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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
