The terrorist attack on December 16, 2014 at a secondary school in the Pakistani city of Peshawar has convinced the military and political leadership of Pakistan to take urgent measures to curb the menace of extremism the country is seriously inflicted with. One of the first steps was the lifting, by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, of the moratorium on death penalty, which was introduced in 2006 during the rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Since then, a number of convicted terrorists have been hanged.
The other major step taken in this behalf is Pakistan Protection Act and the consequent establishment of military courts to try terrorists and do ‘speedy’ justice. Prior to the passing of this act, on December 25, 2014, the federal government approved the 20-point National Action Plan to combat terrorism, which the country’s leaders were quick to describe as the “decisive moment” in the fight against terrorism.
On January 1, 2015 President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Mamnoon Hussain signed the Protection of Pakistan Act. This was the first step towards the criminal prosecution of persons involved in terrorist activities. According to the formula agreed between political parties, provincial and central governments would refer cases to the military courts where terrorists would be tried and punished accordingly.
Under these conditions, the parliamentarians called for another amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) of 1952. As a result, on January 7, 2015, 242 deputies of the National Assembly (the lower house of parliament) endorsed the 21st Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill 2015. Members of two orthodox parties and the opposition JP party abstained. Critics of military courts opposed the transfer of more powers to the army in a country whose sixty years of history has more than forty years of rule by military or civil-military administrations.
While these steps were or were not necessary in the fight against terrorism is a moot question, it is evident that developments subsequent to the attack have certainly strengthened the already politically very powerful Pakistan Army, shattering the myth of ‘democracy’ in Pakistan. The imbalance between civil and military institutions has now been formerly institutionalised—an unprecedented development in the political history of Pakistan. Amid fears of the ascendancy of the army, many political actors were quick to recognise that the law could potentially be used against civilians too, including politicians.
The parliamentary opposition has expressed concerns that the law could be used by the police and security agencies against innocent citizens and unwanted members of political parties in order to justify illegal detention and persecution. The leader of the orthodox political party JUI-F categorically rejected the Bill, describing it as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Pakistan’s citizens. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) also expressed concern that the new law would only aggravate the already deteriorated human rights situation in the country. Largely marginalised but politically active left-wing political parties have been the most vocal opposing actor to this legislation. Awami Workers Party, a coalition of small peasant movements, has been holding rallies and processions in the Capital of Pakistan against this legislation and possible ‘militarisation’ of political issues.
This ‘militarisation’ has, however, occurred in a certain historical context. In 2009, the military command announced the new military doctrine of Pakistan. The principal difference from the former doctrine was to change the concept of the enemy. The main threat, according to Rawalpindi (office of commander in chief) was not the external enemy, but the internal enemy – terrorists. Since then, there has been a clear gap between the military establishment and civil authorities in their approaches towards the terrorists and this lack of clarity has been one of the potent reasons for a largely lethargic response to most serious internal security threat to Pakistan. Now that legislation has been finalised and implemented, the question of civilian supremacy has once again been challenged, putting the notion of democracy again under question mark.
