Illogicus
and the Dog Days of Summer
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
During the hottest days of summer, the brightest
star in the night sky turns invisible, as it rises
and sets with the sun. This star, Sirius, was
labeled the Dog Star by the ancient Egyptians
and Romans and they called those hottest days
the “dog days of summer.”
Over time, the term came to mean a period of intense
heat and stagnation. Such a period took place
in Pakistan during the last two weeks when General
Musharraf stated his four guiding principles.
Each principle contained within itself a perfect
contradiction. If lined up against the sky, they
would form a quadrilateral, with four stars at
the points. This would appear as a new constellation
among the heavens that the moderns might call
Illogicus.
So what are the stars in Illogicus? The first
one is Musharraf’s assertion that he cannot
participate in politics because he is a soldier.
Nevertheless, he has urged the people to support
the ruling Pakistan Muslim League party if they
want him to stay in power. That is how it got
to be called the “king’s party.”
He urges the people to unite under the leadership
of Chaudhry Shujaat and to avoid discussing their
differences with him in the media. Now if this
is not political, then what is?
Second is his assertion, “I will also play
my role.” His presidential powers exceed
those of the prime minister, clearly contradicting
his assertions that he does not act against the
constitution. Musharraf took umbrage to the letter
that was written by 56 parliamentarians belonging
to the king’s party against Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz because in the general’s mind,
it was an attack on his economic policies.
Third is his statement that the democratic process
would continue uninterrupted with next year’s
general elections. But he implied that he would
continue wearing his uniform, as he has done for
the last 40 years. Musharraf reiterated that the
decision to doff the uniform would be made keeping
in mind the “international, regional and
national situation.” By so saying, he cut
himself as much slack as General Zia had done
by saying repeatedly that the future of Pakistan
depended on democracy and democracy alone.
Fourth is his assessment that Pakistan has no
external enemies and the main threats were internal,
relating to extremism and sectarianism. At the
same time, he calls for a strong defense against
external enemies so that no one would cast an
evil eye on Pakistan. His 15-year plan for making
the Pakistan “impregnable” includes
the acquisition of several squadrons of F-16 fighter
aircraft from the US.
The $5.1 billion order includes 36 new F-16 C/Ds,
weapon systems for the new fighters, “midlife
upgrade” kits for 60 F-16 A/B aircraft in
the PAF inventory and engine upgrades. Islamabad
and Washington have argued that the deal would
help Pakistan to continue its anti-terrorism operations.
While Pakistani warplanes have played a steady
role in operations against al-Qaeda forces operating
near the border with Afghanistan, in most cases
they have been helicopter gunships, not fighters.
The real intent of the F-16 deal is brought out
by its inclusion of 700 short and medium range
air-to-air missiles. These would be of no use
against land-based guerillas. They are directed
against the IAF squadrons, a point that has not
been lost on New Delhi.
A general who seized power illegally through a
coup but wishes to hide behind a democratic façade
function cannot speak truthfully. That has been
Musharraf’s predicament from Day One. His
example stands in sharp contrast to that of three
major military figures in American history. General
George Washington, who won the Revolutionary War,
General Ulysses S. Grant, who won the Civil War,
and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who won the
Second World War in Europe. All three became national
heroes as a result of their victories. And all
three went on to become presidents but only after
they had hung up their uniforms.
After securing victory for the US over Great Britain,
Washington resigned his commission as Commander-in-Chief
of the Army. His domestic stature was on par with
that of Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte in
earlier times. Since American political institutions
were in their infancy, Washington could have hung
on to power. Indeed, there was even some talk
among his followers for making him a king. But
Washington did not wish to make any lame arguments
about staying in uniform to serve the national
interest. When he was elected president, he was
a civilian. By so doing, he established a tradition
of civilian supremacy that has continued to this
day.
At the end of the Civil War, the victorious Grant
was the most revered man in the Union, perhaps
even more so than President Lincoln. Lincoln’s
tragic assassination a few months later provided
him with the perfect opportunity to seize the
reins of power. But he did not interrupt the constitutional
process, which let the power flow to Andrew Johnson.
Johnson proved to be an ineffective ruler and
the Republican Party tapped Grant for the presidential
nomination. In the ensuring elections, he easily
defeated the Democratic challenger and became
the eighteenth President of the US.
Eisenhower was wildly popular in the US since
he was viewed as the person who saved the world
from Adolph Hitler. After the war ended, he was
named Chief of Army Staff but not once did he
entertain the notion of seizing power. He was
elected president after retirement.
So why did General Musharraf choose for himself
a path littered with half-truths? Three reasons
come to mind. The first one is the simplest. If
you lie once, then you have to keep lying indefinitely.
Having stated that his coup did not violate the
constitution, Musharraf has put himself in a bind.
Everyone knows he carried it out to save his career.
Second, he may well believe that he has a bigger-than-average
mind that always acts in the national interest.
In so doing, he seems to have read more into Ralph
Waldo Emerson’s assertion — that consistency
is the hobgoblin of small minds — than the
American writer had intended.
Or, third, at some point in his intellectual development,
Musharraf became enamored with the German philosopher
Hegel and his system of dialectic logic, in which
the thesis and anti-thesis ultimately lead to
a grand synthesis. In Musharraf’s case,
the grand synthesis between democracy and its
antithesis, military rule, is the permanent inculcation
of the military in governance with him at the
helm. Whatever reasons underlie his rule, it has
gone off like a damp squib.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
