Instability lies ahead after Musharraf's 29 deadly constitutional blunders, says
General Pervez Musharraf has finally settled on 29 arbitrary amendments to Pakistan's constitution that give him sweeping powers. Almost everyone outside his close circle sees the amendments as an attempt to perpetuate his rule. General Musharraf, however, insists that his package of constitutional amendments will lead to restoration of democracy.
As American strategic affairs analyst George Perkovich pointed out in a recent article, Musharraf sees his intentions as the criterion for judging his actions. And since, in his view, his intentions are good, lie cannot understand why anyone should question his actions. But constitutional arrangements cannot he based on the whims or beliefs on an individual. They must have the sanction of a broad national consensus behind them. Similarly, the concept of checks and balances assumes that one institution of state will act as a check on another.
Musharraf is reviving the notion of divine right of rulers in suggesting that he (and his good intentions) is the only check needed in Pakistan's constitution. While re-distributing powers between President and Prime Minister, his constitution does not address the consistent failing of Pakistan's political life: the preponderance of power of the executive. Pakistan's constitutional experiments have failed in the past because they were designed to suit the writers of the constitution. The latest attempt is no different. It would have been much better if, instead of re-writing the constitution to suit his perceived needs, Musharraf had opted to become the first Pakistani leader who submitted his whims to the constitution.
Musharraf does not seem satisfied with "securing" his future by decree. His governmental team is working overtime to influence the outcome of the October 10 election. The mariner in which the European Union's attempt to objectively assess the electoral process has been questioned indicates that the government's plans for the polls are not completely above board. Usually one does not mind observers when one has nothing to hide. India's refusal to accept international monitoring of the forthcoming election in Jammu and Kashmir has been justifiably criticised for that very reason. If Pakistan tries to handicap monitoring, the credibility of the electoral exercise will certainly come into question here as well.
The failure to register the names of several hundred thousand eligible voters in the electoral register, and the inability to issue ten million eligible voters with national identity cards are enough to make the election process doubtful. Such massive disenfranchisement is possibly the result of bureaucratic incompetence. It could also be part of a deliberate policy to contain the influence of the two major political parties led by former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Disenfranchising voters in districts considered their traditional strongholds could be an added precaution against their parties winning at the polls. If the people are not to be given a free choice in electing their leaders, and an election is only meant to go through the motions of democracy without really conceding any ground, then what does it matter if a large number of voters cannot vote? The rules of the game for tin election are different from those that were introduced for April's referendum. Then, 18-year-olds women allowed to vote and the need to identity cards was waived. Laws relating to the composition of the future parliament, as well as about the conduct of elections, have beer changed several times. While then is consistency in General Musharraf desire to exclude some politicians from future politics, confusion and eclecticism have characterised his plans for fulfilling that objective. In many ways, Pakistan is witnessing a re-run of the days when the abbreviation of General Ziaul Haq's title. CMLA for Chief Martial Law Administrator, was humorously used by journalists to mean "Cancel My Last Announcement".
A farcical election may take away the remaining veneer of respectability from the Musharraf regime, which started with considerable goodwill in 1999 and got a second lease of life after September 11 last year. The only reason Musharraf is holding elections is to acquire legitimacy that he does not enjoy as a military ruler. His patron since September 2001, the United States, liked the other way over the massive fraud in the referendum. It may not be able to do the same if the October election fails to meet the standards of a free and fair poll.
Musharraf hopes to change the label on his military regime, redefining it as a democracy without altering its substance. That would leave the US dealing with him and the complexities of military-dominated politics in Pakistan-something Washington is not keen to do despite its need of Pakistan in the war against terrorism. Having a military dictator in charge may be good for the current phase of the Afghan war, though even that's debatable. But even American analysts recognise it does not transform Pakistan into the stable ally sought by the US in the region and the Islamic world.
To influence a correction of course by the general, the US should publicly declare that it does not approve of his attempts to rewrite Pakistan's constitution by decree. Such public criticism would bolster the morale of Pakistan's judiciary and political parties. It might even force General Musharraf to reconsider his arbitrary constitutional plans. The Bush administration feels that it owes General Musharraf a debt of gratitude for his support in the war effort since September 11. One way to repay this debt would he to advise him against self-destructive actions.
Any impression that the US supports a military-controlled polity will turn Pakistan's civilian leaders against Washington. They would be tempted to cooperate with Musharraf's Islamic critics in street protests that would probably be driven by anti-Americanism. Instead of appearing to condone Musharrafs disregard for democracy, the US could impress upon him the destabilising effect civil-military divisions arc having on Pakistan.
Two years ago. President Clinton had told the Pakistani people, "Clearly the absence of democracy makes it harder, not easier, for people to move ahead. The answer to flawed democracy is not to end democracy but to improve it." Instead of reversing that position, the Bush administration should also make restoration of democracy in Pakistan its priority. Greater US activism in promoting democracy in Pakistan will help it achieve a degree of political maturity and stability. It will also help avoid the anti-American backlash that has characterised every round of close ties with Pakistan in the past.
(Husain Haqqaniisa Visiting Scholar
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He served
as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Rhntto and as Pakistan's
Ambassador to Sri Lanka)