Musharraf’s nemesis
All this will hopefully initiate process of redefining civil-military relations with better clarity, for greater good.
The writer is a public policy analyst and former interior secretary
“Analysis is paralysis.” These resounding words were uttered by none other than the erstwhile president of Pakistan, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, in his characteristic hubris. This was while addressing a select gathering on a temperate afternoon in Lahore, way back in 2002. The venue was the plush lawns of the governor house where a carefully chosen gathering of intelligentsia was ensconced under an extended shamiana. The audience listened in rapt attention to the soliloquy of the former ruler. He was at his best, riding on the crest of a wave unleashed in the post-9/11 scenario that proved to be a boon for his fortunes. The West had lifted sanctions against Pakistan, external debts were rescheduled, coalition support funds and other military and financial assistance were creating more financial space.
While addressing the audience, the general maintained that all through his life, he had believed in taking plunges and expressed his wariness of thinking too much before taking a decision. In hindsight, it is revealing indeed of the kind of mindset that was steering the destiny of this country for a number of years, preferring plunges over deeper thinking and not looking beyond the obvious. Reflective of his words were the events of October 1999, when he wrapped up civilian rule and suspended the Constitution. He knew well about the red lines that he had crossed while subverting the constitutional process but at that time, we had a pliant judiciary, and later on, a compliant parliament to indemnify his acts.
In late 2006, a close associate of the former president, who held an important public office, wanted my take on the scenario that would emerge after the elections that were due in 2007. Before I could say something, he hastened to add that the president will be in a secure position in the follow-up term, too. The associate basically wanted me to carry out my analysis keeping that scenario in mind. I told him that I did not foresee any difficulty for the president or for the system he had crafted. There was, however, a caveat — any ‘unknown variable’ could trigger a chain of events, which might cause trouble for the ongoing dispensation. The president’s associate was not inclined towards buying my reasoning; even with the possibility of an unknown trigger, he believed that the system had developed sufficient capability to absorb such an eventuality.
Soon after, in March 2007, General (retd) Musharraf took another plunge and drove the country into yet another crisis. This time, he locked horns with the superior judiciary, which had granted him permission to contest the presidential election conditionally, as a petition over the issue of his eligibility was pending in the Court. A day before the expected judgment, he cast aside ‘reason and analysis’ and struck at the superior judiciary, plunging the country into an uncertain phase. The rest, as they say, is history.
In 2008, after his resignation as president in view of the impending impeachment, he went into self-exile and led a sedate life abroad. But then, Facebook cast a web of deception around him and he decided to take another plunge and returned despite saner advice to the contrary. He had been under an illusion created by his Facebook fans that a ‘Pakistani version of the Arab spring’ was awaiting him. Instead, as he landed, a string of criminal cases were waiting for him. His controversial proclamation of the emergency, the provisional constitutional order and the dismissal of senior judges in November 2007 were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2009 and these measures had not been indemnified by parliament either.
Musharraf surrendered before the magistrate’s court in Islamabad, which is a good sign. It is hoped that all the pillars of state will ensure that he gets a fair trial. He should be given every right to defend his position, after which, the rule of law should prevail. The whispers of tensions amongst the pillars of state should be debunked. Calls by Musharraf’s legal team regarding the opening of a Pandora’s box should be ignored. All this will hopefully help initiate a process of redefining civil-military relations with better clarity, for the greater good of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 25th, 2013.
While addressing the audience, the general maintained that all through his life, he had believed in taking plunges and expressed his wariness of thinking too much before taking a decision. In hindsight, it is revealing indeed of the kind of mindset that was steering the destiny of this country for a number of years, preferring plunges over deeper thinking and not looking beyond the obvious. Reflective of his words were the events of October 1999, when he wrapped up civilian rule and suspended the Constitution. He knew well about the red lines that he had crossed while subverting the constitutional process but at that time, we had a pliant judiciary, and later on, a compliant parliament to indemnify his acts.
In late 2006, a close associate of the former president, who held an important public office, wanted my take on the scenario that would emerge after the elections that were due in 2007. Before I could say something, he hastened to add that the president will be in a secure position in the follow-up term, too. The associate basically wanted me to carry out my analysis keeping that scenario in mind. I told him that I did not foresee any difficulty for the president or for the system he had crafted. There was, however, a caveat — any ‘unknown variable’ could trigger a chain of events, which might cause trouble for the ongoing dispensation. The president’s associate was not inclined towards buying my reasoning; even with the possibility of an unknown trigger, he believed that the system had developed sufficient capability to absorb such an eventuality.
Soon after, in March 2007, General (retd) Musharraf took another plunge and drove the country into yet another crisis. This time, he locked horns with the superior judiciary, which had granted him permission to contest the presidential election conditionally, as a petition over the issue of his eligibility was pending in the Court. A day before the expected judgment, he cast aside ‘reason and analysis’ and struck at the superior judiciary, plunging the country into an uncertain phase. The rest, as they say, is history.
In 2008, after his resignation as president in view of the impending impeachment, he went into self-exile and led a sedate life abroad. But then, Facebook cast a web of deception around him and he decided to take another plunge and returned despite saner advice to the contrary. He had been under an illusion created by his Facebook fans that a ‘Pakistani version of the Arab spring’ was awaiting him. Instead, as he landed, a string of criminal cases were waiting for him. His controversial proclamation of the emergency, the provisional constitutional order and the dismissal of senior judges in November 2007 were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2009 and these measures had not been indemnified by parliament either.
Musharraf surrendered before the magistrate’s court in Islamabad, which is a good sign. It is hoped that all the pillars of state will ensure that he gets a fair trial. He should be given every right to defend his position, after which, the rule of law should prevail. The whispers of tensions amongst the pillars of state should be debunked. Calls by Musharraf’s legal team regarding the opening of a Pandora’s box should be ignored. All this will hopefully help initiate a process of redefining civil-military relations with better clarity, for the greater good of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 25th, 2013.