Is relic the roadblock?

It is not in his character but this time PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari has spoken with rare openness, foreboding dangerous times ahead for the country. First it was his interview with the Press Trust of India and then his press conference on Saturday where he spelt out the salient features of the constitutional package as approved by his party leadership.
In his interview he took an astonishingly hard line against President Musharraf whom he described as "a relic of the past" who "stands somewhere between us and democracy". 'Roti or no roti' the people want that President Musharraf be removed from office, he said explaining he was under "tremendous amount of pressure from the people of Pakistan." The "bottom line" is that the people want Pervez Musharraf to go and "I am a servant of the people, not master of the people". This is something Zardari never said before. But will he do it? He was asked at the press conference.
He was non-committal. Paraphrased, the much-suspected secret understanding between the Zardari House and the Presidency is wearing thin but the two sides may not be on a collision course. Instead of being eased out by force President Musharraf may decide on his own to call it a day, Zardari thinks. But not yet; his spokesman, Major-General Rashid Qureshi (Retd) says President Musharraf will fight back to retain his powers under Article 58 2(b). The PPP leadership will learn more about the President's mind when Prime Minister Gilani meets him sometimes early this week.
The foregoing brings out early contours of an emerging battle between President Pervez Musharraf and the Asif Ali Zardari-headed coalition government. After lying low for many weeks - accepting the ground reality clearly reflected in the electoral win of democratic forces - the President appears to be striving to stage a comeback. He has recovered from the initial shock of defeat, thanks as much to the Byzantine politics of Pakistan as the tragic failure of the elected leaders to be able to put on public display any worthwhile performance.
The great victory of democracy is fizzling out as political squabbles beset the coalition and peoples' problems multiply. But what appears to have triggered the rush of blood for standing up to the politicians in the Presidency is perhaps the calculation that under the present circumstances the coalition government does not have the parliamentary numbers to turn the tables on President Musharraf.
The fact is, that unless there are desertions from within the Musharrafites, the constitutional package is virtually a stillborn proposition: it can become the Eighteenth Amendment only if it is also passed by the Senate, like its passage by the National Assembly with a two-thirds majority. But the government does not have even a simple majority in the upper house and may have to wait for that till March next year when the Senate will go for elections to fill seats vacated by the retiring senators. The impeachment of President Musharraf has always been a high priority with the PML (N) and some other parties now out of parliament but the PPP never talked in such terms.
President Musharraf is still a far more powerful and reckless president than Ghulam Ishaq Khan was. The latter had sent packing two elected governments because the "situation had, in his opinion, arisen in which the Government of the Federation could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate was necessary". The reading of the 'situation' was based on his perception of various inputs significantly including the media coverage.
Is the present set-up being placed in a better light than the two who were dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan? Add to this a controversial apex court and you get the feeling of déjà vu. But there is an equally relevant case of the cynics who place the recent belligerence as brinkmanship by the PPP to regain some of its lost image in the masses. What constitutional package you are talking about when you don't have the required numbers, they ask.
There is, however, another twist to the whole issue. The ruling coalition may not have the numbers to have the constitution amended that requires a passage by a two-thirds majority of each house, but support from a forward block of PML (Q) senators for its passage may clinch the amendment.
Will such voting against the party line by the PML(Q) senators attract the provisions of Article 63A, Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc, of the constitution?
It is arguable that it may not, as this article binds a member of parliament at the pain of losing his membership in case (a) he resigns from membership of his political party or joins another party; or (b) if he votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relation to - (i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or (ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or (iii) a money bill. None of these three situations as stipulated in Article 63A. Clause (b) sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) that pertain to voting or abstaining apply to the Senate.