Darkness at Noon in Pakistan
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA

The sun shone brightly on April 30th four years ago. But it could do little to hide the darkness that would spread over the Republic that day. A man in uniform who had seized power illegally two and a half years earlier would use the well-worn device of a referendum to declare himself president for an additional five years, claiming that this was necessary to implement the Quaid-i-Azam vision.
At a recent meeting of the Asia Society in San Francisco, Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution was asked to name the largest political party in Pakistan. With a wry smile, he said, “The Pakistan Army.”
In many ways, the Army plays the same role in Pakistan as the Communist Party in China. President Hu, when asked about the lack of democracy in China during his recent visit to the US, said that China’s conditions required a special dispensation called “Socialist Democracy.” General Musharraf says he has brought democracy to Pakistan and is an “elected” president. But would that election have happened if he were not the army chief?
Musharraf’s powers exceed those of the dictators of the Roman Republic, who were elected by the Roman Senate to deal with a military emergency. They were not legally accountable to anyone for their actions but their term was limited to six months or to the duration of the emergency, whichever came first. Only two exceptions were made, once for Cornelius Sulla, whose term was extended indefinitely but who voluntarily gave it up after two years in office and once for Julius Caesar, whose term was extended for life but which ended abruptly with his murder on the Senate floor on the Ides of March.
At various times, General Musharraf has stated that the people are overwhelmingly with him. He has now topped that by saying that every soldier is on his side. Like the three prior military rulers, he wants to be remembered as being the “savior” of Pakistan, with his special contribution being that he saved the country from imminent economic collapse.
Many have argued that not only is the army’s involvement in politics unconstitutional, but it is also bad for the army’s professionalism. Shahid Javed Burki, who has otherwise been kind to military governments, has stated that it creates an “institutional graveyard.” Yet, some continue to opine that the Army is the only viable political option in Pakistan. However, does one also have to accept one-man rule? No.
After all, for very good professional reasons, the army chief has a three-year term. During emergencies, when he takes over and assumes the presidency, operational realities require him to nominate another general as the vice chief. The latter runs the army but serves at the pleasure of the president cum army chief. The vice chief is held to a normal tenure, as are the other service chiefs and the chairman of the joint chiefs.
By giving the army chief an unlimited tenure, a double standard is created. This leads to much friction in the higher echelons of the military and between the three services. The way forward is to de-link military rule from one-man rule.
In the Pakistani Republic, since the dictator is elected after the fact rather than before the act as in the Roman Republic, his position lacks legitimacy. Thus, he is reluctant to step down, for fear of being tried for treason. He has no incentive to develop a succession plan and has to live with the fear of a violent exit.
To preserve his uniqueness and prevent his overthrow, the dictator creates a myth of indispensability. This gives his rule an imperial and dynastic character. Inevitably, a personality cult develops around him, leading to cronyism, corruption and institutional decay.
There are at least two alternatives to this predicament. One option is to require the position of dictator to rotate annually among the three service chiefs. A second option is to require that the dictator be only drawn from the army but subject to a normal tenure, at which point the vice chief would succeed him and a new vice chief chosen with the consent of the other service chiefs. Both options would preserve the critical, emergency and necessary elements of military rule without conferring on any one individual supreme executive powers for life.
This would create a peaceful exit strategy for the dictator and ultimately end military rule itself. Had such an arrangement existed in the past, Pakistan’s history would not have been marred by discontinuities and coups.
In the current dispensation, Musharraf is unlikely to yield his position to anyone, having already over-stayed his retirement as army chief by four years. His ministers are floating trial balloons to extend his presidential term, which is attached to his term as army chief. On Pakistan Day, the Punjab Chief Minister noted, “The uniform issue is not the personal issue of the president but it is a question of Pakistan’s future. Continuity of the president’s policies is necessary for the better future and economic stability of the country.” Several other ministers, who are intent on finding a way to extend the tenure of the “Dual Offices” act, have since made more creative and aggressive statements. Of course, if all else fails, Musharraf will amend the constitution.
Next year, Musharraf would be completing his eighth year in office, the equivalent of two American presidential terms. If the general elections take place, it is very probable that they would be called the “General’s Election” the day after. Contrast that with the situation in the US, where even if the electorate wants to elect a president who has served two consecutive terms in office, it cannot. This is forbidden by the constitution, which cannot be amended by presidential fiat.
In the meantime, Musharraf is busy presiding over meetings to review foreign direct investments, talking to the president of Iran about the gas pipeline, discussing which dam to build next, and visiting the State Bank to make sure that inflation is kept in check. But his eye is always on those generals who are immediately junior to him. Anyone who is remotely a threat is sidelined or retired.
This paranoia would go away if one-man rule were limited to the normal term of office of the army chief. Both the army and the nation would be the beneficiaries of such a change in policy. But will such a topic be on the agenda of the next Corps Commanders meeting? Only if a commander wants to hang up his uniform prematurely.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.