No Broad Brush Please

Columnist A RASHID says we must not overlook detail.

Bherh chaal (herd mentality) is understandable about the followers but not the leaders and least about the opinion makers. There have been odd conjectures from different quarters, every now and then, since General Pervez Musharraf took over the Government, drawing comparisons, at times between him and General Zia , and at other times between him and Field Marshal Ayub Khan or General Yahya Khan etc. But since the announcement of referendum, there appears to be a sort of consensus amongst the newspaper columnists of the country that General Pervez Musharraf’s stint is no different to the past military dictators. And that his overall strategy is pivoted around strengthening and perpetuating his personal rule without any regard to the road map given by him for restoration of democracy in the country. The irony is that the most popular analogy being drawn is between him and General Zia ul Haq because of referendum being the common factor. An honest analysis of the respective commitments of both the generals would otherwise reveal heavens of difference between the two.

If a person’s actions are any guide to his personality, the period of past two and a half years of General Pervez Musharraf’s governance have proved him radically different to any past rulers, leave alone the military dictators.  F M Ayub Khan and General Zia ul Haq’s periods, well documented, lie in the sanctuaries of history. It is a matter of common knowledge that Ayub Khan’s period drew its poetry from the culture of industrialization of the time and his own family, thanks to Ghandara industry, became one of the leading pioneers of commerce and industry in the country.  Ayub Khan never stood committed before the nation or the world for any timetable of reversion to democracy. He had, at the very outset scrapped the 1956 constitution and gave his own constitution to the country in 1962. He headed a political party and evolved a political system and a democracy of his own brand, that is, the presidential form of governance. The hallmarks of his stint were corruption and nepotism. He was booted out from the national scene by the street power of the Pakistani nation, in 1969, during the culmination of celebrations of so-called ‘Decade of Reforms’. General Pervez Musharraf, on the other hand, is working according to the mandate given to him by the Supreme Court of the country. The journey through the road map of democracy, as sanctioned by the Supreme Court, is being intimately monitored by the entire democratic world.

General Yahya Khan’s period hardly merits any mention or comparison because there are no two views about him. He was ushered into the driving seat, by virtue of being the top man in uniform, from one door of Pakistan, in a political vacuum, who only supervised dismemberment of the country and, as a consequence, was thrown out from the other door. He was unfortunate to be at the helm of affairs at a time when the country was in the middle of maturing crisis. His tryst with destiny did not augur well. The deluge of crisis heavily outweighed his personality. Generals Pervez Musharraf and Yahya Khan, therefore, have no similarities by any stretch of imagination.

General Zia ul Haq, after violating his own proclaimed promise of  the return to democracy through general elections, within 90 days, never put forward any pretence of hastening a return to pluralism. He was very frank in asserting that his constituency was the armed forces of the country and he, therefore, does not derive strength from any other institution, leave alone democratic institutions. He was very honest in enunciating his intentions of perpetuating his personal fiat and is rather on record to have said on more than one occasion that at least 15 years will be required to hand over power back to a civil government. The most glaring aspect of his period is that his political music drew its poetry from the religious parties in general and from Jamaat-i-Islami in particular. Apart from amassing filthy riches for himself and his family he legitimized corruption during his rule by looking the other way while his generals and lackeys were on the rampage. Although there has always been a tendency with the political elite of Pakistan to use the religious card to advance own political agendas, General Zia went an extra mile and mutilated the constitution of the federation by inserting certain repressive provisions in the name of religion. This tampering completely destroyed the democratic fabric of the 1973 constitution on the one hand and provided effective tools to suppress dissent and opposition of all kinds, on the other. Drawing a parallel between him and General Pervez Musharraf is, therefore, as naive as it is preposterous.

Instead of giving a broad-brush treatment to the subject of military takeovers, it would be in the fitness of things to understand the character of the present military dispensation vis-a-vis the past ones. F M Ayub Khan and General Zia ul Haq took over the reins of the Pakistan Government with the tacit approval of the American government. This was an era of cold war when America and her allies were supporting dictatorships throughout the third world countries. These gentlemen were, therefore, under no international pressure to immediately revert to democratic governance. Besides, due to lack of amenability, corruption and misrule were the hallmarks of those dispensations. Lip service though was done to good governance but the overall tenor and style of governance remained of plunder and promotion of personal agenda. As opposed to that, General Pervez Musharraf is heading a military government when all the international policemen (USA and EU etc) and usurers (IMF, WB, ADB and other donor countries), are standing with their respective swords brandished over the head of General Pervez Musharraf. Everyone insisting on an immediate road map to democracy.

During two and a half years of his rule he has demonstrated total immunity to financial temptation. He has also succeeded in keeping his team also clean for which the nation must stand beholden to him for this unusual favour that no leader has done to the country since decades. The most horrifying phenomenon about reversion to a democratic order without checks and balances is the memory of 1988-99 decade of democracy, during which the parasites of PPP and Muslim League had literally bled the country white. The past military dictators only employed ploys to perpetuate their personal agendas whereas the dilemma of General Pervez Musharraf is to ensure avoidance of return to the impasse of October 1999. He has, therefore, no choice except to obtain a lease for himself through a national referendum, which is a substantive method of ascertaining the national consensus. Most of the past rulers have always trumpeted their love of religion and in the process have done irredeemable damage to the country. Pervez Musharraf is the first person who has condemned fundamentalism openly and has made significant efforts to undo bigotry and religious intolerance. General Zia ul Haq systematically established the network of ethnicity and religious intolerance and General Pervez Musharraf is the only intrepid leader who has chosen to take on those holy cows. Drawing a parallel between Pervez Musharraf and Zia ul Haq or Ayub Khan is, therefore, most uncharitable, naive and out of place.

The end should always justify the means. If the referendum exercise of General Pervez Musharraf can ensure smooth transition from a military dispensation to a democratic order, with checks and balances in place, guarding against the plunder and misrule of 1988-99, the noble objective stands achieved. We must be patient to grant that time to the exercise and unleash our criticism only after that. Crying wolf due to past phobias is not in keeping with the norms of intellect and healthy criticism.