Pakistan: Who’s Afraid of the Referendum?

While Pakistan continues to reel under problems—some recent, others inherent in its history—the subject of immediate focus is the referendum called by General Pervez Musharraf to stay in power.

Amidst the din of opinions some favouring the referendum, others opposing it, emerge some statements on the present and future shape of things to come. Such statements could be made with reasonable certainty. One. There is a fair possibility of General Pervez Musharraf staying in power for five years. Two. That the military is going to be involved constitutionally. Three. That the central issue in Pakistan is not so much about policy and programmes but is about power. Four. That politicians are generally corrupt, and that the army in Pakistan is interventionist. Five. That there are bound to be controversies around the referendum. Six. That the truth of the saying “POLITICS IS THE SOLDIER’S CURSE” is going to be felt palpably by the General against his pulses. And the dictum “ LET HIM RULE WHO CAN” though applicable to the subcontinent during the dark ages when governments were established by the sword is only regressively valid today.

And more:

That the General will continue to wear two hats since he is both President and Chief of Army Staff (COAS).

That the President, General Pervez Musharraf, would become all-powerful to the detriment of parliament after the October polls.

That the referendum is the General’s primrose path to perpetuate stay in power or perhaps a justified path to continue and protect his policies and programmes.

That a system is being created in Pakistan where an elected prime minister should not be powerful enough to challenge the traditional power centres.

That the General would face the same contradictions as his predecessors though he wants consciously to avoid the tag FARCICAL from being tacked to the referendum exercise. “I am neither Ayub nor Zia.I will put a direct question to the people: whether they want me or not for the next five years?” The General is reported to have said.

Yet this referendum is bound to invite ridicule as well as condemnation from quarters within and without. Major political parties including the PPP, PML (N), ANP and Jamaat-e-Islami among others have rejected the referendum proposal. Western criticism of the General’s tinkering with democracy, though mute so far, is bound to surface and become incisive in the days to come. Commonwealth secretary-general, Don McKinnon, described the referendum as “ a device used in the past by a former military leader in Pakistan to extend his term in office.”

Comparison with Zimbabwe’s Mugabe may look far-fetched at the moment “but Pakistan under Musharraf would become looking more suspect” it is increasingly felt in knowledgeable circles.

A report by the Brussels based International Crisis Group (ICG) is significant.

“Far from being besieged by Islamic extremists, Pakistan’s military government has carefully used that phenomenon as an essential tool to justify its hold on power, improve its standing with the West, and resist restoring secular democracy and as a tactical means to advance its goals in both Afghanistan and Kashmir.”

The report also notes what it calls the symbiotic relationship between Pakistan’s military and security services and Islamic extremists in recent years as well as the country’s generals to maintain their institution’s central role in political life.

It is equally certain that there are perils and pitfalls ahead. That, according to one internal opinion, “with a strong opposition in and outside the assembly, such a sham scheme of democracy is not going to work.” (Opinion piece by Imtiaz Alam in The News of April 1). And again, “by adopting General Zia’s structural course, if not ideology, General Musharraf has diminished the hope he had created to build a liberal and moderate Pakistan   that could have only been done by taking a democratic course.”

There is no dearth of sane and rational voices among the intelligentsia. Asks the same opinion piece:

“And yet will we have the moral courage to demand right to self-determination for the Kashmiris and compare ourselves with the republican India after having lost our own right to determine our fate?”

Yet another viewpoint would advice Pakistanis of all hues and shades to build a consensus around the one point on which there is complete unanimity namely “that never again should there be another military take –over and this should be Pakistan’s last military regime…”

Such voices gain significance against a geopolitical scenario that leaves little scope for further instability in Pakistan. The American troops build-up in the region, we are told, has reached 80,000, while close to a million Pakistani and Indian troops face each other across their borders. Opinion in Pakistan press suggests bold and imaginative measures among which “is a unilateral withdrawal of the bulk of our (Pakistani) troops from the international border to their peacetime locations, with some troops being sent into the tribal areas to reinforce the current efforts to seal the border against infiltration by al-Qaeda and Taliban adherents.”

It might be added here that the war against terrorism could be close to entering Pakistani territory. The rigmarole of a referendum ought, therefore, to be seen against the backdrop of Musharraf’s weakened will against the militants, a growing menace of sectarian violence and a geopolitical scene that is perhaps beginning to make the General desperate.

In an interview to a German magazine the General reportedly “threatened India with the atom bomb” in the event of war over Kashmir. The threat is an empty rhetoric meant to boost his own sagging morale or to nudge an alarmist West to fall in with his experiments with democracy.

General Pervez Musharraf would do well to heed the voice of reason even if it sounds too philosophic to his soldier’s ears. Fortunately there is no paucity of enlightened opinion within the Pakistani press.

“Justice, rationality, competence and fair play constitute that brand of power which invests politicians and state apparatus with what gives them the ultimate staying power—legitimacy…the rest is all castles constructed on quicksand…”

Imagine the deviation when such ideal standards are brought to bear upon the affairs of a present-day Pakistan that has become a seething cauldron of anarchy and violence.

President Musharraf would do equally well to draw lessons from the wisdom of past politicians. A former prime minister of Pakistan has valuable insights of everyday use scattered in the pages of his book From Memory. Says Noon:

“The danger in giving life tenure to persons in high office is that there is no way of getting rid of them…

“The public get tired of a man, no matter how good, after a lapse of a certain period.

“No man is infallible and the longer he lasts in office the more people he displeases.

“Nations may achieve freedom quickly, but they need decades of freedom before they have the quality of remaining free.”

From history, we are told that Ata Turk (Kemal Ataturk) made big achievements in the first two years of his rule. Thereafter public enthusiasm waned.

Well, truths don’t have to be shouted at people in order to carry complete conviction.

New Delhi, April 8,2002.