First Pakistan’s security, then democracy.” Thus spake President General Pervez Musharraf. His words of wisdom were presented not to a servile Pakistani audience of hangers-on or media sycophants but to top-notch American and British policymakers and media watchdogs for whom “democracy” is sacrosanct. Far from demurring, they laid out the red carpet for the general and clucked in appreciation at his “sagacity and courage”. Indeed, even the wretched Commonwealth that had so hectored and harassed him before 9/11, 2001, for “lack of democracy”, has scurried out of sight.
Our local pundits who said that the general might doff his uniform have egg on their face. “Parliament has requested me to stay army chief”, he rubbed it in. It is not lost on anyone that parliament has passed the two-offices bill and the Senate Chairman, a civilian to boot, has signed it as acting president. So General Pervez Musharraf hasn’t even dirtied his hands in securing his terms. To give the devil his due, not bad. Not bad at all.
This puts a twist on recent speculations on the need for a “deal” between General Musharraf and the mainstream parties for institutionalizing real democracy. If parliament is solidly with him and the international community is backing him to the hilt, why should he worry about what a couple of jailed or exiled politicians have to say, let alone do any “deals” with them?
Pakistan has been stuck in the decrepit groove of “security first, then democracy” since independence at the behest of military dictators. But the notions of “national security” and “democracy” are not exclusivist or contradictory. Nor does one take precedence over the other. Indeed, “security” depends on a degree of “democracy”; democracies are less inclined to go to war than dictatorships. For instance, our two wars with India in 1965 and 1971 were directed by military dictators while Kargil was ordered by General Musharraf.
The general says “national security” demands that the project of peace with India should be addressed sincerely and the war on terror be pursued relentlessly. But on both counts the record of civilian democrats is much better than that of military dictators. Both the Bhutto 1 and Nawaz 2 “democracies” were keen on making peace with India but they were sabotaged by the military. Yet the military under General Musharraf has shown greater “flexibility” (opportunism) on both issues than the two politicians might have dared to hope. Similarly, on the issue of the “war on terror”, the military’s jihad adventures in Afghanistan and Kashmir ostensibly for “national security” have actually resulted in the wave of extremist political Islam that is terrorizing us and the international community. Why then do Bush and Blair pander to Musharraf?
The international community sees Pakistan under Musharraf as “a work in progress” that should be “handled with care”. Publicly they are inclined to flatter him (personally) and appease him (economically and militarily). But privately they constantly urge him to “do more”. This is a wide ranging policy prescription for waging war on terror, compromising with India, propping up Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, uprooting the Taliban, reforming Pakistan’s education system (especially the madrassas), halting nuclear proliferation and institutionalizing mainstream democracy so that “progress” can be embedded into our system. The international community does not wish to remain critically dependent on Musharraf alone . These goals are reflected in existing and proposed American laws that seek to ensure that Pakistan (with or without Musharraf) remains on the straight and narrow.
Under the new American law (HR 4818) passed on November 20, 2004, Pakistan’s educational reform programme will be overseen by the Committees on Appropriations and International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate. The new US law defines “education reform” as including “efforts to expand and improve the secular education system in Pakistan, and to develop and utilise a moderate curriculum for private religious schools.” Similarly, the proposed new Bill S2845 lays down that the US should in particular provide assistance “to encourage and enable Pakistan to continue and improve upon its commitment to combating extremists; to seek to resolve any outstanding difficulties with its neighbours and other countries in its region; to continue to make efforts to fully control its territory and borders; to progress towards becoming a more effective and participatory democracy; …to take all necessary steps to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction; to continue to reform its education system; and to, in other ways, implement a general strategy of moderation.”
This suggests that the MMA mullahs are right in fearing that their long term game is over. Equally, the PPP is right in hoping that the time for an institutional rapprochement with the military is nigh. All that remains is for the key actors to enact the drama. Therefore it is no longer a question of whether or not General Musharraf will take off his uniform or hold fresh elections. It is only a question of when he does both. And that will depend on how all the domestic and international players play the game in 2005.