HARDLY ever in the history of Pakistan has the army chief’s uniform become the subject of such contention and controversy and its wearer exposed to such public debate as these days.
General Pervez Musharraf’s three predecessors, Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, Generals A.M. Yahya Khan and Muhammad Ziaul Haq, all tenaciously clung to their uniform to the bitter end. Both the field marshal and Gen Zia had their presidency and status as presidents-in-uniform and their acts/enactments under martial law validated by the parliament of the day, Yahya was unceremoniously dismissed in the aftermath of an ignominious military defeat.
General Musharraf refuses to see the necessity of validation after his own home-grown Legal Framework Order. This is in spite of his own statement at a press conference (April 24) that the ‘concept’ of one man holding the offices of president and army chief was essentially not quite correct. He promised to rectify the situation as soon as he could. “But do not ask me for a date.” He was averse to specifying a date lest under the compulsion of “some unforeseen circumstances”, he might not be able to keep it.
At least one such “unforeseen” circumstance has already materialized in a rather unexpected fashion. The ministerial action group of the Commonwealth recently urged Pakistan to make more progress to ‘restoring democracy’ before it could be readmitted. Regardless of the essentially laid-back role and character of the commonwealth grouping, its status as an exclusive and highly prestigious 54-nation-club remains beyond question.
The redoubtable secretary-general of the grouping, Don Mckinon, while welcoming Pakistan’s progress towards democratic restoration, took pointed note of the LFO. The parliament remained “deadlocked” because of the LFO, embodying Gen Musharraf’s “sweeping constitutional changes.”
Mckinon’s observations, even if read as his personal views, do however raise the LFO issue to an international status even if of an essentially academic nature. At home, it lends much weight to the opposition’s demand for the immediate repeal of the LFO as an essential pre-requisite for a detente with the government.
ARD Chief Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan has been adamant in his refusal to cooperate with the government until General Musharraf sheds his uniform and withdraws the LFO. In a recent interview, he described Gen Musharraf as only a ‘Grade 22 officer, fourth in protocol after the defence secretary. He threw in yet another caveat in respect of Musharraf’s continued presidency. He asked him to retire from the army, wait for the mandatory period of two years to take part in politics as stipulated under the constitution, and only then aim at the exalted office of president.
Now, the LFO remains the president’s only legal cover for the continuation of his stay in his dual capacity as head of state and army chief. Once the LFO is withdrawn, Musharraf will not only lose much of his legitimacy as president (despite the referendum) but also his warrant as army chief.
What complicates the situation further is that on, one side, is the opposition, with its unflinching demand for the withdrawal of the LFO, entailing automatic retirement of Musharraf as army chief while, on the other, the military top brass — corps/formation commanders and the PSOs reportedly supporting Musharraf’s continuance as their chief in view of the existing volatile geo-strategic situation.
What makes the confusion worse confounded, is the Commonwealth’s ministerial group urging Pakistan (President Musharraf) to repeal the LFO and restore parliament to its legitimate, constitutional status as the supreme law and constitution-making (amending) body.
The chief’s uniform, the symbol of the army’s honour and of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, is thus caught in a cleft stick. This certainly is a disturbing situation without a precedent. Unless quickly resolved amicably, it has the makings of developing into a tense civil-military stand-off to be avoided at all costs.
President Musharraf is scheduled to have a one-to-one meeting with President George Bush next month. He will be welcomed by the US president at Camp David, a rare and perhaps an unprecedented honour extended to a visiting Pakistani head of state.
For President Bush and the US administration, it has been and remains a source of greater comfort and reassurance to welcome a military ruler (Ayub, Yahya, Zia) in full possession of state power and authority than receive a civilian head exposed to the vagaries of a political, party regime.
It’s one thing, however, to be the recipient of an uncommonly warm welcome by the US president and quite another to expect something half as similar from the US media, especially the print media, representing sections of the powerful national (as opposed to local/regional) press known for their pet aversion to soldiers in uniform- turned-rulers. While it would be idle to envisage President Musharraf ‘defrocking’ himself to please a section of the American press, no matter how influential, the point is well worth a stray thought.
Gen Musharraf’s one major concern preventing him from stepping out of his uniform pertains to his changed equation with his high command and corps commander as a civilian. He has stated that himself in so many words and there is a point to that. Couldn’t we, however, through proper parliamentary legislation, invest him with the power and authority of a civilian commander-in-chief like the American president?
Granted Pakistan is a parliamentary democracy unlike the US. However, there is nothing a sovereign parliament cannot do. The point is that the dignity of the military uniform and respect for it must be save by mutual consent between the army chief and the parliamentarians. Symbols of state power do form an integral part of a state’s existence.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.