As I See It
Horses for courses
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, on the same analogy permutations and combinations in politics should depend upon the voter. Governance in most parts of the world has very little to do with the wishes of the voter, it is more a convenience of those really exercising power, irrespective of the wishes of the electorate and their ambitions thereof, not excluding the preference of outside powers. Those who seek power, individuals and/or political groupings, have their own objectives, not dissimilar to the agenda of a superpower and/or a neighbour.
Take, for example, the present governance team of President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. In the face of political boondoggling of the elected PMs, Musharraf was the preference of many voters in the years immediately following 1999, even without the exercise of a mandate.
He preferred to remain in power not through an electoral process, which at that time he could have conceivably got, but through the source of his power, the Pakistan army.
In an indirect way, but with considerable manipulation and rigging, the voters did give him a sanction of sorts in late 2002. Gerrymandering the vote is not a Pakistani phenomenon alone, it is the done thing in most third world countries. Indeed, as we saw in the US presidential elections in 2000, voter manipulation is alive and well in the first world too, whenever it is required to display its ugly manifestation.
Having ventured into the realm of politics, Musharraf had to rely on political partners Ch Shujaat Hussain, Altaf Hussain, etc, as well as a bevy of elements like PPP forward bloc and independents, not excluding the grudging support of the religious parties. After 9/11, he placed an overwhelming reliance on the US; in Pakistan which leader has not, particularly when it was willingly forthcoming? Political groupings pursue a given ideology, this one ranged from the left of liberal to the right extreme, the politics of convenience.
To give credence to his version of "democracy," Musharraf chose Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, a PML leader of long standing, with the blessings of his political allies. This was in the face of his preference for a technocrat, particularly Shaukat Aziz, brought back from Citibank HQ in New York to be the finance minister in his first cabinet.
While Jamali gave Musharraf democratic trappings, sustaining the economic turnaround accomplished in the first three years (1999-2002) required a technocrat. This change of horses coincided with Chaudhry's change of heart about Jamali, Shaukat Aziz became PM.
Shaukat Aziz the technocrat was converted into Shaukat Aziz the politician, dutifully "winning" two made-to-order and diverse seats in the National Assembly (NA) to qualify for the legal status for being the PM. Shaukat Aziz has been God-sent for the business community as the guarantor of business-friendly policies. He had already mastered the art of political "client-patron" relationship he first learnt during his banking career.
Remaining a faithful client to his patron, Gen Musharraf, on the one hand, he has generously distributed to his clients, among them army officers, both retired and serving, and technocrat friends and supporters, offices of profit both in public sphere and state owned enterprises, particularly financial institutions.
Over the years he has built a vast constituency. The uniformed client has been very "lucky" in multiplying his investment through "sound advice," and a little "bit of help," very much like bureaucrats were made to win at cards in the 50s and 60s. As a fairly wealthy individual himself, money and greed has never been his weakness, despite the occasional grumblings of the political machine he has managed to survive (and survive with some political dignity) till the end of his term.
For Mian Nawaz Sharif, his dream team consisted of having a hand picked president who would be amenable to all his requirements. Rafiq Tarar, the man from nowhere, was installed to fill the bill, even though Sharif had stalwarts within the party he could have turned to, the odds-on-choice being Senator Sartaj Aziz, his foreign minister and Secretary General PML. In the end Rafiq Tarar let him down, not even entering a mild protest when Musharraf overthrew the government.
Rafiq Tarar himself was eventually shown the door, in his case being shown off at the door by Musharraf, literally. For Benazir, her acceptance of Ghulam Ishaq Khan as president turned into a nightmare, he virtually emasculated her governance, and then threw her out, using the army to cover his dirty deed. Her choice of Farooq Leghari as a safe president soured in 1997 when he, in his turn, sent her packing.
The only president-PM combination that has lasted its life in office is that of Musharraf and Shaukat. This dream team was very much the choice of the US, and that support was vital for its longevity. However, one thing rankles American democratic sensibilities, Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz were not elected in the pure democratic sense, they were actually selected, Musharraf by circumstances and Shaukat Aziz by Musharraf. It would be crass to deny that this horses for courses team has succeeded at least in the economic sense.
Even without a political constituency, Shaukat has been a consummate politician. To have survived three years in the political labyrinth of Pakistan, keeping both the army and the bureaucracy happy, and the political wolves from his door, has been no mean achievement.
Observers have also noted that none of the political leaders, including the two major opposition figures, Ms Benazir and Mian Nawaz Sharif have shown any visceral hatred for Shaukat Aziz, as opposed to their feelings towards Musharraf (and towards each other). Was it because he, as their private banker, knows too much?
Musharraf would be happy if the present combination continues. If he is forced to accept a political PM who comes to the seat of power in free and fair elections, Shaukat will probably replace Mohammad Mian Soomro as chairman senate, one heartbeat from the presidency. On the other hand, Shaukat Aziz could well continue as PM if no political party emerges with outright majority, a compromise choice for all seasons.
What happens if, for some reason, the Supreme Court of Pakistan decides that Musharraf cannot fight the presidential elections while in uniform? Will Musharraf risk the electoral process out of uniform? In the face of leaving the post of the president and the COAS Pakistan army, which one will Musharraf choose?
Faced with the choice of fighting the elections in "civvies" or looking for a safe exit, anyone in Musharraf's position (and given his personality) will take the former option. On the other hand, there is that outside chance of his going the "Pinochet" route by retaining the COAS slot, remaining the power behind the throne. This calls for the president's slot being occupied by whom he considers most loyal, the bonus being that person being also preferable to everyone, and mainly the US.
Power-sharing between an elected president and a PM will always have a third partner in Pakistan, the triad being completed by the COAS. Given his phenomenal luck, I would bet on Shaukat Aziz as chairman senate, with a long shot of becoming president.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments