NO one can accuse Gen Musharraf of not revealing his cards. At the risk of working this phrase to death, he wants to remain president and army supremo at the same time.

While most people look upon this as an insurance policy to secure his future, he says this is necessary for him to pursue his agenda, whatever that agenda might be, a necessary qualification because his agenda has kept changing, marching in step with his political requirements.

The need for an insurance policy, however, is not a very flattering reflection on Gen Musharraf’s five-year rule. Whatever the real reasons for his coup mounted in October ‘99, the anniversary of which approacheth, the excuse advanced for it in public rested on that old war-horse, the supreme national interest.

The country was going to the dogs and he had to intervene to stabilize the ship of state, promote inter-provincial harmony — the results of which marvelous policy can be seen in Sindh and Balochistan — and, generally, improve the outlook of the nation’s affairs.

If, however, after the lapse of even five years — a long enough stretch by any yardstick — he feels insecure without his uniform and thinks that his corps commanders will look elsewhere for guidance and inspiration if he is not army chief, what kind of a light does this shed on his helmsmanship?

True, stranger things have happened in Pakistan’s history, so you might say that if Gen Musharraf is following in the hoary footsteps of his predecessors, what’s so wrong with that?

Nothing much except that his partisans, and there was no shortage of them around 12 Oct ‘99, painted him as a different kind of person, one motivated solely by — you’ve guessed it — the national interest, and devoid totally of personal ambition.

Some friends of the general who were friends of mine too, and still are, in those halcyon days when the spirit of spring was still fresh about the Musharraf takeover, used to assure me, in voices quivering with sincerity, “But you see, Ayaz, he is different...” meaning to say that the spirit of ambition was alien to their star performer.

When I meet those friends nowadays I steer clear of the subject of ambition. Not because they would be embarrassed — souls who climb to the top or very near it are not easily embarrassed — but because there is no more thankless task than to point out the obvious to minds determined not to see it.

(Try arguing with Mianwali’s gift to Pakistan, Dr Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, now finally, after a summer of frustration and suspense, federal minister, and you’ll get my meaning. The other evening I watched him grappling with a TV anchor. While the anchor, although putting the right questions, was reduced to utter helplessness, the good doctor, a master of being confused and of spreading confusion, marched on blithely, making mincemeat of logic and the Constitution.)

A duly elected government is toppled, the Constitution is put where it belongs — the sick bay — a five-year presidential term is confirmed on the basis of a referendum glorious in its mathematical computations (showing a turnout no mortal eye could see), a new king’s party, the Q League, is conjured out of thin air, elections are stage-managed and we are to believe that all this is in the national interest.

It has never been enough to kick the people of Pakistan. The gymnasts doing the kicking — otherwise known as guardians of the public interest — are never truly satisfied unless, at the same time, they insult the intelligence of the Pakistani people.

But, as stated above, as the fifth anniversary of Gen Musharraf’s October Revolution approaches — Pakistan better than the Bolsheviks in this respect: they had one October Revolution, we’ve had two, Ayub’s in October, 1958, and the latest from whose effects the nation has yet to recover, in October, 1999 — Gen Musharraf, in the manner of the knights of old, has thrown down his gauntlet as if to say, make of this what you will.

After a profound reading of French history, he has also come to the conclusion, vouchsafed to no less august an institution than the New York Times — the same paper which got it so wrong about Iraq — that if General de Gaulle could wear his uniform, so can he.

Is anyone picking up the challenge? Qazi Hussain Ahmed, champion of the Jamaat-i-Islami and Pakistan’s foremost exponent of fake agitations, is promising an agitation while that other tribune of the religious armies, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, is thundering that the MMA, the alliance of which he is a leader, will not accept Gen Musharraf as president if he does not take off his uniform by Dec 31, 2004.

Military spymasters have a fair measure of such verbal thunder. If this is the best Maulana Fazlur Rehman can come up with, count on it Gen Musharraf is set to lose little sleep. As for Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s agitations, ISI and Military Intelligence have a fair measure of those too. The Jamaat has shone and surpassed itself as an agitational spearhead when it has enjoyed the encouragement and backing of the intelligence agencies. Shorn of this strength, it is Samson without his locks. So no lost sleep on that account as well.

But what about the PPP and the PML-N, the real claimants of opposition to the Musharraf order? What are they doing? At the moment, precious little. Like the mullahs, both these parties too are into a lot of verbal thunder, the sort impressive when captured on newsprint but not adding up to much when put to the test. What are their options?

Let’s be clear on one point: better than feeble whimpering is no protest at all. The emperor’s uniform is a serious issue. He promised to take it off. He is backing out of his promise, confirming the impression about how real his ‘real’ democracy is. As long as Pakistan does not break out of the thrall of the man in uniform holding the country to ransom, this land and its people will know neither peace nor stability. So this is dead serious business about which the two parties should have a serious stand.

But a verbal stand is not enough. It doesn’t impress the military and it doesn’t cut much ice with the people of Pakistan who’ve seen enough of paper tigers. A credible agitation is out of the question because neither party has the wherewithal to mount one. Nor, despite their bravado, can the mullahs launch an agitation on their own. So better lay this ghost to rest.

What else, then? Well, seeing Gen Musharraf’s brand of democracy in action, the time may have come to consider whether it serves any purpose to remain part of it. By participating in this charade the opposition parties lend it respect and credibility. They are getting nothing in return.

Remember that the opposition parties participated in the 2002 elections in the hope that despite the government’s electoral tricks, participation was worthwhile because it would lead to an ‘opening’ of the system.

Have those hopes been justified? Is Gen Musharraf a greater convert to democracy now than at the time of the elections? Is parliament truly powerful or sovereign? Does the prime minister call the shots or is he a mere showpiece dancing to his master’s tune? Is there any guarantee that the next elections will be transparent and fair with a level playing field for all contestants?

It’s time the mullahs too cast a cool look on their actions. After all, they were the ones who helped Gen Musharraf acquire constitutional legitimacy by voting for the 17th amendment. Are they sorry or still convinced of their infallibility?

There is no shortage of people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that despite their verbal fireworks, the mullahs are on the same wavelength with the military, both lending the occasional hand of cooperation to each other to protect and advance their respective interests. It will take more than verbal swipes for the MMA to dissipate this impression.

We know what Gen Musharraf wants and what he is aiming at. But can the opposition get its act together? If it can’t, then it better resign itself to a long spell of ‘real’ democracy.