Should Musharraf Stay?
By Ahmad Faruqui, PhD
Dansville, CA

In a recent column, Pervez Hoodbhoy presented a trenchant analysis of why Musharraf continues to stay in power. But his analysis did not touch on what is arguably the more salient issue: should Musharraf continue to stay?
If he stays in power indefinitely while simultaneously serving as the chief of army staff, he would severely damage the political fabric of the nation in at least five ways.
Firstly, it would mean a man’s word means nothing. In most of the world, a man’s word means a lot. In Pakistani culture, it means everything. In October 1999, the general made it very clear that his becoming the “Chief Executive” was an accidental act, akin to that of someone being pushed into a swimming pool. He said his action was not a coup but a counter coup, an act of self-defense. Unlike prior military rulers, he did not declare martial law, lending some initial credibility to his words.
Yet by the time of his first foreign interview a few weeks later, he had concluded that it was “a great feeling to be in charge.” More was to follow later. In a detailed interview he gave to another foreign journalist, he said that unlike Zia, he did not intend to linger on. His agenda was simply to bring real democracy to the country.
With those promises, he convinced the justices of the Supreme Court that he was essential to the survival of the country. They gave him a three-year window in which to turn things around. When that window closed in October 2002, he held elections of questionable validity and had himself elected president. This act of self-perpetuation was not a surprise, since by then no one expected him to gracefully honor his earlier word.
Subsequently, in order to get his constitutional amendments passed through Parliament, which essentially transferred the prime minister’s executive authority to the president and made a mockery of the Constitution, he made a solemn pledge to retire from the army in December 2004. That would prove to be yet another promise in a long string of promises that was made simply for the pleasure of being broken.
Secondly, if Musharraf stays, it would suggest to the world at large that in a nation of 160 million, no other man or woman is capable of running the country. Surely this insults the intelligence of the Pakistani
nation. Pakistani nation.
Thirdly, Musharraf’s continued stay would imply that only a military man can run Pakistan. It would suggest that it is an inherently ungovernable state, not a nation but a collection of disparate and warring tribes, a land caught in a time warp, a failed state with nuclear weapons. This would simply validate all the bad images that one conjures up while reading the Western press these days.
Indefinite military rule does not do justice to Jinnah’s legacy. His vision for Pakistan was entirely and intrinsically and exclusively a democratic vision in which the military would be subservient to elected civilian officials. Neither Jinnah (nor Iqbal) dreamed of a land where the military would usurp power and rule indefinitely by invoking the Kelsen doctrine of necessity. Indeed, it is unlikely that Jinnah would have deemed it necessary to create a country that could only be governed through the law of necessity. Jinnah would have found it detestable that the military would proudly proclaim itself as being entitled to rule because it is the strongest institution in the country. He would have been appalled by the process through which the military has systematically emaciated the civilian institutions, guaranteeing its own preeminence.
Musharraf, in his myriad public appearances, has the temerity to appear beneath larger-than-life portraits of Jinnah. This betrays his deep-rooted insecurity. He knows better than anyone else that nothing can legitimize the illegitimate. His attempts at proving his innocence are as feckless as those of Lady Macbeth who lamented in vain after her evil act, “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand?”
Fourthly, Musharraf’s continued rule would guarantee that the strategic culture of Pakistan would remain mired in violence. His talk of enlightened moderation reeks of hypocrisy. He acknowledges the main threat to Pakistan’s security is internal and comes from extremist elements that are hell bent on fighting a holy war that sanctions beheadings of innocents and promises heavenly glories to suicide bombers. But he does nothing substantive to deal with the extremist threat.
The Bush administration blundered when it entrusted him to wage war against the Taliban. The Pakistani army, through its agencies, has recruited, trained and armed the myriad militias that are now running roughshod all over the country. This army policy was premised on two wrong assumptions: first, these militias would serve as the ultimate line of defense against an Indian invasion and, second, they would serve as a covert vehicle for bleeding India in Kashmir.
Proof of Musharraf’s insincerity is provided by his lack of action prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. According to his own account, he only turned on the Taliban when the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age.
Lastly, if he continues as the army chief, the army will suffer. It needs a full-time chief, not a part-time chief, and a chief who is not several years senior to other general officers.
All prior military rulers in Pakistan have been forced out of office. Ayub was hounded out by a street revolt whose battle cry equated him with a dog, a filthy animal in Pakistani culture. Yahya was deposed by his junior officers after a massive military debacle. Zia was disposed of through a plane crash that could only have been an inside job.
Musharraf knows the ground rules of Pakistani politics better than anyone. But, like Macbeth, he is blinded when he sees “Great Birnam wood marching to high Dunsinane Hill against him.” His eyes deceive him and he shouts that the lawyers are trying to politicize the judicial process.
He is a man who has broken the highest law of the land yet has the gumption to lecture the lawyers about the law. Only a corned man would ridicule their street demonstrations as “undemocratic.”
Perhaps that is to be expected since he is clueless when it comes to democracy. It would be good for the nation if, instead of encouraging him to hold fair elections, the Bush administration got him admitted into a bachelor’s program in political science at an American college. That would allow him to leave with some dignity, something which history has denied his predecessors.


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

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