Musharraf as a Military Ruler

Among the four generals that have seized power and imposed a dictatorial rule over Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf was relatively the most liberal and outspoken. He was full of zeal, bursting with energy during the earlier years of his taking over to reform Pakistan and had committed that he would hold free and fair elections within two years. But when a military ruler tastes power, he abandons it voluntarily, despite their earlier public commitments to do so. General Musharraf was no exception. I still recall as I wrote an Op-ed for Dawn a few months after his coup that the General should hold elections soon as he had promised. As expected, he did not appreciate my candid advice as he thought he had a major reform agenda to implement that would take a few years to implement.

General Pervez Musharraf, during the early years of coming into power, gave considerable freedom to the press and electronic media. But soon he realized that this policy was undermining his authority and reverted to exercising control over it. More significantly, like his predecessor military rulers he assumed total power to himself. He justified the takeover by citing the prevailing chaotic conditions in the country in which the economy was in a free fall, institutions had been deliberately trampled and the country had to be saved. He also tried to garner support from the armed forces by alleging that the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif was intentionally weakening the armed forces.

In a move to placate any strong movement for reversion to civilian democratic rule General Musharraf like Pakistan’s first military ruler General Ayub Khan introduced the local bodies system, with a view to gain support at the grassroots level and maintain semblance of a democratic culture. To evade any possible resistance to his takeover, General Musharraf did not abandon the Constitution but held it in abeyance, although for all purposes it was never restored in its original form during his period as president. He also brought in a large number of serving and retired military officers in the President Office and various civilian departments, which understandably was not appreciated by the civilian officer class.

The reaction of the world to the coup, especially of the US and of other Western countries was very negative. The U.S. President Bill Clinton, who was on a visit to South Asian countries, cut short his visit to Pakistan and spent only a few hours. Even that he used not to interact with Musharraf but addressed the nation through television.

When Musharraf decided to revert to civilian rule, he appointed Shaukat Aziz as prime minister, who was a banker by profession and stayed in the PM Office from 2004 to 2008. This was not the first time that Pakistan had brought in finance ministers and advisors from abroad, usually the U.S., it has been a huge disappointment. Not that the ones chosen from within country have done any better.

President Musharraf, although the architect of Kargil war, once in the seat of the President realized the importance of having a peaceful relationship with its neighbours especially with India. Driven by this quest, as President, Musharraf travelled to Agra, India where he met Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to discuss the relations between the two countries and more importantly the status of Kashmir. Although no progress was made but certainly a thaw was achieved that set the stage for subsequent meetings. But as luck would have it, the war on terror launched by the US changed the entire global dynamic and the Kashmir dispute was relegated to the background. Now with India racing ahead as an economic power, wooed by the US and acquiring strategic importance, the chances of it negotiating with Pakistan on Kashmir and other major issues is remote. So, not much has changed in Pak-India since Musharraf was in power, in fact, relations have become more tense with communication lines cut off.

General Musharraf’s decision to join the US-led coalition to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda during the Afghan conflict was unavoidable despite the severe blowback that Pakistan had to face and continues to suffer in the form of different manifestations. Millions of Afghan refugees along with Al Qaeda and several militant groups found refuge in Pakistan. It is a moot question whether a more representative government would have dealt with the consequences more effectively and would have been in a better position to prevent the militants from flooding KP and parts of Balochistan. It was very complex situation as some para-military forces were hesitant and even opposed to any action against militants as many amongst them had tribal connections or sympathy for certain groups.

Every military ruler after a while seeks legitimacy and Musharraf was no exception. The referendum that he held in April 2002 to validate his presidency and reinstate the Constitution with modifications fell far short of meeting acceptable standards. However, officially it was stated that he had support of nearly 90 percent of the voters. This provided the legal cover for him to continue as President for an additional five years. Similarly, the elections that were held a few months later the party that he had formed PML (Q) was able to win more seats than other parties contesting the election.

The lack of participation of the major parties and credibility of these elections remains questionable. One factor common with military rulers has been that they yearn for legitimacy even if they have to make a departure from a more open and verifiable contest. More significant was the way General Musharraf manipulated elections when in 2007 he was seeking re-election while he remained the military chief. This was challenged by the opposition parties and simultaneously the lawyers started a movement and the Supreme Court objected to it on constitutional grounds.

Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri
Former minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan

Under President Musharraf, Pakistan became a very viable country. Internationally, Pakistan’s status rose high. Our growth was very good - in one particular year, it reached 6.8 percent. Even President Musharraf’s critics will agree that he was the only leader who came almost near to settling the Kashmir dispute. At the Non-Aligned Summit in Malaysia in 2003, which was attended by leaders from all over the world, two leaders were particularly prominent. One was Cuba’s Fidel Castro and the other was Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. At the end of the Conference, I managed to convince President Musharraf that he should also address the press conference that was to be held because this would be a very good opportunity for him to gain world media attention. He was reluctant at first but then he agreed. When the media learnt that he was one of the speakers, they rushed in like mad. The place was so full that there were even people sitting on the ground. There were many other world leaders also present there, such as President Hosni Mubarak and Prime Minister Vajpayee. These are irrefutable facts that history will judge him with.

As an act of desperation, Musharraf dismissed Chief Justice Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, only to reinstate him as the lawyer’s movement picked momentum. In October the electoral college comprising of national assembly and provincial parliaments voted in giving him a five-year term while the opposition abstained. Later, fearing that he was losing the constitutional battle he declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and placed restrictions on the media. He reconstituted the Supreme Court with handpicked appointees that endorsed his re-election. But as soon as he shed his uniform and sworn in as a civilian president, it became more difficult for him to exercise his authority. After Benazir Bhutto’s assassination elections had to be postponed but when they were held in middle of February 2008, his party the PML-Q fared poorly, way behind the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League -Nawaz (PML-N). General Musharraf had no option but to resign.

Although all the four generals that had seized power in Pakistan excelled in their profession, there are lessons to be drawn from how the four coups in which the military seized power had a sad ending. There are examples of General Dwight Eisenhower and General Charles de Degaulle. The generals excelled as military commanders and were successful civilian presidents. More importantly they had followed the constitutional path.