Opinion - News Analysis   

Pakistan’s future is without Musharraf

What is a free and fair general election in Pakistan? One that delivers the election to the General.

Pervez Musharraf’s mastery of Orwell-speak is unmatched among contemporary leaders beyond Myanmar, where fellow-generals live in their own world of make-believe. Benazir Bhutto is under house arrest for her own safety. The judiciary, about to pr onounce the inconvenient truth that General Musharraf’s recent re-election as President while remaining army chief was unconstitutional, is dismissed and the Chief Justice also put under house arrest. (Had he been of a more literary bent, General Musharraf could have convened a meeting of his army commanders and mused: Who will rid me of this meddlesome judge?) The Constitution itself is suspended. All this, mind you, to defend, protect and promote democracy. After all this, it takes either real chutzpah or total disconnect with reality to proclaim that any protest march by Ms Bhutto would violate the law.

His action is unique even in the crowded annals of military coups. In effect, General Musharraf toppled President Musharraf. Yet the troublesome fact is that he has been in power for eight years, in charge both of the country and the military. Who then is responsible for the mess, if not he?

General Musharraf has a history of disowning responsibility. He was the chief architect of the Kargil war in 1999 which sabotaged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s fragile feelers of friendship with India. To maintain the fiction of no official involvement, he dishonoured the uniform by refusing to accept the bodies of the Pakistani soldiers slain in that senseless conflict.

When General Musharraf overthrew the legally elected Mr. Sharif later on in 1999, opposition was muted owing to Mr. Sharif’s incompetence and corruption. Domestic reaction was far from hostile. The world averted its gaze from Pakistan and began to bet on the giant democracy next door. President Bill Clinton’s four-day visit to India while paying only a flying visit of a few hours to Pakistan was an important metaphorical statement of the relative importance of the two countries.

Then came 9/11 and all attention returned firmly to Pakistan whose intelligence services had created and supported the Taliban. When General Musharraf abandoned the Taliban and joined the U.S. war against terror, the world accepted him as a crucial ally. Yet the fact is that on all three critical issues — fighting Islamist terrorism, curbing nuclear proliferation, promoting democracy — progress has been minimal at best and in some cases even negative.

Almost every incident of international terrorism in the last decade, including 9/11, has had some significant link with Pakistan. Its madrasas were fertile breeding grounds “for export only” terrorists. They have been cut back or at least their visibility has been reduced. But in a pathology shared with most military rulers, General Musharraf could not tolerate political opponents with a mass following. The two major political leaders, Ms Bhutto and Mr. Sharif, were exiled and he wedged the main political parties by cutting deals with religious parties who moved in to occupy the vacant political space. In this he was following in the footsteps of the previous dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq during whose rule the beard count among soldiers went up as the military was Islamicised.

In an extension of the same policy, General Musharraf has tried to cut deals with the extremists in the restive northwest regions of Pakistan, from where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have regrouped and launched increasingly deadly assaults against government and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

On the nuclear issue, the notorious Abdul Qadeer Khan established a global nuclear arms bazaar that happily did business with Iran, Libya, and North Korea. The government was either complicit in, connived in, and facilitated, or at the very least knew about and tolerated the existence and activities of the network. When caught out after Libya’s abrupt about-face on its clandestine nuclear weapons programme, they put Khan under house arrest but did not confiscate the money he made from the deals. They have prevented the Americans and the IAEA from questioning Khan directly about the details of the intricate international network. Washington has meekly accepted this.

The facade of democracy has unravelled before our eyes in the last fortnight.

So what can be done? The point of the above is to argue why no solution is possible without the departure of both General and President Musharraf. Ms Bhutto is right. He is so toxic politically that any Pakistani or foreigner who works with him will be contaminated.

Washington must move immediately from a Musharraf to a Pakistan policy and demand an immediate and unconditional end to de facto martial law, the restoration of the constitution and judiciary and reinstatement of all the judges, and the holding of elections that all political parties can contest. Both Ms Bhutto and Mr. Sharif will have a vested interest in curbing the political influence and role of Islamists (who have never commanded more than 14 percent support in any free lection) and the military.

In the immediate timeframe, a government with both domestic and international credibility is needed. The military must continue to play a stabilising role in the short term but retreat into and stay in the barracks in the long run.

The international community does have some leverage, as pointed out by the influential and independent International Crisis Group. Military and other aid could be suspended. Generals, Cabinet Ministers and families could be banned from international travel. Officers could be stopped from attending overseas courses. Links with military-run companies could be curbed. And promises could be made of further assistance to create the structures and institutions of democratic governance along with substantial development and humanitarian assistance with a return to democratic rule.

(Ramesh Thakur is distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and professor of political science at the University of Waterloo.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Congress dreams
Travails of the U.S. credit market
Energy security and life beyond Chevron
Pakistan’s future is without Musharraf
Spain’s divorce rate soars after rules relaxed
The nuclear deal
Pertinent questions
Pakistan politics
Capital punishment
‘For Southeast Asia, to have India as a partner is a tremendous plus’

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu