Between The Lines
A lot at stake for Musharraf
Democracy is the same all over the world. What it means is that people rule through their representatives whom they elect freely and periodically. Pakistan is no different. Abraham Lincoln has defined democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The words "of the people" are the most important because they indicate that power resides with the people. They are sovereign and everything flows from them. When President Pervez Musharraf tells Europe that their kind of democracy is different and far advanced than that in Pakistan, he talks about the system where the military enjoys a pre-eminent position. It is not that the Pakistanis are lesser people. It is that they have been denied the right to rule themselves. Europe has a long history of democracy except the countries which were satellites of the Soviet Union during the cold war. The successive army chiefs in Pakistan nipped democracy in the bud. Why should Mushrraf say that Pakistan was not yet ready for a full-fledged democracy when he himself came through an army coup? The system was never allowed to operate in Pakistan.
If one were to look back, one would find that both the Congress and the Muslim League, with their different planks, put their faith in democracy and promised the rule of the people. It is a tragedy that Pakistan did not make it because its founder Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah died early and his successor Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. Had they lived they would have seen to the foundation of democracy. After them, the bureaucrats and the military were more interested in wielding power than ensuring people's right to rule.
The Congress was at that time full of freedom fighters who had gone through the independence struggle and who had come from the roots. Still the level of poverty and illiteracy was more or less the same in both the countries. But India was less feudal and less dependent on the few landlords and even fewer rich which constituted the ruling class in Pakistan. For a long time only 26 families had money and power. People never got the chance.
I do not know how Musharraf came to infer that the people in Pakistan are not yet ready for the type of democracy that Europe has or the next-door India. His observation may only deepen the suspicion that the polls are not going to be free and fair. His assurance, however loudly repeated, does not count for much since his own credibility is lacking.
It is difficult to imagine that he will quit once he knew he was not wanted. Who would dare to tell him? He is not going to hold a referendum to assess his popularity. He has admitted in the past that the referendum held for his presidency got him very few votes. His re-election would not have been possible if the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) had not abstained. That was probably part of an understanding between him and the late Benazir Bhutto. Apparently, she was led up the garden path.
Musharraf's test of strength will come after new elections. If the national assembly were to endorse him as President by a two-thirds vote, he would be justified to stay in office. However, that may still not be the test of his popularity because members in the new National Assembly could come under pressure.
The impression in Pakistan that Musharraf is acceptable to India is not correct. Its sympathy and support is with the people of Pakistan. They want them to get democracy as they themselves enjoy. They are reluctant to raise their voice lest Musharraf should restart the propaganda that India is trying to undo Pakistan.
The Manmohan Singh government's stand is, however, different. It wants to deal with the government in power at Islamabad as it has done in the past. India was one of the few members at the Commonwealth meeting favouring the removal of Pakistan's suspension.
The favourable noise that the National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan has made for Musharraf is because of terrorism. Like President Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Narayanan too believes that Musharraf is the best bet to fight against radical Islamists. Still the fact is that it was Musharraf who trained and blessed them. They were acceptable as long as they sneaked into Kashmir and fuelled insurgency there. Now that they have turned against the armed forces, the terrorists need to be eliminated.
Manmohan Singh has offered Musharraf a joint action to eliminate terrorism in both the countries. The Indian government has not yet spelled out what the joint action would entail. But the very offer means India is willing to give its full support to Musharraf on this point, whatever his deficiencies. China, Pakistan's best friend, is also worried over terrorism. It took the initiative to discuss the subject when Manmohan Singh was in Beijing last month. India did not reveal this for the fear of being misunderstood. It was China which mentioned it at a press conference.
Whether terrorism is specifically mentioned or not does not in any way minimise the menace Pakistan faces increasingly. The swathe of territory terrorists occupy is less important than the pitched battles they are fighting against the Pakistani forces. Benazir Bhutto was right when she said that she did not mind working with the military because political forces can stop terrorism, not the military.
Terrorism is an ideology of sorts that only an ideology can meet. The ideology of modernity and liberalism can draw support from the people who can be mobilised by political parties. Unfortunately, her approach to make up with the military for this purpose was mistaken for her ambition to come to power.
The important role of political parties makes it all the more necessary that the forthcoming polls are free and fair. Although Musharraf has given the undertaking to the West on this point, yet the impression is that elections may be rigged. Musharraf has also much at stake. He has to get a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly if he wants to stay as President.
If one were to go by the observations of Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, he would not interfere in elections. Nor would he want his officers to have contact with politicians. It looks as if he may turn a new leaf in Pakistan's history. The army, no doubt the only coherent and disciplined force in the country, has cast a shadow on people's sovereignty. If it were to withdraw, as Kayani seems to be doing, the people would find the ethos of Pakistan returning and getting back the authority to rule themselves. The world should do all it can to help the country evolve itself.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments