A Hindi film of the sixties had a famous line immortalized by veteran actor, the late Om Prakash. “Natha Singh or Prem Singh (is) one and the same thing.” The line was meant to generate humour. Not so humorous, however, would be the statement in the context of Pakistan that “All dictators mean one and the same thing”. Whether mythical or real, dictators partake of the same prototype abstraction. Power at the cost of scruples. Expedience at the cost of ethics. So as far as damage to democracy is concerned, Zia or Musharraf is one and the same thing. Mark, for instance, this line by Mark Baker from the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: “However, the general’s continuing reluctance to draw a clear demarcation between his roles as army chief and head of state has evoked memories for many Pakistanis of the late dictator General Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in the name of political reform in the late 1970s then decided to stay on for a decade.” Another comment by Farhan Bokhari and Edward Luce in THE FINANCIAL TIMES should be in place here. “Those familiar with army-run plebiscites elsewhere in the world would find little to surprise them in Pakistan. At every intersection, Gen Musharraf’s face adorns huge billboards portraying the simple soldier, dressed in plain battle fatigues, the hero general, bedecked with medals, the man of the people, in turban and shalwar kameez, and the international statesman, in a well-cut suit. Although Gen Musharraf has pledged to stamp out Islamic extremism and modernise Pakistan, it is not difficult to imagine him as the pious mullah were political circumstances to change.” And we are told: “Gen Zia bequeathed a legacy of Islamic militancy in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Gen Musharraf is considered indispensable in the fight to eradicate that. In the process, there is a risk the Pakistan leader may create an undesirable legacy of his own.”

Bronwen Maddox in THE TIMES has this comment: “The way in which President Musharraf has choreographed this referendum has lost him friends abroad and strengthened the opposition at home. On balance, his choice of the ‘Zia option’, adopting the device of one of his least constructive predecessors, has damaged both him and Pakistan more than it could help.”

Both referendums, by Zia in 1984 and by Musharraf now, are supposed to have been held to legitimise military rule.

We are told by Najam Sethi in THE GUARDIAN, “The question of legitimacy haunts every dictator and Gen Musharraf is no exception, however benign his attitude towards the press or however cooperative his response to the international community’s war against terrorism.”

An edit in THE NATION: “The perception building is that this referendum was no more credible than that of Zia’s. It should also dispel the impression that the President has any large vote bank at his disposal…”

Writes Karl Vick in the WASHINGTON POST.  “Washington has been studiously equivocal on the referendum, noting the general’s promise to hold parliamentary elections in October. Critics, however, say Musharraf appears no more disposed to surrender power than Pakistan’s three previous military governments.”  

General Pervez Musharraf has won the referendum. It comes as no surprise. In fact the outcome was obvious since the time the referendum decision was first announced. The real test will come when Musharraf will find his newly tailored robes either too large for him or too many. He is both President and COAS. He is a soldier fast turning into a politician. An edit in THE NATION sums up the politician’s progress. “…Led by the exigencies of power, he (Musharraf) compromised over some of his vital reforms. To win the referendum, he decided among other things to rely on politicians with seedy reputations and on political groups widely known for their parochial, if not altogether secessionist, outlook and militant style of politics. Like politicians he made announcements during the campaign writing off agricultural loans, subsidising power supplied to tube wells, distributed land, and waived electricity charges of certain categories of domestic consumers in Karachi. While these measures might bring him votes, his opponents accuse him of resorting to gimmicks. As the general had condemned political parties for lack of tolerance, many had expected he would show forbearance for his opponents. But his uncompromising attitude to Ms Bhutto and Mian Nawaz would indicate to many that he too had decided to follow their footsteps.”

From now till the October polls is reality test time for Musharraf. Points an edit in THE DAWN (April 30) to the pitfalls ahead. “The stated aim behind his (Musharraf’s) continuation in office is the protection of the economic and political reforms, specially devolution, which his government has launched over the last two and a half years. Nevertheless, under the 1973 Constitution, it is the prime minister and his aides who have the power to formulate and execute domestic and foreign policies; the president has only a limited role in this sphere. What happens if the prime minister who assumes office as a result of the general election in October sees the reforms in a different light? The president will have no way to change the direction of the prime minister’s policies, unless Gen Musharraf decides to amend the Constitution to get more powers for himself. This is easier thought of than done. Normally, amendments should follow the course laid down in the Constitution. But there is all the possibility that the national assembly that comes into being after the October election may not oblige the general. As a precaution against such a possibility, we may see more amendments through presidential ordinances, including the one relating to the National Security Council, which would subordinate the civilian authority to the military.”

An analytical piece by Farhan Bokhari in THE NEWS is another pointer to the problems ahead. “Is expediency replacing principle in the political life of a ruler who vehemently promised to end Pakistan’s so-called ‘sham’ democracy with an ideal one…General Musharraf’s most formidable tasks include not only tackling the many reforms, which have not even been launched aggressively yet, but also undoing the perception surrounding the campaign trail…Adding to the controversy surrounding the referendum…lies the reality of continuing uncertainty surrounding the political system” And further: “Notwithstanding his many claims to fame, the reality of Pakistan’s political power play of today is not entirely  different from that seen under previous military regimes.”

And it is Najam Sethi who feels the pulse of the times: “ The fear is that in the ensuing tussle for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis in the run-up to the October election, Gen Musharraf may be tempted to postpone the elections on some pretext or other, or rig them massively to thwart his opponents. In either case, the real loser will be Pakistan.”

Musharraf’s own genius and sense of invincibility might turn out to be his biggest enemy. His own actions resulting from tragic flaw or hamartia would decide the course of future events in Pakistan.

New Delhi, May 7, 2002

.