Musharraf,
Pakistan’s Coriolanus?
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
CA
General Musharraf would have
retired from service three years after his appointment
as army chief in October 1998 had it not been
for his “victory” in Kargil in the
spring of 1999. In any other country, such a misadventure
would have resulted in premature retirement. Instead,
it propelled him into the top job in Pakistan
just a few months later.
Musharraf was welcomed at home by a nation weary
of ineffective and corrupt democratic leaders
but condemned internationally for deposing an
elected government. This duality reversed itself
after September 11, 2001. Musharraf’s bold
response to this tragedy solidified his position
in the West just as surely as it began to create
domestic disenchantment with his rule.
Three-and-a-half years later, he remains the darling
of the West, which continues to shower him with
accolades and contributes billions of dollars
of financial and economic assistance to his government.
At home, he continues to fight a crisis of legitimacy,
brought on nominally by his “volte face”
on the uniform issue.
Musharraf’s domestic crisis is exacerbated
by his unwillingness to share power with any independent
civilian group. He displays no signs of exiting
the stage. By overstaying his welcome, he has
alienated himself from the liberal segments of
Pakistani society, his battle call for enlightened
moderation notwithstanding. His close affiliation
with the foreign policy of the Bush administration,
which causes him to pursue the counter-insurgency
campaign in Waziristan, has alienated the conservative
segments.
To justify his policies, Musharraf has invoked
the national interest as if it were his exclusive
preserve. He has argued that he saved the country
from ruin and asserted that without him and his
uniform, the country would have become a failed
state. He has also claimed to have done more for
democracy than any prior leader. The paradox is
that the more authority he claims, the less power
he wields. What had worked for him on the battlefield
has failed him on the political field.
Of course, there is a silver lining in the dark
clouds. The positive developments on the macroeconomic
front, brought on largely by US.-sponsored economic
aid and private investments from the Gulf region,
have won over certain segments of society to him.
Reasonably confident about his place in history,
the general has begun working on his memoirs.
He has created a presidential website to showcase
his achievements. The site also acts as a portal
for the government of Pakistan, confirming that
he is not only the head of state but also the
head of government in addition to being the army
chief. Shahid Javed Burki, a not-so-secret admirer
of prior military rulers, presents a flattering
account of Musharraf’s first five years
in office in a forthcoming book.
General Musharraf’s epic journey evokes
that of Coriolanus, a military and political leader
of ancient Rome whose career is described by the
Greek historian Plutarch in his “Lives.”
Born Caius Marcius into a rich and famous family,
he earned the title Coriolanus after a major victory
at Corioli in 493 B.C. against the Volscians,
a neighboring tribe of Rome.
Around the year 1600, William Shakespeare drew
upon Plutarch’s history to dramatize the
life of Coriolanus. T. S. Eliot considered this
play to be Shakespeare’s finest tragedy
yet other critics rank it below Hamlet, King Lear,
Macbeth, and Othello. Coriolanus as a prideful
general is the least sympathetic protagonist among
Shakespeare’s tragic figures and this may
be the reason for the mixed appraisal of the play.
However, it has more contemporary relevance than
anything else in the Bard’s repertoire,
since it embodies a long-running debate on autocracy
versus democracy. Shakespeare depicts a society
undergoing tumultuous change, struggling to adjust
to a new form of government. Until recently, Rome
was ruled by a king and the people had no independent
voice. Now, in the early years of the republic,
they participate in the election of consuls. Tribunes,
representing their interests, defend them against
abuses of power. In many ways, the situation resembles
today’s Pakistan, a young republic struggling
to define its body politic after centuries of
imperial rule.
One of the play’s main characters, an aristocrat
named Menenius, compares the state to a human
body in which different classes of society are
its parts. The aristocrats (i.e., the landowning
classes) are the “belly” and the lower-class
commoners are the “toe.” Coriolanus,
as a fierce, noble and proud military leader,
represents the “arms” of the state.
General Coriolanus dominates the play, just as
General Musharraf dominates Pakistan’s political
stage. Both are men of action whose physical strength
and courage are legendary. Coriolanus is perhaps
the greatest warrior of his age. It is said that
Musharraf’s personal heroism inspires other
soldiers and men willingly follow him into battle.
But like Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, he is
not a natural leader.
In the denouement of Shakespeare’s play,
after failing to persuade Romans to align them
with his rule, Coriolanus turns against Rome and
is banished. In the ultimate irony, he joins the
Volscians and makes war on Rome. However, his
mother persuades him to call off the attack, which
enrages the Volscians under Aufidius so much that
they turn upon him. To paraphrase Aufidius, the
virtues of war had become the vices of peace for
the man on horseback. Dismounted, he was a sorry
creature who had to be put away.
Coriolanus approximates the tragic heroes of an
ancient Greek drama, a great man who is brought
low by his hubris. Over-riding egoism can only
terminate in desolation, as Plato said. Such an
ego prevents Musharraf from developing an exit
strategy since he is convinced of his indispensability.
Shakespeare endues his central character with
a deeper flaw in the form of a pathological dependency
upon his mother. As she reminds him in two pivotal
scenes, he is her creation. In the end, Coriolanus
cannot simply sever himself from the body politic
of his motherland, for his identity depends upon
his mother’s esteem.
General Musharraf is a creature of the army, which
is his “mother.” The nine Corps Commanders,
symbolizing this mother, lurk in the background
and appear on stage whenever major decisions are
being made. In the end, they were the ones who
prevailed upon Musharraf to change his mind about
the uniform.
It is time for Musharraf to see the light and
moderate his stance on the uniform. Pakistan’s
national interest is best conceptualized and served
by popularly elected civilians, not by a modern
Coriolanus. Unless strong civilian institutions
can be allowed to develop, Pakistan will continue
to be ruled by strong men whose lives echo those
of history’s tragic characters.
