President Musharraf's re-election

Interpretation of the constitution does not fall in the jurisdiction of the federal cabinet, but it did discuss the timeframe for the presidential election in its meeting last Wednesday.
There was no "decision" as such that the existing assemblies would serve as the electoral college to re-elect President Pervez Musharraf, says Information Minister Durrani although it makes no real difference whether it was the cabinet's decision or merely its loud thinking. The fact remains that whosoever brought up the subject of presidential election before the cabinet did send out a multi-purpose message.
Foremost, it was conveyed to all and sundry that for the re-election of President Musharraf the existing political dispensation is an inescapable reality. Then, it was beamed at the fence sitters in the ruling coalition with the message that attempts at cutting a deal with Benazir Bhutto have been effectively scuttled and since the presidential re-election would precede the general election there is no great need to woo those outside the loop. Power is strongly addictive. One would be naive to think that fellow travellers of General Musharraf who have enjoyed seven years of safe sailing would jump off the boat.
But there is a multi-dimensional perspective to the re-election of President Pervez Musharraf that perturbs a thinking person. The ability of the present set-up to tamper with the constitution and get Pervez Musharraf re-elected for another five-year term has the potential to spell national disaster. Firstly, the constitution is confusing on whether he can be legally re-elected, thanks to the legal artifices underlying the various amendments inflicted on the constitution via the Seventeenth Amendment. Inevitably, for the purposes of interpretation of the Articles covering the presidential election guidance would be sought from the Supreme Court.
Then, there is every likelihood that the parliamentary opposition will resign before the presidential election, creating a crisis of credibility for the president who is supposed to be the symbol of unity of the federation. Add to this the possibility that by then the Majlis-i-Amal led NWFP government would have been dissolved at its own request, which would tend to undermine the very structure of the electoral college.
Apart from these technical aspects of the president's re-election by the sitting assemblies the issue has a moral dimension also. One may ask whether a dying entity can give life to another entity from its deathbed. These assemblies are supposed to go out of business by or soon after November 15, 2007, and, as for their right to elect the president for a five-year term they have already exercised that right. The argument that they can elect a new president in case vacancy in the office of president occurs for some reason is nothing but chasing the law.
It does not fit into the parameters of what the intention of the framers of the constitution was or constitutes democratic ambience, something the people of Pakistan have been yearning for years. If General Musharraf, one may ask, can earn the distinction of an elected president while remaining in uniform, why can't someone else also in uniform later on? His re-election by democratically elected people's representatives will build the high road to power for the generals. That would be dangerous for Pakistan, which was the end product of a lifelong democratic struggle under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam.