Beyond Musharraf

The eight year reign of General Pervez Musharraf seems to be coming to a tumultuous and uneasy end. Whether the latest order to impose emergency will make the General last in office for a few more months is not important in the larger context of where Pakistan is heading under the General. While in the short term the General may continue in office, it is unlikely that he will still remain president in two years time or even less. The inevitable end of a dictatorship is in the offing no matter how bitter a pill it may be for the General to swallow to realize this awakening. Eight years in power have seen the charismatic army man come to the top riding on the back of a coup that most Pakistanis welcomed to go on to become an “able” ally in the war on terror and win the support of the West. His media image was that of a moderate who wanted “enlightened moderation” to be the guiding politico-cultural ideology of a nation that tilted towards Islamic extremism. While making the right noises he was also able to wrest the initiative from the traditional two-horse party system that exists in Pakistan in the form of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) under Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan People’s Party under Benazir Bhutto, and shift it to a new political movement backed by the powerful Chaudhary brothers of Punjab. The new breakaway Pakistan Muslim League gave the General the necessary executive backing so desired by the Pakistani constitution to remain as President and Army Chief. But with the war on terror in Afghanistan not doing well and in the light of the famous spring offensive against NATO forces by the Taliban came calls for Pakistan to do more in the rugged borders it shares with Afghanistan. The rise of extremism within the country and the Lal Mosque siege seemed to have significantly cooled relations between the West and Musharraf, who started seeing him as being soft on the elements propagating terror. The standoff with the judiciary seemed to be the last straw and the lawyers managed a mass movement against Musharraf that he does not seemed to have recovered from. His discreet and then public meetings and discussions with Benazir finally indicated that Musharraf was looking for a way out of the political and constitutional mess he found himself in. The media in Pakistan did well to highlight the rise of extremism in Pakistan along with mentioning things the general would not have wanted to be seen on print and on air. And so with the emergency came a heavy hand down on free press and the lawyers – the fight against extremism that Musharraf talks about seems to be on the people with microphones and black coats rather than with AK 47’s and IED’s.

The end of the Musharraf days, which seem likely, should have, as in most popular revolts against dictatorships, brought along a single political figure or person of civil society behind whom the country can unite under. And therein lies the uncomfortable reality of Pakistani politics and civil society. The options on offer are worse than or as bad as the regime currently in charge. Bhutto and Nawaz have done themselves no favors in the manner with which they carried out the affairs of state as its heads. One can easily calculate the money and resources that were milked from the State by the two by just adding up the cost of living in exile in expensive cities for years. That is the biggest indication than any on the corruption that existed during the 90’s. Then again, the reason a large section of Pakistani society welcomed Musharraf was the hope that his regime saw the end of the Bhutto-Nawaz days of cronyism and corruption. By having to strike deals with the same people once ousted, Pakistan seems to have come full circle. The lack of a credible political leader or a coherent social movement have prolonged Musharraf’s reign. Then again the options available for the West seemed limited, if Musharraf does make way for some other General, there could be gains for the war on terror, but democracy will remain elusive in the country. By backing either Bhutto or Nawaz there runs the risk of unpopularity against the candidate as the people of Pakistan may see them as puppets of the West. And no one within or outside Pakistan is ready for an all out revolution which could prove disastrous or worse still. With the military influencing all aspects of Pakistani policy and with a lack of credible political leadership the options for Pakistanis and the outside world remain limited and therein lies the tragedy that has become Pakistan.

The larger war on terror should also be under severe scrutiny for the havoc of going to war has caused in Asia and the Middle-East. The Bush doctrine of wanting to fight terror before it reaches American borders has devastated the region with profound consequences. The allegation of this being a war against Islam aside, the six odd years since the war on terror was declared has brought about growing xenophobia both ethnic and sectarian apart from the obvious inter-religion tensions. The war in Afghanistan against the Taliban was seen as anti-Pashtun by the tribes in the area. And since tribes exist beyond man made borders, the collective Afghan-Pakistan border rose up against the NATO and the Pakistani Army. This has not only led to tensions between the two countries, it has also led to desertions by army troops who relate better to tribal affinities rather than a national identity. The rising suspicion between Pakistan Army’s Punjab faction against the frontier faction seems to be disturbing the unity of the Army. Across the border in Afghanistan, their President Hamid Karzai is described more as the Mayor of Kabul rather than the president of a country that identifies itself more on tribal lines. Not to say that this new tribal affinity didn’t exist before the invasion, but the war has certainly accentuated those feelings. The war on terror therefore, does play a role in destabilizing nations that fight as allies, all this so that the American remain safe and secure. Some might argue that is a high price to pay for Americans to enjoy a sense of safety.

Closer to home, India seems to have become surrounded by a ring of fire, with all her neighbors facing turbulent days. But as much as that should worry the establishment there is no denying the fact that in the darkness of South Asia, India seems to have become a beacon of peace and democracy. With our stand on the perils of extremism having being vindicated without reasonable doubt, it is now imperative on us to take a more aggressive stand in promoting the values of peace and democracy to the world through a more concerted foreign policy that should help in highlighting what we have achieved in a region where so much can go wrong.