The
March of Democracy
By Syed S. Hussain
New York
The issue of President Musharraf’s
uniform has now entered a decisive phase. The
National Assembly of Pakistan has passed a bill
facilitating the retention of uniform by the
President, if he chooses to do so. Whatever
the final outcome, the issue is certain to remain
crucial for the long-term political developments
in Pakistan. Let us have a look at what the
various parties to the debate feel on this matter.
President Musharraf considers the uniform necessary
because, in his own words, “leaving the
army could lead to chaos” and could have
a negative impact on “continuity and sustainability.”
When asked as to why he could not carry his
policies without uniform he emphasizes the importance
of perception. “If there is a perception
that I have become weak, there can be political
destabilization.” In any case, he feels
that vast majority (actually 96%) of the people
of Pakistan want him to retain his post of army
chief.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has stated that
because of various internal and external challenges
faced by the country the President should retain
his uniform as “the army post for the
President is the key to stability.” The
Prime Minister, who is not a career politician,
does not consider that having a President in
uniform would undermine the democratic order.
The outgoing Prime Minister and the President
of the ruling faction of the Pakistan Muslim
League, Chaudhry Shujaat has stated that the
President should not shed his uniform for another
five year for the reason that “terrorism,
unemployment and price hike are major problems
facing the country at present and only a man
of strong nerves could effectively deal with
them.”
At the other end of the spectrum are those who
are critical of the intended move of the President.
This group is led by the religious alliance
Mutahidda Majlis-Amal (MMA). Their opposition
has a personal note to it, as they feel having
been taken for a ride by Musharraf on this issue.
In December 2003 they broke ranks with other
opposition parties to work out a comprise deal
with President Musharraf on his intention to
amend the constitution. This agreement paved
the way for amending the constitution, greatly
enhancing the power of the President and institutionalizing
the role of the armed forces through the creation
of the National Security Council (NSC).
The payback from the President on this cooperation
was to be his stepping down form the post of
army chief by December 31, 2004. Now that there
is a chance that he may not do so the MMA is
naturally incensed. It makes them look anything
from gullible to accomplice. No wonder Qazi
Hussain Ahmed, President of MMA, has declared
that “the uniform issue is now our prestige
and honor point and we will protect our honor
at all costs.”
Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, presently
living in exile, whose Peoples Party still wields
substantial electoral strength has also come
down hard saying that “it was a sad day
for Pakistan that the military chief broke his
solemn oath to the nation and the parliament
to take off his uniform”. Keeping Western
sensitivities in view she, also declared “it
bodes ill for a nuclear country to be without
a political system based on the rule of law.”
Yet another Prime Minister living in exile,
Nawaz Sharif, who was deposed by Musharraf,
is quite understandably very vociferous in his
condemnation. He considers continued involvement
of Musharraf in political affairs as counter
productive to democracy and also damaging to
the prestige of the armed forces.
As regards the legal position about the retention
or otherwise of uniform there again are divergent
views. Not only the National Assembly has voted
to authorize the President to retain his uniform
but so also have the two largest provincial
assemblies of Punjab and Sindh. On the other
hand many legal fraternities including the Pakistan
Bar Council and Sind High Court Bar Association
and other jurists consider that such a move
would be outright unconstitutional.
This then is the prevailing equation in Pakistan
on the question of retention of uniform by the
President. What about aabroad? As political
matters in Pakistan have always generated significant
interest in foreign countries it would be interesting
to gauge their reaction on this issue.
The most important foreign connection for Pakistan
off-course is the US. The official reaction
is that although the US wants Pakistan to move
towards “fully functioning democracy”,
it feels that there is a need to look at the
ground realties in Pakistan. President Musharraf’s
path of “enlightened moderation”
still finds acceptance in the US.
The European countries or the Commonwealth,
who actively monitor the political development
in Pakistan, have generally remained low-key
on this issue, except to remind President Musharraf
of his promise of progressing towards democracy.
In fact during his recent visit to Pakistan
British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon stated
that it would be “understandable”
if Musharraf decided to remain in uniform because
of the current difficult circumstances in Pakistan.
So what can we discern from this summarization?
· The reason given by the President and
others supporting him about the necessity of
retaining the uniform are very general in nature.
The same situation could last for years and
could even get worse.
* It is difficult to understand the need for
the amendment of the constitution giving more
powers to the President and creating the NSC,
if a uniformed President was the only way out.
* A vast majority of politicians in Pakistan
are making their own position untenable by insisting
that only a President in uniform could face
the challenges facing the country.
* The Opposition for the present appears to
be rather fragmented to mount any serious challenge.
In fact the MMA by accepting the amendments
to the constitution is considered by many other
opposition members to be partially responsible
for the present situation.
* If President Musharraf decided to retain his
uniform it is not likely to produce any major
repercussions either within the country or outside,
at least in the short term. However, such a
move will continue to generate political discord
and impede the political process in Pakistan,
which could take sudden and serious turn.
Talking about whether Musharraf should don the
uniform or not in a country which has for better
part of its existence been ruled by the military
might seem rather naive. The fact of the matter,
however, is that when progress or otherwise
of democracy is the subject of discussion this
issue becomes relevant.
Regardless of the merit or otherwise of the
‘ground realities’ existing in Pakistan,
it is difficult to envision a democratic setup
where the army chief is the head of state/ government.
So the claim that in doing so the ‘sustainable
democracy’ is being nurtured is slightly
far fetched. The idealist may claim that in
fact the exact opposite is true.
On the other hand what if there was no democratic
setup at all, as it exists today? Any form of
democracy is better than no democracy. All democratic
progress everywhere has been from an imperfect
state. This line of reasoning could be termed
realistic or apologetic depending on the point
of view. One will have to make his or her pick.
Or President Musharraf may still shed his uniform
as he promised and take the sting out of this
controversy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
