By K. Subrahmanyam, IANS
In the 60 years of its existence, Pakistan has been under military rule for 32 years in three spells under four generals – Gen. Ayub Khan, who made himself a Field Marshal, Gen. Yahya Khan, Gen. Zia-ul Haq and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Each spell of military rule had its distinct flavour and characteristics.
Ayub Khan experimented with basic democracy. Zia-ul Haq Islamised Pakistan. Musharraf coexisted with the assemblies elected in rigged polls and till he imposed emergency Nov 3, his military rule allowed full freedom to the media.
Ayub Khan fought a war with India in 1965 that ended in a stalemate. Yahya Khan fought a civil war in East Pakistan and a war with India that ended up with Pakistan losing half of its population – which seceded as Bangladesh. Zia-ul Haq joined the US in supporting the covert war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan and in the process sowed the seeds of Islamic extremism and jehadi terrorism. Musharraf fought and lost the Kargil war with India and as he shed his uniform, he talked of the Pakistan Army being overstretched because of its operations in the tribal areas.
When the first military takeover happened in 1958, it was with the blessings of the US. Those were days when the thesis of modernising the role of the military in developing countries was a favourite theme of US academics.
In 1971, a defeated and disgraced Pakistan Army had no choice but to hand over power to Z.A. Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) who commanded a comfortable majority in West Pakistan in the only free and fair elections held in that country.
The transition from Zia-ul Haq’s military rule to democracy was caused by the as-yet-unexplained blowing up of his aircraft. The election was not wholly without interference from the army.
It was in 1988 that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul discovered Nawaz Sharif and sponsored him to fight the election against Benazir Bhutto. Still, Bhutto won more seats but was still short of a majority.
The US mediated between Bhutto, the Pakistan Army and Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the army’s candidate for the presidency. A power sharing arrangement was worked out that excluded all military affairs, the nuclear programme, foreign policy and intelligence from the purview of the prime minister.
Between 1988 and 1999 both Bhutto and Sharif had two abridged tenures each as prime minister with two interregnums of interim non-party governments to conduct elections. Though Bhutto accepted her nominal prime ministerial tenures, she came into a clash with presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari and got dismissed by them mainly because she did not have the army’s support.
Sharif, on the other hand, got Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari out with army support. Though he was originally sponsored for political leadership by the army during his second tenure, he was able to replace the president, the chief justice and the gentlemanly army chief Gen. Jehangir Karamat. His success went to his head. When he dismissed Musharraf, the army struck back and deposed him.
This time, the transition from military to civilian rule has become even more complex than it was in 1988. Not only is the US ostensibly involved but so also is Saudi Arabia. Without Saudi intervention, Sharif, deported back to Saudi Arabia with the full approval of the Saudi intelligence chief Sep 10, would not have been back in Islamabad along with two armour-plated Mercedes-Benz cars for his use.
This would indicate a radical shift in Saudi attitude in the course of some 10 weeks. There are reasons to believe that Saudi help had been enlisted by the US after the visit of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponto to Islamabad and the US emphasis on Musharraf shedding his uniform and holding free and fair elections.
Without the participation of the two mainstream parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), elections will have no credibility. The US has influence over Bhutto and presumably sought Saudi help to persuade Sharif to allow his PML-N party to participate in the elections.
Musharraf has announced the emergency will be lifted Dec 16. Sharif’s nomination papers have been rejected along with that of his brother Shahbaz. Bhutto has made it clear she is keen on contesting the elections. It is to be seen whether Sharif can afford to boycott the elections under those circumstances. On the other hand, his party contesting the elections as the main opponent of Musharraf may provide it an electoral advantage.
It is difficult to predict at this stage, to repeat the words of Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, a former army chief, whether at the counting stage of the elections the “angels” would intervene – his euphemism for rigging. Unlike in the past, the army does not prefer Sharif this time.
The US and Musharraf are likely to be more hopeful of working with Bhutto. Though her PPP is the larger party, since she has a “colloborationist” image, many believe the PML-N may do better than before, as the hero of resistance to army, especially after the rejection of Sharif’s nomination papers.
This is the first time an army chief has shed his uniform, got himself elected in a legally dubious manner by dying assemblies and hopes to continue to be president with additional powers, more than the 1973 constitution provided. As was demonstrated in the cases of Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari, this will be possible only if the army backs the civilian president.
In that sense, new army chief Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani becomes a crucial player in Pakistani politics. In the coming days, we shall, therefore, be seeing two external players, the US and Saudi Arabia; two major political parties; a number of minor players (other political parties); and two other institutional players – the newly elected President Musharraf and the army chief.
Pakistan also faces a very serious security situation in terms of militant insurgency and terrorism. In these circumstances, will the Pakistani people have an opportunity to exercise their franchise fairly and freely for the second time in their 60-year history?
(K. Subrahmanyam is a well-known analyst on foreign policy and security issues. He can be contacted at [email protected]).