Musharraf: National asset or fatal liability

Mir Adnan Aziz
April 9, 2008
The Frontier Post

How true was Polish futurist Bruno Jasienski when he said: "Do not fear your enemies, the worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear friends, at worst they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exists because of their silent consent."

The statement of another Chowdhry (what is in a name?) Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar dubbing President Musharraf a 'national asset' and a bankable icon for Pakistan was neither that of an enemy or a friend. If anything, it's very uncaring insensitivity to millions left it bordering on the profane.

This miraculous transformation of a liability with the belated discovery of a 'national asset', from those very who cried themselves hoarse chanting 'go Musharraf go' for eight long years, smacks of duplicitous conviction – rather than new found love. This terrible moment of 'recognition' is as bitter as it is tragic. Is it also not a comedy of errors, albeit a tragic one, that a dictator is trying to morph into a 'democrat' and democrats are trying to become uncaring dictators!

The other story doing the rounds was the severe dressing down from one Senator to another. In the same the stance of the deposed judges and the lawyer's struggle was belittled severely. What these two incidents well prove is that Pakistani politics, unfortunately, has its own galaxy of 'stars'. When finally taking their seats in the hallowed corridors of power, they find inconvenient the ideals they stood for and the fervent pre-election promises made to the oppressed masses. It is as if taking a cue from famed economist John Maynard Keynes who said:" When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The only point is that the facts are the same but the minds have seemingly changed.

A vote, ideally, is moving away from personalization of politics to one of issues. It was for the first time that the people voted for an ideology. When going to the ballot box they had before them three issues: American influence in our governance - military involvement in politics - reinstatement of all the deposed judges. It is also pertinent to note that the electorate saw President Musharraf, their master of destinies, as a personification of these three issues. For the first time in our history the people acted as one and made it a referendum based on an ideology. It may also well be the start of electoral battles being fought on issues rather than cult figures. With the total rout of the King's party, they seemingly settled all three issues with a flourish in just one day.

The people, having played their part, heaved a collective sigh of relief. They had spoken their mind and done their part. They passed on the mantle of promised reform to those who had been clamoring for the same since years. The ensuing period is too short a time to pass judgments on those elected. What one cannot though help feeling; perpetuated more so by what we are seeing, is a dreary sense of foreboding on the daily vacillations of our Mandelas. The euphoria is being replaced at an unduly fast pace by a seemingly looming betrayal of the nation's mandate.

The flower petal showered PPP/MQM assimilation, more of osmosis, is of as two divergent a party as can be. The PPP went to the voters with an anti Musharraf / pro 'unwanted' judge's stance and initiation of dialogue with those in the tribal areas. MQM on the other hand is the President's as ardent a supporter as it is averse to restoration of the sacked judges. Does this union not dilute the given mandate of the people? National reconciliation and a government of the same are imperative but never at the cost of promises made on matters of national import.

Politics is commonly called the 'art of compromise.' In a democracy it is indeed the balancing and negotiation between sides, groups and individuals. However of paramount importance is the fact that in the process the aspirations of the people are not bartered away. If done, it initiates the democratic dispensation slipping back into a non-democratic one. The absence of ideology turns body politic into a trade show - and keeps the electorate from fighting for a better future.

While the centrality of compromise in politics cannot be out rightly negated, the current story of political compromise is misleadingly incomplete. Politics can be, in some instances, the art of compromise in legislative activity only; a compromise at the cost of the electorate's mandate is criminal. Our political stalwarts should be informed that politicians professing no ideology and unreservedly admitting that their highest skill and calling is to compromise with other politicians do not have long-lived political careers. As Homer said: 'a multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king' - (though a chosen one).

Being born and brought up hearing euphemisms, we have a new one called the minus one formula. It is one reportedly devised to do away with the Chief Justice through Parliamentary means. With the first high profile political appointments being those of 'victimized' former government servants does the CJ not fall within the bracket of ruthless victimization? The very fact that President Musharraf and the Americans treat him as a pariah; he has come to symbolize national honor and sovereignty

What we have seen in recent days is the manhandling of a former CM Sindh, Dr. Arbab Ghulam Raheem, and that of a former federal minister, Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi. Extremely unpleasant though the incidents are, both doctors were President Musharraf's staunchest political allies, always standing up for all his policies. It was also under Arbab Raheem's tenure that we all saw the horrors of an unforgettably gory May 12 on which about fifty lives were lost.

His boss, the President who has immediately called for enquiries and reprisals in these two manhandling incidents, refused an enquiry then and dismissing it callously as the power of the people at play. In doing so seeds of hatred, disorder and conflict were sown, with these very actions coming back now to haunt all those involved - can anybody deny divine retribution?

President Musharraf, our democracy's Achilles heel, is also a keen and adept bridge player. Relieved of many cumbersome burdens he is seemingly in the process of playing the hand of his life. The fact that it is being done with a marked deck, courtesy friends near and far, is seemingly not a moral burden – ends justifying the means of achieving the same.

Is it not the same person who as COAS combined his so called enlightened moderation and economic liberalism with repressive and brutal authoritarian governance? In the process all we got was impoverished darkness. The army, as the font of the former general's power, had extensive control over every level of civil governance and our lives. General Kiani's war-footing disengagement from civilian affairs was as loud a vote of no confidence in his policies as could be. During his rule, a bankable President that we had, all but the people benefited from extensive foreign aid received from donors which saw him as a bulwark against 'extremism'. That in the process hundreds disappeared and millions of dollars were received as head money, never as much robbed a blink of the 'asset's' sleep. The United States funneled billions of dollars to have paid access to the destiny of a whole nation.

In doing so America and its allies ignored the massive human rights abuses, corruption, and disappearance of hundreds, always showering praise on an unflinching ally as a reward. The previous regime's plutocracy robbed the country of its best opportunity to move from a poor to a middle-class country. The 'national asset' in fact destroyed all the institutions and in the process eroded the very foundation of the country and its ability to move forward.

The lawyer fraternity and their struggle had earned the praise, respect and admiration of all. By giving up their bread and butter and taking to the streets, at the risk of their very lives was indeed a noble gesture. In doing so they had shown the grit to defend the country's constitution and respect for the rule of law. These are the two fundamental requirements for any civilized society that dares to call itself so and which General Musharaf cast away ruthlessly. This was a vain and naked effort to maintain his unlawful grip on political power, to which he still hangs on tenaciously. That some lawyers gave vent to their feelings by violent means, negating the very ideals they stood for, is unsavory and should not be allowed again whatsoever.

The President of a country represents the unity and symbolizes the Federation. During his long years, as an unaccountable ruler, President Musharraf made a mockery of this definition. He effectively fostered extreme polarization, spawning violence, intolerance and extreme societal discord. There is no such thing as a perfect human being – and thus there will never be a perfect ruler. In the end, however, we are all judged by our efforts to be just in the face of adversity; respectful and tolerant in the face of dissent; and honorably valiant in the face of alien pressures.

Forcing the military in Pakistan to act as a proxy US army is a very high-risk strategy. This will invariably tear the complicated social and ethnic Pakistani mix, which is already under enormous strain. The United States should be well informed of the 'investment returns' President Musharraf can realistically provide for them at this point in time. As the Pakistani people are concerned, seeing him kowtowing to the stars and stripes, he played his hand and lost - that too miserably.

In trying to provide marked decks to susceptible local players or moving the political goal posts, 'friends' from here and far away could possibly provoke a reaction that might open the door for anarchy. This will also be a tragic betrayal of the people who in their wisdom, as against the prophesiers of doom, had ably and remarkably embraced democracy instead of chaos.

With the nation fighting for the acceptance of the people's will, Pakistanis can finally bank on holding leaders accountable to their promises and actions. No longer will it be as easy to escape responsibility of broken promises. The yard sticks to measure success and failure will not be muddied by infamous doctrines of necessity.

When President Musharraf is forced to say adios, as one day he will be, the cause will not be his lost tenacity. He has had plenty of time and has worked hard to insulate himself from the type of events that have led to the collapse of other tyrannies and dynasties. But the downfall of dictators is unpredictable. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of its Eastern European brethren, the easing of Maoist discipline in China – all these unthinkables happened in ways that were never foreseen. It is very likely that in the end President Musharraf too will be a forgotten dusty footnote in history – not the Attaturk he aspired for and none here wanted him to be.

(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)