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