Pattern of Pakistan's Military Dictators

Musharraf’s Moves Reflect pattern of Military Dictators
By Husain Haqqani
The Nation ( Pakistan ), May 16, 2007

Recent events indicate that General Pervez Musharraf has no intention of becoming the first ruler in Pakistani history to relinquish power without first trying to hold on to it by all means, fair or foul. Instead of allowing politics to take its course, Musharraf is once again insisting on his indispensability. It appears that he hopes to do so with threats of violence ignited with the help of allies in Karachi , some of whom have now taken to shouting the slogan “ Pakistan without Musharraf is Unacceptable.”

By most accounts, backed up with video footage, the violence in Karachi was initiated by the pro-government Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) which claimed that it “controls” Pakistan ’s financial capital and largest city. The MQM said it would not allow the opposition to hold a rally in support of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, a blatantly anti-democratic stance. Even if, as the MQM asserts, the majority of the people of Karachi are not with the opposition parties, surely they have the democratic right to march in the streets peacefully and voice their opinions.

General Musharraf’s refusal to go with the flow of politics was also reflected in the government-sponsored, lackluster rally organized for him in Islamabad . Speaking from behind a bullet-proof glass wall, Musharraf repeated his call that the Chief Justice issue should not be politicized. He claimed he had the support of the people and insisted that he would be elected for a second term as president. Considering that he was not elected under the constitution for a first term, and given his refusal to take off his uniform and contest a free and fair election on a level playing field with the opposition, both claims rang hollow.

The arbitrary dismissal of the Chief Justice by a president in a general’s uniform is clearly a political issue. The reason Musharraf and his allies are unwilling to see it as such lies in the deep-rooted antipathy towards politics cultivated by Pakistan ’s ruling oligarchy. The Generals, technocrats, senior civil servants, international bankers and global businessmen who have virtually controlled the fate of Pakistan under long periods of military rule have also worked hard to depoliticize discourse about governance in Pakistan . Occasional outbreaks of violence, often orchestrated by groups nurtured by Pakistan ’s ubiquitous security services, are meant to prove that politics is “dirty” and that only non-political leaders such as a coup-making general have the country’s best interest at heart.

Before the military’s direct intervention in government under Field Marshal Ayub Khan, in 1958 Pakistan ’s politics were by and large non-violent. Patronage, protest and policy differences were all factors in the political process, as they are in any non-authoritarian system. But Ayub Khan began a process of demonizing politics and politicians that continues to this day. Pakistan 's military men (as an institution) and their assorted supporters have almost never accepted the value of the political process. They seem to have embraced the view of the country as a corporation. Under this view, military rulers are measured by their ability to improve GDP growth rates and civilians are condemned for lower productivity or corruption.

Such people do not see a judge insisting on asking hard questions about missing persons as a hero seeking to establish the rule of law. They consider him an inconvenience, like a corporation might view an executive who undermines higher profits by questioning their legitimacy. Political parties voicing dissent on behalf of the people are seen as being equal to trouble-making unions and pro-government parties are encouraged to behave like pocket unions willing to beat up on their rivals in the interest of top management. The shareholders, in this case the oligarchs, are constantly reminded of the ever-increasing foreign exchange reserves and the expanding growth rate to keep them from asking questions about the ethics and legitimacy of the corporation’s methods.

But in historic reality, economics is only one of the factors in a nation's life albeit an important factor. Seeing "a factor" as "the factor" distorts the way one understands political and historic forces. For a corporation, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Corporate CEOs are judged by their ability to drive up their company's profits or stock value. But a nation's life is more than economic statistics. History judges leaders on the basis of their socio-political and institutional legacy more than their ability to drive up the bottom line – in case of nations, GDP growth.

Take American leaders as an example. George Washington is remembered most for his willingness to turn down the offer of becoming King and for establishing the principles of America 's constitutional evolution. According to some historians he also “turned his noble gesture of refusing payment for his services as commander in chief of the Continental Army into an opportunity to indulge his insatiable lust for fine food and drink, extravagant clothing, and lavish accommodations.” But his institutional legacy trumps that. Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence and, as president, expanded U.S. territory through the Louisiana Purchase . Lincoln fought to abolish slavery and for the authority of the Federal government.

Theodore Roosevelt checked the power of monopolies. Woodrow Wilson laid the foundations of modern, multilateral diplomacy. Franklin Roosevelt executed the 'New Deal', expanded the federal government and led the U.S. into becoming a superpower. More recently, Nixon is remembered for reaching out to China even though he was forced to resign under threat of impeachment for Watergate. Can anyone recall off the top of their heads what the rates of GDP growth (and other critical economic statistics) for each of these American presidents was?

In Pakistan ’s chequered history, our rulers have insisted on applying the accountant's criteria to measure national leadership. This has proven to be a major stumbling block to understanding the dynamic of politics and history that shapes nations. Few officers of the Pakistan army and fewer members of the economic elite showed revulsion against Pakistan 's first dictatorship, that of Ayub Khan (1958-1969). A careful study of Pakistan's history would reveal that the same things that under subsequent, short-term civilian regimes caused such revulsion (muzzling of the press, arresting and harassing political opponents, using government machinery to frame and humiliate opponents) were widely practiced (and many even originated) under Ayub Khan without much complaining from the military-bureaucrat-technocrat class.

Ayub Khan’s Governor, the Nawab of Kalabagh, did not hesitate to threaten the president’s opponents and used Intelligence Bureau (IB) personnel to plot assassinations and blackmail. Pakistan ’s elite said little about these excesses and even after Ayub Khan was forced to resign amid mass protests, continued to praise him for his economic achievements without commenting on his political failures. Pakistan elite waited until after December 16, 1971 –the day Pakistani forces surrendered to the Indian army and the people of Bangladesh in erstwhile East Pakistan --to voice anger against the decadent military leadership under Yahya Khan. The institutional role of the army in undermining normal democratic politics in Pakistan is only now being fully debated.

Condemning Pakistan ’s civilian politicians for their flaws does not explain the institutional imbalance, the pattern of military intervention and the recurrent political problems of Pakistan . The refusal of the Pakistani elite to accept the principle of elected civilian leadership does. It is time for Pakistan ’s military officers, professionals and business classes to withdraw support from the past pattern of military rule and accept the principle of institutionalized political process. Mobilizing street thugs to combat a people’s movement for democracy may be part of Pakistan ’s unfortunate history. It does not augur well for the country’s future.