Musharraf's troubles in his eighth year of office appear to have started with the removal on March 9 of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhury, the head of Pakistan's Supreme Court. The President put allegations of misconduct forward to support this decision.

The Opposition has however claimed that the suspension of the Chief Justice was linked to his being more 'independent' than acceptable by the President. It has also been underlined by them through several seminars and meetings that the Chief Justice was being increasingly seen as being a potential legal hurdle to Musharraf retaining his dual position as President and Army Chief ahead of the next election as required by the Constitution.

Musharraf, it may be mentioned, believes very strongly that any effort, from any quarter, suggesting that he take off his uniform (which he claims 'has become part of his skin') is tantamount to sedition. It is this vein of thought which has also led the Pakistan Supreme Court to begin a hearing, since the end of May, of a petition against 'derogatory remarks made about the government, judiciary and armed forces.' In this context, comments made against the President, also the Armed Forces Chief, is being interpreted as having been made against the armed forces itself.

A complex inter-play between the State, its institutions and the individual has surfaced in Pakistan. It reminds one of a strange parallel that existed during the reign of French King Louis the XIV. He practiced absolute power and stressed the fact that he was the embodiment of the State.

It is such a view and approach that has also led the Pakistan police to register cases of sedition against 200 lawyers in Karachi. They had taken part in protests to express solidarity with the suspended Chief Justice during his visit to the port city last month.

The constitutional status of Chief Justice Chaudhury as a judge is presently under review in Pakistan. His lawyers have sought multiple reliefs from the Supreme Court on the ground that the President cannot file a reference against a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It has also been stated that such a reference to the Supreme Judicial Council is also invalid under law as the Chief Justice himself was an integral part and head of this Council. They have resorted to Article 209 of the Pakistan Constitution for this purpose. Citing this as legal authority, the defence team has asked the Supreme Court to 'direct that all constraints, restraints and impediments in the way of the petitioner's performing the functions and exercising the powers of the Office of Chief Justice be removed forthwith'.

It has also been argued by the team of lawyers representing the Chief Justice that members of the Supreme Judicial Council (including Justice Javed Iqbal and Justice. A.H. Doger) do not have the right to be part of this Council because of their 'known personal bais' against Chief Justice Chaudhury. This defence team has also challenged the holding of this Council's sessions in camera. They consider such a step as being ultra vires to the Constitution and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Chief Justice.

Matters have now become further complicated through an observation made by Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday, a Pakistan Supreme Court Judge (as part of the 13-member full bench) hearing the suspended Chief Justice's petition challenging the Presidential reference against him. Justice Ramday has differed openly with the prosecution lawyers as to not only whether President Musharraf enjoys absolute immunity under the Constitution, but also whether he is answerable to the Court. This Judge mentioned most interestingly -- 'there is no cavil to the fact that the President enjoys no absolute immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution. What the law says is-he cannot be made respondent by his name.'

This view has questioned the basic premise of the prosecution team opposing the petition on the ground that acts of the President cannot be challenged in the Court. Justice Ramday has subsequently gone one step further. He also tried to present his views in the context of Islam, the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He underlined that Islam attaches special importance to justice, prayer and philanthropy. Consequently, he added, 'where there is an issue of justice, it becomes a matter of public importance and in this backdrop, the Chief Justice's case is also a matter of public importance.

The ramifications of this opinion are significant. It reveals the deep cleavage that has emerged within Pakistan over absolute governance. It also reiterates that the President is in hot water despite the government's claims of Musharraf having presided over a period of sustained economic growth and relative stability. His reputation in the western media as a 'secular pragmatist seeking to restore good governance' is also under attack.

One aspect is very clear from the existing situation. Pakistan is heading into another of its cycles of mass unrest and political instability.

Pakistan, like some other countries in this region, has a patronage-based system. This has created its own matrix vis-a-vis religion and democracy. Juxtaposed together, discontent has surfaced. Till now, this disaffection does not appear to have entered the bastion of the Pakistan army-northern Punjab (from where most of the army is recruited). If it does eventually spread into that sensitive territory, it will create division within the army's ranks. Senior generals who are still supporting President Musharraf might then be persuaded to reexamine the evolving deteriorating scenario and decide whether the President was still acceptable or whether there have to be changes for facilitating a fair election and good governance.

This time round, there are very high stakes in Pakistan. On the negative side, Pakistan continues to be menaced by the conflict in Afghanistan, pro-Taliban unrest in its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and the spread of Islamist extremism elsewhere in the country. It is also under severe pressure from Washington.

All these elements have not been lost on the opposition-particularly the two political parties of the ousted Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.

Press reports have indicated that both parties in general and Bhutto in particular, after trying to achieve a deal with Musharraf, is now carefully watching the situation in the streets. The mainstream political leadership is in exile but they also appear to be using every opportunity to fuel the judicial crisis. They believe that unless the present military dominated government is able to broaden its base, it will be presiding over growing disorder that will eventually lead to the generals themselves insisting on a change of government.

Nevertheless, there is also an underlying paradox in such an assumption. The opposition knows that any alternative political process will require the army's full support if they are to govern effectively (and contain extremist violence). Herein lies the crunch. Consequently, there does not appear to be a simple solution to this complex issue. The attempt to browbeat a judge has opened new pressures and fissures within the socio-political fabric of Pakistan. It has also raised uncertainty within the electoral framework.

I conclude in this context with an observation made by Tariq Ali in 'The Guardian' of 17 May. He has mentioned 'There is an easy solution. The general should discard his uniform, the judge should forgo his wig, and the two should battle it out on the electoral terrain.' I completely agree.

President Musharraf has great will power. He has done many good things in the last few years. However, what he probably requires right now, is self-appraisal and humility. This is the only way towards national reconciliation in his troubled country.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net