ISLAMABAD, 3 July 2004 — In Pakistan the establishment’s experimentation with “guided democracy” continues. Its latest manifestation was the removal of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali and the appointment of PML President Chaudary Shujaat Hussain, to be later replaced by the current Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz.
As expected, this change prompted endless and conflicting claims and interpretations.
The opposition’s politically motivated lament over Jamali’s departure made Jamali appear to be an icon of democracy. The public assertions from the pro-Musharraf parliamentarians included one by a minister from an anti-Benazir PPP minister. In a television discussion he equated Jamali’s departure with Margaret Thatcher’s. He clearly forgot Gen. Musharraf’s role in the in-house change.
Chaudary Shujaat, meanwhile, cutting across claims from all sides, openly admitted that the president played a role when he “advised” the party, and the party accepted his advice. The fact however is that the removal of Jamali was stage-managed so as to avoid any immediate backlash.
Instead, the establishment Pakistan Muslim League wore the look of one happy family as Chaudary Shujaat, Jamali, Shaukat Aziz and Humayun Akhtar all sat together in a row.
Now the opposition parties accuse the pro-Musharraf parties of undermining democracy by becoming “puppets” of the establishment. The pro-Musharraf parties attack the opposition parties for their pat policies. Hybrid truths, combining fact and fiction, abound.
For example, it is said that it is the first sign of a maturing democracy when the members of the ruling party manage an amicable settlement of the Jamali issue; that hidden hands are behind the “democratic show” insofar as the ruling parties are concerned; that Pakistan’s current parliamentary democracy is facing a crisis; that Musharraf is only patronizing the establishment-created and supported PML; that the elected members are playing a substantive role in national policy-making, in legislating or in running the federal government.
All this once again raises the key question: Where is Pakistan’s latest experiment of guided-democracy headed? There are no simple answers. Observations range from “It’s yesterday once more” to “This is a suitable form of democracy for Pakistan” and “It’s a one-man dictatorship,” and “It’s time to accept the reality of the establishment’s power. Others say that what Pakistan needs most is economic development and everything else is secondary.
Pakistan’s current military ruler has openly become involved in parliamentary democracy. Musharraf, supported by his military and civilian aides first re-engineered the political landscape.
His first success was the passage of the 17th Amendment with the support of the MMA, when a two-thirds parliamentary majority accepted him as president until December 2004. Today through various quid-pro quo arrangements he also enjoys a political base.
Clearly Gen. Musharraf has expanded his power base. A combination of factors including virtually handing over Sindh to the MQM, awarding ministerial slots to the anti-Benazir PPP, and the use of the accountability stick have “won” him political allies.
Musharraf’s own personality, his good intentions and his skilful management of the foreign pressures has also helped him gain support within the Parliament. Today Musharraf is also a political referee sorting out inter-party and intra-party disagreements. In the game of parliamentary democracy Musharraf has outmaneuvered the opposition. Some will argue that with the support of the entire state structure that was no difficult task.
These facts notwithstanding, the real issues remains unaddressed. The critical issue of the rule of law, the credible and effective functioning of state institutions, the Election Commission, the judiciary and the police force have still to be tackled.
Without addressing these issues Musharraf may win the power game inside and outside Parliament, but he will not have served the people of Pakistan or genuine democracy. Justice is no more readily available to the average Pakistani citizen, nor is the quality of life of the average citizen any better today. Inside Parliament, committees do not work effectively and the speaker of the National Assembly is essentially a PML man.
The onus to alter all this clearly rests on the man who wields virtually unlimited and legally unaccountable power. Many students of Pakistan’s political history argue that a general can lead no meaningful change nor can he become the architect of genuine democracy and a reformer of the state structure. The jury is still out on the general-president.
(Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based security analyst and fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center.)
