In October Pakistan will elect a new Parliament, supposedly as part of its journey back toward democracy and civilian rule. But after Wednesday’s sweeping constitutional changes announced by President Pervez Musharraf, the question has to be asked whether Pakistan will ever again be a proper democracy in the accepted sense of the term, let alone a parliamentary one. At the very least, with his announced intention to remain in office for the next five years, establish a new supra-parliamentary institution — the National Security Council — to work alongside him, and granting himself the power to dismiss parliaments and appoint the chiefs of the armed forces, Musharraf appears to be moving the country toward a presidential system of government. But even with an executive president, where does democracy fit in with what he and the military envisage for Pakistan’s future? He talks about "guided" democracy: but what does that mean?
When he announced the changes, many observers might have drawn comparisons with Turkey, another country where the armed forces see themselves as the defender of the state, if necessary against itself. The big difference, however, is that the Turkish Army does not have the ambition to rule. It intervenes when it thinks things are going seriously wrong, removes those it sees as the cause of the problem and then retires. Pakistan’s Army, however, which has run the country for more than half of its 55 years of independence, seem to want to rule, or at least a permanent right to sit at the top table and interfere.
That comes out clearly in Musharraf’s plans. While there is nothing inherently undemocratic about the president having the right to dissolve Parliament and appoint the heads of the armed forces — they happen in many parliamentary democracies — or indeed in moving Pakistan to a presidential system of government, the same cannot be said of the proposed establishment of the National Security Council. Graced, as it would be, with the presence of the three armed forces chiefs and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, it is a charter for permanent military interference. The civilians in the body are there for window dressing. The real decision-makers will be the president and the military chiefs, with the prime minister and ministers firmly under their collective thumb.
Whether Pakistan moves to a presidential system of government is not the issue; it may well be the right move, providing a political stability that has so long eluded the country. But Pakistanis will not tolerate a presidential system that is not accountable. They will put up with Musharraf for the time being, even for the next five years, because he is not tainted with corruption and wants the best for the country. But with his talk of "guided" democracy, and handing the top brass an official role in politics, he is going about things the wrong way. Pakistanis are deeply wary both of the military and their civilian politician: together they have done so much to destroy the country over the years.
What Pakistanis want are honest leaders, but accountable ones. Musharraf’s plan does not provide for that. The changes he has imposed look suspiciously like an attempt by the military to retain power indefinitely. That is not democracy.
