Last week the Pulse forgot to give a timely advice to President George Bush of United States. Domestic scene may be absorbing but a magazine like Pulse shall not ignore its international responsibilities. However, we are still in time to sound what we see as the most logical consequence of the transparent elections in Pakistan. And for the sincere advice to George Bush, one can’t find better words than the Editor: “The verdict of the people of Pakistan is loud and clear: Mr. President, show some grace and go home”.
  The duplicated suggestion is a lot more attractive than the original. Let’s wait for the response from President Bush because ‘grace’ won’t cost him as much as it can cost President Musharraf this hour. Bush is almost at the end of his second four-year term in Grey House. Musharraf, on the contrary, has still four years and three quarters to go. Yet somehow the (well earned) taunts at Musharraf stick well on Bush.
  “President Musharraf had neither risen to the level of a statesman who could win the hearts and minds of the people, nor did he associate himself with an overwhelming majority of 160 million.”
  Frankly, President Bush has been ignoring the occurrences in Iraq and Afghanistan and the elections or selections in those two territories, some still call states, can’t be interpreted against him like the transparent elections in Pakistan. In all non-seriousness at my command, I can demand that President Bush “will show grace if he seizes the opportunity and steps down, telling the nation he has kept his promise to ensure free, fair and transparent elections (in Pakistan)”. Can you name another President outside Pakistan who had a bigger hand or bigger stakes in these elections?
  Knowing that Pakistan is fighting the war on terror in her own cause, one may remind the readers that the war was not declared by the President we wish to retire as a consequence of the election that some have branded as a referendum against him. I do have a right to differ with the Editor but in Pakistan, I can exercise that right only once. That is why I have wisely chosen to duplicate the suggestion and address it to a President who can oblige. Yet I have a problem.
  The leading critics of President Bush in the National Assembly and the Frontier Assembly are out in the same election. They were routed in their traditional strong holds. Cursing Bush didn’t bring them any luck. All that they pretended or preached is void. For them today is worse than yesterday. For they have no bird in hand and no bird in bush. And Bush can, justifiably, claim it as victory. Besides the new members are more than eager to side with Bush but if he can kindly endorse their interpretation of the results.
  If you are reading these lines as an anti-thesis of what the Editor suggested last week, you are reading at your own risk. I am as independent a writer as the Q-League was as a political party. A good journalist, like the Editor, shall recall commitment of a leader preferably in his own words. “I will quit if my supporters loose” were the words the President may not instantly honour. Intelligently, President Bush has not made any such commitment. Instead he has been asking his supporters and allies “to do more”. That is a much better approach than endorsing a performance that is rejected by the ballot.
  Now if the President can’t display the grace as suggested last week, he may kindly take note that the grace period of almost three months is gone and onwards he has to strictly follow the Constitution. He can’t find the kind of subordinates he is much accustomed to. The new stock is rather insubordinate and he will have to reason than command his juniors. That may involve some serious reading of the Constitution and he may find time as well. His opponents are determined to make him a Rafiq Tarar but he has no intentions to grow a beard.
  Any journalist would be perfectly within his right to question the election of Pervez Musharraf as the President if he did raise a finger at a fault in the election. Allow me to recall that there was only a single objector to point out to the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, that the electoral college was not competent to elect any one as the President because it was about to end its constitutional term. But the Supreme Court, some wish to restore, asked a damn clerk to put a silly objection on the Constitution Petition. When the objection was questioned before a judge in the Chamber, there was no judge in the Chamber. Many months later when the Chief Justice of Pakistan was difficult to be found, Punjab decided to hold its own referendum wherein there was no question that could be answered by a yes or no. Not a single political party did have the trust in the Supreme Court to give a ruling on the competence of the electoral-college. They staged their own theatres. Kindly recall that independent judiciary had been restored on August 20 and the Supreme Court’s order to enforce the Fundamental Right of two rich and influential citizens was later thrown in the dust bin by the Airport manager. Let us refresh our memories before we restore the Supreme Court another time. A retired judge of the Supreme Court was a Presidential Candidate and neither he nor his lawyers saw any wrong with the electoral-college. All incompetent voters were counted by an incompetent Chief Election Commissioner and result withheld. The Chairman Senate and Speaker National Assembly were also in the race under invisible, rather visible, prompts. The Chief Justice of Pakistan had the grace to ignore all fouls.
Let’s suppose, the King’s Party had scored a landslide victory, would the electoral triumph justify all that was done in September and October last year? The wrong in November could not rectify the wrong in September.