The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has expressed its "serious concern and regret that President Musharraf had not met his commitment to relinquish his role as chief of army staff", but otherwise gone along with the dual-office aberration. The ministers said only that they expected the two offices (of president and COAS) not to be combined in the same person beyond the end of the current presidential term in 2007 at the latest.
They noted that the president had been authorized by parliament to retain both offices, thus implying that legislative procedures had been followed in sanctioning the arrangement. The year 2007 is a long way off. What happens by then is anybody's guess. The president may himself get tired of wearing his military uniform or circumstances may occur - a political deal with the opposition, for instance - that make it unnecessary for him to hold the army chief's office.
Actually, the dual-office contrivance is by and large now taken for granted by the international community. Washington has been particularly evasive about it. Even domestically it is seen as a fait accompli. If there is to be a compromise between Gen Musharraf and the mainstream parties, the government would probably insist on the politicians accepting the existing arrangement till 2007 in return for some form of participation in political life. But none of this can really give democratic legitimacy to the president's retention of his army office.
It is seen by all democrats as institutionalizing the military's interventionist role in politics. Acceptance of a certain reality does not necessarily make that reality palatable or desirable, and the moral pressure for a return to undiluted civilian, representative rule and removal of all distortions from the 1973 Constitution will have to be kept up. Movement towards this is necessary to improve the political environment and lessen the polarization and conflict that have been our lot recently.
Sorting out cricket matters
The Pakistan cricket team's much-anticipated tour of India begins in less than a fortnight but the cricket boards of both countries need to sort out quite a few issues soon. One relates to the broadcasting rights of the series which was recently the subject of a controversial legal battle in India. There are two other aspects of the tour, however, which directly concern Pakistan.
The first and foremost has to do with the Pakistan Cricket Board's reservations about holding a Test match in Ahmedabad and the fact that the city is in Gujarat where over 2,000 Muslims died in communal violence in 2002. Besides, the state continues to be governed by a chief minister who is known for making several very anti-Pakistan comments. Understandably, the PCB has reservations about holding a five-day match in the city because of the hostile climate there for the Pakistani team.
It would be good if, instead of insisting that the Pakistanis play at Ahmedabad, the Indian cricket board took this into account and decided on an alternative venue. After all, the PCB did precisely that when the Indians came last year and refused to play a Test at Karachi, which was then allotted a one-day international. This matter is straightforward enough not to warrant, as some news reports suggest, intervention at the government level.
The other unresolved issue relates to team selection, with a debate raging us to whether fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar should be included in the team. Statistically speaking, he has been Pakistan's most penetrative and successful bowler in the past year and, as pointed out by Imran Khan, could prove to be a very valuable asset against the Indian batsmen who are far better players of spin than of genuine fast bowling.
However, he does have some matters to sort out regarding his attitude and discipline, and seems to have frequent fitness problems. With a gruelling and testing tour of Australia behind them, and another tough one around the corner, it would be good for Pakistan's cricketers if these matters were quietly sorted out soon.