With elections in Pakistan only a few weeks away, General Pervez Musharraf is trying to give that country a tailor-made democracy but what he would also prefer to call ‘genuine democracy’. A confused strategy of sorts as one newspaper calls it. What would that mean? A pliable parliament with the President-General calling the shots. Even before calling for elections, Musharraf has vested in his office the right to dismiss the government and dissolve the popular House. It would also mean an institutionalised role for the army in the running of the country. It would mean a mockery, if not destruction, of the constitution with the two main political figures kept out of the October elections. While the US in view of its broader interests and compulsions following September 11 is likely to turn a blind eye to Musharraf’s game plan and his tinkering with democracy, the international community knows that Musharraf is derailing democracy in the name of so-called democracy.

‘Democracy’ is a term open to any number of interpretations. In the process it becomes a mere abstraction. An empty form. Writers and analysts, especially an introspective Pakistan press, have questioned and urged definition of the role of the army as agent of change—an issue of great academic interest and a complex one at that.

Former prime minister of Pakistan, Ms Benazir Bhutto finds a necessary connection between peace and democracy (power to the people) and links, yet in another opinion piece, dictatorship in Muslim countries to a rise in militancy.

Democratisation of Pakistan would help avoid nuclear war over Kashmir, according to Ms Bhutto.In an opinion piece in The Guardian  (Aug 6), Ms Bhutto asserted that “each of the three wars between India and Pakistan was fought under military dictators in Pakistan…Each month of military dictatorship brings us closer to Armageddon. Political power must be transferred legally, peacefully and subject to the will of the people.”

And points out Ms Bhutto: “The world walked away from democratising Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989. That departure led directly to the Talibanisation of the country and the September 11 atrocities. Walking away from democratisation of nuclear-armed Pakistan could lead to even more horrific results.”

Incidentally, Ms Benazir Bhutto has become a key player in the ensuing battle and a real threat to Musharraf’s game plan and political ambition. She was a key player during Zia’s tenure too. The same Zia whose ghost haunts “the beleaguered nation again”.

Irshad Haqqani writing in “Jang” tells us of the four diseases afflicting Pakistan, namely ‘faroniyat’ (dictatorship), “qarooniyat’ (accumulation of wealth), ‘azariyat’ (misguided religious leaders), ‘hamaniyat’ (agents of the first two). Dictatorship in Pakistan, it is diagnosed, was encouraged by the Doctrine of Necessity with a natural trend towards authoritarianism.( Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review in The Daily Times)

B Raman in The Pioneer says: “The political class by and large have strongly opposed his (Musharraf’s) moves. Nevertheless, their ability to effectively counter his machinations in the name of democracy has been weakened by the silence of the US and other Western powers who continue to feel that there is no alternative if terrorism based in Pakistan is to be weeded out and if Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is to be prevented from falling into the hands of the terrorists.” And further, “that Pakistan-spawned terrorism was a bi-product of the previous military rule under Zia and that, instead of being eliminated, it would only gather strength if the present military rule under General Musharraf continues under the façade of democracy.”

“Poor General Musharraf. I feel sorry for him,” says Humayun Gauhar. And warns: “While he is at it, trying to introduce a workable democracy, Musharraf would be well advised to reinvent the intelligence agencies as well and create professional intelligence services on the lines of the CIA and FBI that people can join as careers. Otherwise, even if the politicians don’t derail democracy, the intelligence agencies might and we will be back to square zero.” The writer recalls the role of the intelligence agencies during the time of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan. “The litany of their stunts, ineptitude and stupidities is too long and painful, too well known, to bear repetition.”  We are told.

Was Powell dodging democracy? Asks Aqil Shahin in The Friday Times. “Secretary of State appeared to confirm the growing fear in domestic political circles that the US is likely to condone General Pervez Musharraf’s wholesale destruction of the constitution.” And we are told, “ In the past, there is ample reason to be sceptical of the gap in the American rhetoric and practice on democracy in Pakistan.” Musharraf’s frequent policy somersaults and his “hyperbole on the need for ‘checks and balances’ is not lost on a sceptical international community that knows that the military regime was taking them for a ride.” It is argued that given the military regime’s critical reliance on economic and political support from Washington “ a pro-democracy shift in US policy…can go a long way in altering the domestic civil-military balance in favour of the duly elected civilian authorities.” The time to shift course is now, we are told.

An edit in The Daily Times details Musharraf’s “confused strategy” or is it a “strategy of confusion”. Says the paper, “ The military government’s peek-a-boo with the political parties seems to suggest the regime is not prepared to give the parties, especially the opposition parties, the breathing space necessary for getting down to the task of formulating a strategy for the upcoming elections…General Pervez Musharraf, who preside over this bedlam ,is as much caught in this political vortex as the parties opposing him. Partially, he has none but himself to blame for this. Having alienated himself from the two main parties, he allowed the erstwhile archrivals to come together. The smaller groups and splinter parties he surrounded himself with have failed to give him a constituency. The system of local government he created for himself failed to deliver during the bogus presidential referendum and now poses problems for parties supportive of the regime…The king’s party remains stillborn…The danger for General Musharraf to come up against a belligerent assembly despite the many precautions he is trying to take against that contingency is real. Looked at from this perspective, it seems the government’s present strategy of confounding the confusion may become an albatross around its neck.”

An opinion piece in The Pioneer by G Parthasarthy says:

“General Colin Powell’s high regard for General Musharraf is no different from that of John Foster Dulles for Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Henry Kissinger for General Yahya Khan and Alexander Haig for General Zia-ul Haq.And like his worthy military predecessors, General Musharraf will use his American connections to introduce his own brand of ‘genuine democracy’ in Pakistan.”  

Says Swapna Mazumdar in The Sydney Morning Herald: “ The US Secretary of State’s concern for the people of Kashmir would probably have greater credibility if he had advocated the same freedom of franchise in Pakistan.”

And there is an interesting piece of information in The Nation. Datelined Dhaka, the report by Absar Alam quotes President Musharraf as saying “his government would tailor democracy according to the requirements of Pakistan as his government wanted to restore the real essence of democracy following the October elections.”

And says Hussain Haqqani in The Indian Express: “ If General Pervez Musharraf’s attempt at reconstructing Pakistani politics and society is to succeed, it must begin with an acknowledgement of the limitations of the armed forces as an agent of change.”

To say the least, democracy is a carefully nurtured process rather than a sacrosanct concept. One has seen the term being applied conveniently to any form of government howsoever authoritarian. One used to hear of one-party democracies in Eastern Europe not too long ago.  To quote in passing Henry George said to be one of the world’s great social philosophers. He stated “To turn a republican government into a despotism the basest and most brutal, it is not necessary formally to change its constitution or abandon popular elections. Forms are nothing when substance is gone, and the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may most easily go.” And continues Henry George, “ a government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality may most readily become a despotism.”

New Delhi, September 01, 2002.

.