Resisting the inevitable
By Talat Masood
MUSHARRAF’s military regime fails to grasp or deliberately ignores the significance of the current movement sweeping the country. Clearly, if triumphant, which it is likely to be, it could turn out to be a defining struggle for the rule of law and the independence of institutions, especially the judiciary.
There is today a genuine belief among perceptive observers that there is across the board an intense desire and appeal for democracy in Pakistan and the military’s long dominance of the power structure has undermined nation-building with long-term effects.
Judging the way this movement is picking momentum and the government’s increasing nervousness it is obvious that it has a broad grass-roots support and will not peter out despite the regime’s manipulations. Even if the government were successful in suppressing it through coercion and usual draconian measures, it will either go underground which would be much worse and more difficult to manage or return with violent ferocity, layered with religious overtones sooner than later. Moreover, suppressive tactics could further widen the civil-military divide, which is already under great strain.
It is unfortunate that driven by his ambitions to cling to power, Gen Musharraf is not seeing the significance of this movement. After years of authoritarian rule by both the military and civilian leadership, civil society has matured and is now in the forefront in the struggle for rule of law, strengthening of institutions and return of genuine democracy. People are supporting the lawyers’ protest as evident from their large participation in it. In a way it is an expression of the common citizen’s desire for the creation of a just and equitable society.
What more would a genuine leader wish for a nation whose people aspire for the ideals that promote the rule of law and the sanctity of the constitution and the independence of the judiciary. Moreover, the army does not have to worry, as this movement would not jeopardises the military’s core interests.
In fact, it strengthens it because a country set on a democratic course can defend itself more effectively from both external aggression and internal insurgencies. In the longer term, a just and equitable society is the best guarantee for the professional and corporate interests of the military.
But swimming against the tide, President Musharraf seems in no mood to relinquish power or be sidelined. This is expected because for any military ruler abandoning power does not come easy. Initially there was the mistaken belief among some liberals that he belonged to a different category of authoritarian rulers whose decisions and actions were in tune with the wishes of the people. But he has so far been no different from any other military ruler that we have had so far, the reason being that Musharraf and some among the military elite perceive themselves as the saviours of the nation and therefore entitled to exercise total political authority.
However, as chances of President Musharraf retaining his position as army chief and getting elected again as president by the present assemblies gets slimmer, a new political configuration is being sought by reaching an understanding with the PPP. But in view of the contradictions in such an alliance, it is unlikely to materialise and even if it did, it will remain tenuous. The PPP’s electoral fortunes too could seriously suffer if Benazir is seen siding with Musharraf in a future coalition.Besides, the PML leadership and its coalition partners who ride on the wings of the military will be lost in the wilderness by this move and their loyalties will change, placing President Musharraf in a quandary.For a military regime to try to act as an agent of change by indulging in political and social engineering is unrealistic and full of contradictions, as we have witnessed in the 60 years of national life. Acquiring cosmetic legitimacy by meddling with the Constitution is not what the people are prepared to accept any more. What many of us fail to realise is that a state’s power to be effective has to be truly legitimate.
President Musharraf has been seeking legitimacy through his performance and, fortunately for him, his position was strengthened after 9/11 by a highly supportive international environment and full backing of the US and the western world. It resulted in the lifting of sanctions against Pakistan and was followed by substantial economic assistance and an increased flow of remittances and investments. Credit should also go to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz for better macro-management of the economy.
All this gave President Musharraf an illusory feeling that it compensated for his lack of political legitimacy. The regime used other methods of legitimising itself by consistently demeaning the politicians through government sponsored propaganda. Meanwhile, President Musharraf tried to play the role of a “statesman” by engaging on issues facing the Muslim world, especially the intractable Palestinian- Israeli conflict, but with little success.
During the last seven and a half years the world has moved on and so has Pakistan, and the people are not prepared to accept these expedient measures as a substitute for legitimacy. Moreover, during the last two years the performance of the government has been on the decline. Pakistan today is threatened with creeping Talibanisation, a deteriorating law and order situation, insurgency in Balochistan, poor governance and rising sectarianism and ethnicity.
The ruling PML-Q’s performance too has been tardy as President Musharraf keeps bemoaning that he has to fight major political battles all alone. Although to observers watching from outside it is obvious why the situation is so. The PML-Q, despite its years of association with the president, has still not gelled as a cohesive political entity. It is more of a cobbled-together party whereas genuine political parties rely less on patronage and more on grassroots support. Basically it is a conglomerate of individuals who are fairly powerful at the local level because of their feudal, tribal or ethnic links and have grouped together to protect their narrow interests by retying on support of a president in uniform.
It is another matter that many among them do not even share the “vision” or policies of the president. What has further weakened the effectiveness of the party is that President Musharraf’s government is a one-man dispensation. Feeling powerless, most of its members show scant interest in the affairs of the state and frequently remain absent from parliament and its important committees.
Currently, their first priority is self-preservation and for this reason many prefer staying in the background rather than support the government during the judicial or media crisis fearing that it would lower their standing with the electorate, especially in an election year.
The American factor has also been pivotal for giving President Musharraf longevity. For nothing suited Washington more than to deal with one individual in their post-9/11 engagements with Pakistan. But in the rapidly changing scenario in Pakistan Washington is looking for alternatives to protect its interests. A clear indication of the US concern was highlighted by a series of high-level visits by its officials to Pakistan in June.
There is also a better appreciation in both Congress and the administration that a country of 160 million cannot be governed without proper institutional support in both policy formulation and execution. Irrespective of the outcome of the current movement, the US will try to remain closely associated with Pakistan in its fight against terror, building its capacity against counter-terrorism and for combating extremism and militancy.
Pentagon will retain its traditional ties with the armed forces and continue to develop institutional and operational linkages. Nonetheless, the fate of Pakistan is likely to be decided more by internal dynamics and the determination of its people and less by manipulations by foreign powers.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general.

