i- Islami and another leading figure in the MMA, has indicated that the Islamist Alliance would be prepared to join the PML- Q in government if the above-mentioned constitutional amendments are dropped. The other key demand of the MMA is that Musharraf give up his position as Chief of Army Staff and seek validation of his presidency from the National Assembly and other democratic institutions. According to the constitution, the president is elected by the members of the National and Provincial Assemblies and the Senate. Pervez Musharraf took over the office of president last year after ousting incumbent Rafiq Tarar from that position. In April, he held a referendum on his staying on as president. In what was widely seen as a highly manipulated and flawed ballot, Musharraf secured an overwhelming "yes" vote. On Saturday morning, two hours before the Assembly convened, Musharraf was sworn in as president for the next five years. The sole basis of his presidency was April's rigged referendum. Little wonder that Qazi Hussain Ahmed and others have raised objections: "The president should have no constitutional or legal status unless his presidency is approved by a two-thirds majority in parliament. It needs validation." President Musharraf has made it very clear that he will stay on as army chief. In view of the fact that real power in Pakistan still rests with the armed forces, this is a prudent decision on his part. But his refusal to stand down from the army could make it impossible for the PML-Q and MMA to reach agreement on a coalition government. However, on Thursday an alternative route emerged for the PML-Q to secure the 172 seats it needs for an outright majority. Ten members of the rival PPP announced the formation of a new "Forward Bloc" of the party. The driving force behind this splinter group is Faisal Saleh Hayat. He claimed the move had been made "in the national interest", to break the political deadlock threatening the revival of democracy in the country. He did not specify which party the Forward Bloc would support, but it is widely expected to back the PML-Q. Its 10 seats, coupled with 17 belonging to the MQM and others held by smaller parties and independents, could give the PML-Q enough seats next week to form the government. If so, its nominee Mir Zafarullah Jamali, will become the prime minister. Faisal Saleh Hayat claimed that the Forward Bloc is still loyal to exiled leader Benazir Bhutto, but she is furious at the group's decision to switch sides. "Floor- crossing" was a common problem in previous civilian administrations, with politicians switching sides in exchange for material or other rewards. There is widespread speculation that in the Forward Bloc's case, members were induced or threatened to act as they did. Hayat, for example, is actually free on bail and faces serious corruption charges. Most people have concluded that his true motive was not the national interest, but personal interest. All in all, then, a very shaky start to the new "democratic" era in Pakistani politics. The future is equally uncertain. Should the PML-Q secure enough seats for a parliamentary majority, Pakistan could enter a period of relative stability with power- sharing between the civilian government and the military president. Should it fail to do so, prolonged political uncertainty could, according to some analysts, lead to the reimposition of martial law. An eye for an eye In January 1993, a young man drove up to the headquarters of the CIA in McLean, Virginia, gun in hand. He opened fire at people sitting in their cars and walking past the building, killing two men and wounding three others. Both the dead men worked for the CIA. Last Thursday, the man responsible was executed by lethal injection in a Virginia jail. His name was Mir Aimal Kasi. Kasi's tale is unusual. Hailing from a Baluchi clan in Pakistan, Kasi was described by all who knew him before his shooting spree as a mild-mannered, soft-spoken person. He certainly did not fit the profile of a killer. Yet the reasons that drove Kasi to kill are very similar to those commonly used to justify anti-American acts of terrorism. Kasi said he was angry about the United States' policies abroad, believing that it was bent on destroying Muslims. He deliberately targeted the CIA because, in his eyes, it was one of the prime instruments of that destruction. The day after the murders, Kasi caught a plane to his native Pakistan. For the next four years he remained in hiding there, sheltered by his clan. He is also reported to have traveled to Afghanistan, where he met Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qa'eda figures. However, in 1997 his luck ran out. Acting on a tip-off, FBI agents captured Kasi in a hotel in the city of Dera Ghazi Khan. The Pakistani authorities cleared the way for him to be taken to the US, where he was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the 1993 shootings. Kasi never expressed remorse for his actions, justifying them as "political violence". He appealed for clemency on the same grounds. His last appeal to Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, was turned down last Thursday. On the surface, Aimal Kasi's case might appear to be straightforward. A case of crime, apprehension and punishment, but seen in its wider context the political dimension becomes clearer. Kasi committed his crime as a protest against US policies abroad. While many Muslims would disagree with his actions, they can sympathise with his motives. This is particularly true of his native country, Pakistan. Here, there is also a great deal of anger about the manner in which he was apprehended. According to local reports, the men who revealed Kasi's whereabouts to the FBI were rewarded with substantial cash payments. Pakistan does not have an extradition treaty with the US. As such, Kasi should have appeared in a Pakistani court, and the decision as to whether or not he should be handed over to the Americans should have been made there. This did not happen. Kasi was sent to the US secretly, without a court hearing. Many Pakistanis feel angry at the way their government handed over a fellow citizen to the US. Former intelligence chief, Hamid Gul, felt that, "Pakistani laws were grossly violated. It brings into question our citizenship. It is very insulting." It is precisely this anger that explains why there were apprehensions, both in Washington and Islamabad, that Kasi's execution could be followed by sympathetic reprisals. The Musharraf government tried to avert such a scenario by adding a last-minute plea for clemency on behalf of Kasi and his family. The Pakistan embassy in Washington appealed to Governor Warner to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, but was turned down. In response, the US government has ordered personnel and citizens abroad, especially in Pakistan, to take precautionary measures and be especially vigilant. On Friday, a bomb blast in the southern Pakistani city of Hyderabad reinforced Washington and Islamabad's fears. Two people were killed and several others injured when a bomb blew up at a bus stop. The apparent motive was revenge for Kasi's execution. Elsewhere in the country, Islamists have staged protests directed against both governments. They are now bracing themselves for more acts of reprisal. Meanwhile, Kasi's family mourns the loss of a wasted life.
