In 1999, a round, bald democratically elected civilian named Nawaz Sharif was happily practicing corruption as prime minister, when he made the mistake of trying to fire the chief of army staff. Thus arose Pervez Musharraf, who led a coup and declared martial law. Two years later, he decided to name himself president, while remaining military chief—an unconstitutional action until he announced the amendments that would formalize the rule of the army. Parliamentary elections were held to determine a new National Assembly, which would then determine a prime minister. But soon after the new prime minister, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, was sworn in, Musharraf had him resign for no particular reason. He was replaced by the hand-picked Shaukat Aziz: previously a finance minister, who had entered Parliament as part of Musharraf’s minion faction of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q). A bizarre “referendum” was then held amid allegations of rigging in 2002, where 98 percent of the “votes” sided with Musharraf staying in power for another five years.
And that brings us to this year, 2007. Five years ago, Musharraf promised to step down from his absurd dual position as president and chief of army staff. This should have been the year when he would leave power and go back to doing whatever it is that rich army generals do when not imposing martial law. But alas, it has not been so. In March of this year, Musharraf had Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry forcefully suspended and put under house arrest. No specific accusations were made against him, though it was generally understood that this was done because the Chaudhry was a known critic of government, and Musharraf wanted a supportive (read: non-independent) judiciary so that he could run for reelection without it being ruled unconstitutional. This move backfired as lawyers and political protesters took to the streets and clashed with government-hired thugs. A violent uproar continued until the president, apparently realizing that it is just not as easy to remove the highest level judicial authority as he thought it would be, withdrew his assertions and allowed the chief justice back.
In a sense then, the state of emergency rule by Musharraf was really just a predictable ending to the story of a rather Machiavellian leader. The date for the president general’s stepping-down approached, and there was still an independent Supreme Court present that could decide against his wishes to remain in power. Seeing no other way to make sure his reelections went unhampered, Musharraf used his power as chief of army staff to declare martial law. He then dismissed the entire Supreme Court and filled it instead with judges of his own choosing. Predictably, these judges decided that Musharraf’s unconstitutional reelection as president for another five years would be alright, so long as he ‘took off his uniform.”
And that is exactly what he has done. Musharraf stepped down as chief of army Staff and was sworn in as civilian president, graciously granting the position of army chief to his right hand man, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, so that if he ever needed it again, the army would still be under his direct influence. Meanwhile, the now reinstated president has promised that general elections for the National Assembly will be held on Jan. 8.
Now the question arises: do these elections mean anything? Aside from the regular allegations of rigging, there are a few other factors that would lead one to believe that the word ‘election’ does not exactly comport with democracy in this case. According to the ruling system in Pakistan, the president is supposed to be no more than a figurehead meant to watch over parliament. The chief executive is the prime minister, who is chosen by the majority party in the National Assembly. In the case that there is no overwhelming majority, a coalition is formed between parties to choose a prime minister. Thus, Musharraf has been ruling the country outside of the scope of the constitutional system, as he has not been the prime minister. It seems highly unlikely that he will be willing to allow the victory of a prime minister who is not prepared to do his bidding. While the presence of two strong, albeit arguably corrupt, opposition leaders—Bhutto and Sharif—who garner large amounts of support may seem like a good thing for those who favor democracy, their mutual distrust help Musharraf stay in power. Unless Musharraf’s minion parties “win” by a landslide, there will be a hung Parliament, with no decision being made as to prime minister, and Musharraf will be free to use his presidential power to dissolve the Parliament again.
So, if you feel confused by all of this, allow me to say it in short: Pakistan will not have a democracy for a very long time unless there is foreign intervention.
And what of intervention? There are those who say that the presence of a dictator is a good thing, because it is the only way to keep dangerous religious factions under control. It is said that Musharraf is the only thing preventing an Islamic militant coup from occurring and delivering a nuclear arsenal into the hands of volatile extremists. After all, this was the reason that Musharraf gave for his state of emergency.
Well this is where my personal knowledge comes into play, and I feel compelled to offer a little-known fact that may blow your mind. The overwhelming majority of the Pakistani populace does not care about religious extremism. There is no impending Islamic revolution. The few radical Islamist groups that do exist have such a small following that they make no impression on the politics of Pakistan whatsoever, and the militants that are in conflict with the army are doing so mainly because they oppose the military rule. If a democratically elected government were given a chance, it would become obvious that the only thing preventing the political growth of this nation is its own army.
The foreign policy of the U.S. concerning Pakistan has always been favorable toward military rule, and understandably so. It has been a concern that Pakistan might be too dangerous a nation if left to its own devices. It is thought that Pakistan is not ready for democracy. But Pakistan, like any nation that has had enough of corrupt dictatorship, is ready for a change in rule. Pakistan is ready for democracy. The U.S. should simply pressure Musharraf into stepping down as president once elections are held. This, along with a policy of limiting support for an insubordinate army, would help Pakistan along the slow path to democracy, while maintaining the goal of national security.