The Constitution envisages election of the President through an electoral college comprising senators and members of the National and Provincial Assemblies. While his candidature is circumscribed by Article 41, his election takes place through a procedure laid down in the Second Schedule. On election, he takes oath under the Third Schedule.
There may be a crimson thread running all through these three legal provisions, but on the face of it a ride through them is no less than a roller coaster journey. For instance, how a person could be elected as President without the support of a political party or parties? Obviously, that obliges him to be part of some political dispensation.
So, as long as he is a candidate or aspires to be a candidate he would like to project himself as part of the national political milieu. But, once elected he takes oath under the Third Schedule which obliges him to "do right to all manner of people" in consonance with the constitutional determination that "he shall be the Head of State and shall represent the unity of the Republic".
This, essentially, divides the role of a presidential hopeful into two parts, the oath standing as the divider between the two. Initially, the American constitution had not envisaged any role for political parties in the election of the president - its framers were disgusted with European practice - but it was realised soon that it did not work, and that led to the evolution of party politics in that country.
Over the past one year or so, President Pervez Musharraf has addressed a number of rallies from the platform of ruling coalition partner, Pakistan Muslim League (Q), often in the company of top brass of the party, including Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. A common reiteration at these rallies was invariably his exhortation that the people should vote for 'enlightened moderate forces' headed by him. He would often say "elect them who would elect me".
Without any doubt these were election rallies, although one was struck by the fact that these took place rather early in the day, as the Election Commission had not announced any election schedule. To paraphrase: President Musharraf was canvassing for votes when he was not a candidate but the President of Pakistan and Head of State.
That is an unfair advantage that would be unacceptable under any constitution and no democratic country would countenance such a flagrant violation. The political opposition has been taking strong exception to this practice, but the government remains adamant and does not bother to offer even a fig-leaf excuse.
As head of state and symbol of the unity of federation, President Musharraf has, in the opinion of neutral observers, run afoul of the Constitution by being part of a political group and speaking at various political rallies. Enforcing the constitutional obligations is primarily the responsibility of the Supreme Court, a situation where the opposition was to play a role. But that did not happen as criticism was mainly confined to statements.
If the issue has now come to the fore it is largely by accident. After receiving MMA's petition about flawed voters' lists, Chief Election Commissioner Justice (Retired) Qazi Muhammad Farooq, in reply to a reporter's question, observed that President Musharraf's addresses at political rallies were inappropriate. He did not elaborate. Nor was there any counter statement from the Presidency. But more loyal than the king ministers took umbrage at the Chief Election Commissioner's observation.
Information Minister Durrani, who has an awfully wrong estimation of public intelligence, took the stand that the President had not addressed political gatherings but those that were arranged for inauguration of development projects. His deputy, Tariq Azeem, was a little less misinforming. He conceded that the President as symbol of unity of federation should not have addressed political gatherings, but maintained that he had sought the vote of progressive elements.
Can the Chief Election Commissioner restrain the President from addressing political rallies? There is no clear answer to it. That perhaps is the reason that the Chief Election Commissioner used the word inappropriate in describing the President's act. Of course a welter of aberrations tends to overshadow the political scene with unanswered fundamental questions like when elections would be held, who will elect the President and whether President Musharraf can keep his uniform after the election, looming all around.
But, clearly, for the President there should be no confusion because the oath he took clearly keeps him out of such partisan political activities. It is inappropriate with his oath and tends to weaken the efforts being made to hold fair and free elections, which is the only way out of the ever-deepening political crisis that Pakistan is beset with.