|
It was a far cry from the “reluctant coup maker” of October
1999. In his recent address,
General Pervez Musharraf declared his intent to enter politics
and stay at the helm. He ended his 90-minute harangue on national
television by declaring
himself indispensable for the country.
A feeling of déjá vu was in the air when he announced the
holding of a referendum seeking public approval for an extension
of his tenure in office for an additional five years beyond the
three-year-period stipulated by the Supreme Court.
The general also announced plans to introduce a new political
formula, which he believes conforms to the country’s requirement
for progress and stability. He declared that he would play a dominant role
in the political system which would emerge after the parliamentary
elections scheduled to be
held in October this year.
General Musharraf has often emphasised that he is neither
another Ayub Khan nor a Zia-ul-Haq, but appears to be following their script to
the letter. Not only is he holding a
referendum in an attempt to legitimise his rule but is also engaged in trying
to establish a “king’s party,” using local government as his political base.
The
pitch sounded a little too familiar when Musharraf declared that
he had never wished to get involved in politics, but had taken the
decision to remain in power in the best interest of the country.
“By going for a referendum I have chosen a more difficult
path,” he declared. He called
on people to vote for his reform programme.
“I need an assurance that people are in favour of continuity
and reform,” he said. “It will give me political confidence and moral
ascendancy.” But most observers
agree that a controversial referendum would only serve to weaken
his position and diminish his moral authority.
By
drawing a line between those who support him and those opposing
him, the General has taken the country towards a dangerous polarisation. He appears confident that people will approve
perpetuation of his tenure as president for five more years, but
the referendum will not ensure smooth sailing for him. On the contrary, his decision to hold a referendum has united political
forces across the spectrum in their opposition to his rule.
“We
are thankful to the army dictator that he has united the entire
nation against him,” said Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, chairman of
the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy.
Presenting the framework of his new political order, the
military ruler said that western democracy did not suit Pakistan
– another familiar refrain. “We should have a system of government that
suits our environment,” said General Musharraf.
With
this declaration, President Musharraf has taken a huge gamble and
staked his future on the outcome.
Despite public support, the turnout in the referendum is
expected to be very low, making his position highly controversial.
The
referendum announcement has not come as a surprise as the General
had made it apparent a long time ago that he was not going anywhere,
despite his promise to hold parliamentary elections. Like past military
rulers, he is using the referendum as an instrument to legitimise
his stay in power. Under the constitution, a president is elected
by the two houses of Parliament
and the four provincial assemblies.
But being in active military service, General Musharraf could
not legitimately contest an election.
Besides, said a senior aide, the President was not prepared
to submit himself to the mercy of an elected parliament.
“He wants to deal with parliament from a position of strength,”
said a close aide. But most observers agree that a controversial
referendum with a very low turnout will, in fact, weaken General
Musharraf’s position and moral authority.
He may still face serious problems in getting his position
ratified by the elected parliament. Even his staunchest loyalists
agree that in the event of totally fair and free elections the parliament
would most likely be dominated by anti-Musharraf parties.
A manipulated election result may fuel public discontent
and further isolate him.
General
Musharraf is relying on the Nazims and parties like the Pakistan
Muslim League (like-minded) the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, the Millat
Party and the Tehrik-e-Insaf to mobilise support for him in the
referendum. These parties have supported the referendum
proposal, but may have strong reservations in actively mobilising
the voters. Besides, they
have a very limited support base compared to the parties opposing
General Musharraf. Similarly, the Nazims , most of whom are associated
with the opposition parties, may not be very helpful in bringing
out the voters. In a desperate
attempt to ensure a respectable turnout the government is considering
setting up mobile polling stations and lifting the identity card
restriction.
In an unprecedented move, General Musharraf has also decided
to address public rallies to mobilise public support. No other military ruler has resorted to such a populist move.
It may help him in making direct contact with the people,
but will also entail serious, long-term political consequences.
It would not only involve the military more deeply in politics,
almost turning it into a political party, but bring it directly
into political confrontation. This situation may have serious repercussions
for the military as an institution and create divisions within the
ranks along political lines. General Musharraf appears to have the top brass totally behind him, but controversy
over the referendum can trigger a political crisis, seriously affecting
his position.
His
decision to hold a referendum came amid strong opposition from almost
all the main political parties in the country, ranging from the
conservative Islamic groups to the liberal and moderate political
parties. They have called for a boycott of the referendum, declaring it
illegal and unconstitutional. An
alliance of five major Islamic parties formed last week has vowed
to overthrow President Musharraf’s government, accusing him of “working
on an American agenda.” General Musharraf has admitted that the intelligentsia
were against the referendum,
but added that he was confident of getting public support. He said the referendum would draw a clear line
between those who were with him and those who are not.
Most observers agree that General Musharraf could have achieved
a consensus over his staying on as president.
He would have been acceptable to all the major parties, had
he not tried to adopt the PML (like-minded) as a “king’s party”
and engage in a personal tirade against Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz
Sharif. Instead of insisting
that the two leaders did not have any role in politics, he should
have left it to the courts and the polls to decide their fate.
Nawaz
Sharif has already been barred from holding any public office for
ten years, but there is no restriction on Benazir Bhutto.
Despite corruption charges, she remains the strongest political
figure in the country. With Nawaz Sharif out of the way, her Pakistan
People’s Party is likely to emerge as the single largest party in
the parliament, provided the polls are free and fair.
Some reports suggest that the government
already has a plan to isolate the PPP.
“It is almost like a 1988 situation when the military created
the IJI to stop the PPP from sweeping the polls,” said a senior
official. An effort is being made to forge such an alliance around the PML
(like-minded). But things
will not be so easy for the military this time around.
In a most scathing attack, Miss Bhutto described the referendum
proposal as “a war on democracy,” and called for President Musharraf’s
ouster. The former prime
minister, who has been living in exile in London and Dubai for many
years, said President Musharraf must resign and hand over power
to the chief justice. “The illegal referendum General Musharraf has
resorted to is a challenge to the people of Pakistan who must accept
the challenge and reject him by a no vote,” she said in a statement. A visibly provoked Bhutto is now set to return
home to challenge General Musharraf.
According to PPP sources, she may be back a few months before
the polls. She is taking
a calculated risk as her arrest could help mobilise support for
the party.
The referendum plan has also evoked strong reaction from
the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan which described the move as a “threat to the basic human
rights of the people of
Pakistan.” It said the proposal
“enjoys the sanction neither of the country’s basic law nor of the generally
accepted principles of democracy.”
President Musharraf, a key ally in the US led war on
terrorism, has failed to elicit favourable international response to his
decision. In London, the 54-nation
Commonwealth of Britain and its former colonies said that the referendum plan
falls short of promises made by the military ruler to return the country to democracy. Pakistan’s membership to the group was suspended after the 1999
coup. “The road map announced by
General Musharraf last year did not include provision for a referendum,”
pointed out Don McKinnon, Commonwealth Secretary General.
In Washington, a State Department spokesman referred to
the need to follow constitutional procedures but stopped short of criticising
President Musharraf.
His plan to create
a “guided democracy,” where the military would continue to cast
its heavy shadow may trigger a backlash.
A national security council comprising the chiefs of the
three services would be formed to keep a watch on the elected government
and the parliament. This manipulated political set-up may perpetuate
military dictatorship but it will not prove acceptable to the people.
|