Government functionaries admit that General Pervez Musharraf is toying with the idea of holding a referendum to try and “legitimize” himself as president of Pakistan for another five years. The two most articulate proponents of the idea are Sharifuddin Peerzada, the perennial legal eagle of all dictators-cum-wannabe democrats and all democrats-cum-wannabe dictators, and General Tanvir Naqvi, the ubiquitous intellect behind all grand schemes to revamp the political system in the image of the military. Ho Hum. Haven’t we been down this wayward path before?
It certainly didn’t seem so when General Musharraf first arrived on the scene in 1999, looking and sounding so refreshingly different from General Zia ul Haq. Where Gen Zia executed an elected prime minister and lived to rue his decision, Gen Musharraf opted for banishment as a more sagacious policy. Gen Musharraf vowed to restructure state and civil society in a moderate and liberal framework whereas Gen Zia remained obsessed with straitjacketing society and ramming two-faced piety down its throat. Gen Musharraf seemed determined to inject a credible dose of accountability into the system in contrast with Gen Zia who systematically victimized the Pakistan Peoples Party and its leaders. In fact, the differences between the two coup-makers became more marked after September 11 last year. Whereas Gen Zia had foolishly catapulted Pakistan into Afghanistan on the back of the jihadi forces and made opportunist alliances with the religious right, Gen Musharraf bravely decided to stand apart from Afghanistan and rapped the jihadis and religious extremists for getting out of line. Suddenly, hopes began to soar and Pakistan seemed to glow with renewed vitality.
Unfortunately, that Musherrific promise is threatening to dissipate. The accountability drive has bypassed its own political supporters in the army, bureaucracy and political parties. Also, General Musharraf’s political ambitions, cloaked as they are in self-righteous garb, are obvious now – he means to remain an all-powerful president for five more years at least, notwithstanding all the talk of “instituting checks and balances without changing the basic structure of the constitution.” In fact, his political demeanour is beginning to change in ominous ways. Instead of alienating one mainstream political party as Gen Zia did, Gen Musharraf seems bent on sidelining two major parties at least. Instead of staying aloof from the intolerant religious parties who caused him so much anguish and distress not so long ago, he seems to be inching toward them once again. Now comes the mother of all rubs. In true Ziaist fashion, a referendum may be held in which the people of Pakistan are collared to say “yes” to “something” that will be billed as “legitimizing” General Musharraf as a powerful president. In the event, we should get ready to see the spectacle of all the ruthless opportunists of the country rallying round to achieve this cynical aim as soon as possible. How can that possibly help General Musharraf?
Legitimacy flows from the rule of legislated law that flows in turn from a voluntary, free and overwhelming national consensus on a given constitution. Anyone who abrogates, suspends or mangles the constitution, is “illegitimate” or loses legitimacy. By definition, therefore, no dictator or usurper can ever be truly “legitimate”, not even after he has “amended” the constitution to feign legitimacy with the help of the courts or manipulated the constitution makers to accord it to him or her. In the final analysis, the power of all dictators flows from the barrel of their guns. When they drop the gun or are unable to use it, they lose that power. If dictators are wise and benign, and if their policies are widely perceived to be in the public good, they may rule undiminished for as long as circumstances will permit, but they do so without legitimacy. If that were not the case, there would be no distinction between democrats and dictators, usurpers and elected representatives. Therefore no number of dubious referendums and unilateral constitutional amendments will make General Musharraf more or less legitimate than he is today. If that is so, why go through an exercise that is totally discredited in this country by virtue of association with a discredited dictator with whom comparisons are odious?
A presidential election a la Gen Ayub Khan on the basis of the 300,000 strong “nazimate” is another option for becoming “less illegitimate”. But we would advise against it for much the same reasons as in the case of the referendum. The cleanest, most desirable route is to hold a national, all parties convention, seek the approval of the representatives of the people of Pakistan for making necessary amendments in the constitution to enable the sorts of broad constitutional checks and balances proposed by General Musharraf and others to be implemented, hold free and fair elections and get a new parliament to ratify the agreed amendments. That is the only form of truth and reconciliation that will work and endure during General Musharraf’s time and after his departure. All others will fall when he loses his firepower for one reason or another, as he must inevitably one day, and plunge the country into another round of political and constitutional anarchy.