General Pervez Musharraf doesn’t like to pussyfoot around. He shoots from the hip and dares to win. His latest constitutional gambit aims to restructure Pakistan’s state and society according to a commando’s guide to politics and philosophy. That is why he’s so fond of lecturing everyone on the virtues of “unity of command” and the necessity of “command and structure”. In fact, that is why he’s so obsessed about retaining the “commanding” heights of “authority”.
Such naked political ambition is not expected from a soldier in this day and age, certainly not from one who says he was “pushed” into the whirlpool of politics and didn’t jump in to seize power. But since General Musharraf obviously seems convinced not only of the sincerity and righteousness of his cause but also of its political and philosophical rationale, his worldview is worth examining on its own merits.
Pakistani politicians have proven themselves to be corrupt and bad; hence they cannot be allowed to run the political system on their own and without any checks and balances on them from the military. Right? No, wrong. All over the world, politicians are more or less corrupt, yet they still retain the political right to run the world on their own to the complete exclusion of the military. Next door in India, for example, where the political culture is much like ours, the politicians are generally more corrupt than the ones in Pakistan. Yet their “democracy” is a showcase of the less developed world and their military has no political role in it. Equally, our generals in power or authority have rarely been blameless. Indeed, in 1986 Time magazine noted that a clutch of Pakistani generals involved in the multibillion dollar arms and drugs pipeline for the Afghan mujahidin had overnight entered the ranks of the richest men in the world.
But that’s not all. When politicians hand out plots of land to themselves and their cronies, it’s recognized as “corruption” and they are hauled off to prison for their sins. But when generals and bureaucrats hand out plots to those of their ilk, it’s in recognition of their “services” to the state and they are decorated for their troubles. Indeed, when politicians run up fiscal deficits by squandering money on motorways and prestige projects, they are called “irresponsible” and “incompetent”. But when generals break budgetary barriers for defense expenditure overruns, it is all in the “national interest”. When politicians make retreats and political somersaults, they are called “opportunistic”. But when generals do about-turns, they are applauded for accepting the new “ground realities”. When politicians want to change our so-called Kashmir and Afghan policies, they are condemned as “unpatriotic” and even “treasonable”. But when generals are obliged to do the same, they are complimented for being “pragmatic”. And so on.
Pakistan’s democracy in the last decade was unstable, inefficient and flawed. Both prime ministers were bounced out without completing their terms because they didn’t deserve to stay in power. Hence we must not revert to such a system again. Right? No, wrong. The system was never allowed to work and iron out its wrinkles. The record shows that the khakis have overtly, covertly and consistently undermined and destabilized political governments throughout this period. Benazir Bhutto had to contend with an IJI that was manufactured by a general, a no-confidence motion that was sponsored by a Brigadier, a hostile MQM that was playing to the tune of the army chief, and Younas Habib’s handouts to the army and ISI chiefs to make sure she didn’t get elected again in 1990. Indeed, Ms Bhutto might well have completed her second term if the then president hadn’t been “persuaded” by the generals to do the needful. As for Nawaz Sharif, the less said the better. He was created and nurtured by a string of generals from 1981 to 1993 when he was also nudged out of office by the army chief despite a supreme court verdict allowing him to remain in office. In his second term, his government was so destablised by the Kargil crisis manufactured by the military that he lost his bearings and committed hara-kiri by taking on the generals.
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are so corrupt that they have no right to become PMs again. Right? No, wrong. Both politicians are perceived to be corrupt, but they have not been proven to be corrupt. Give them a free and fair trial and if they are convicted all the way to the supreme court, write down their epitaphs and give them a quick burial. At any rate, the sins of the party leaders should not be visited upon the parties or the political system.
General Musharraf is a clean and upright soldier. But so too were Generals Ayub Khan and Zia ul Haq before their heads were turned by political ambition, self-righteousness, infallibility and the wish for self-aggrandisement that follows. General Musharraf says we should trust him, even if we think his judgment flawed. But governance is only marginally about trust, it’s really all about judgment. That is why it’s better to devise a workable mechanism for the transfer of power than to try and hog it and tempt fate all over again.