Premium
This is an archive article published on September 5, 2003

No order in Pervez’s House

In October 2002, amid much international fanfare, General Pervez Musharraf held controversial elections and inaugurated a Parliament after a...

.

In October 2002, amid much international fanfare, General Pervez Musharraf held controversial elections and inaugurated a Parliament after a three-year interval. Musharraf’s happiness with his handpicked parliament has been shortlived.

Although two former Pakistani prime ministers were disallowed from contesting the election and the ‘‘King’s Party’’ emerged with the largest number of seats, the country has descended into constitutional crisis. At the root of the crisis is Musharraf’s inability to learn from history that parliamentary leaders are won over rather than kicked. In August, he declared that if parliament refused to rubber stamp his edicts, the Legal Framework Order, it would ‘‘go’’.

This equation is clearly wrong. Musharraf’s rule was based on the promise to hold elections resulting in a sovereign parliament. It was not endorsed by the country’s supreme court to enable one man to force his views on an entire nation.

Story continues below this ad

Parliament is resisting efforts to muffle the people’s voice. It regards the edicts as a backdoor attempt at a presidential system. It worries about the National Security Council bringing defence and foreign policy issues under the control of the armed forces.

Yet parliamentarians assess too that Musharraf is making empty threats. Pakistan’s political history shows a president who dissolves the national assembly ends up going — though Parliament comes back after fresh elections. Former presidents General Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari are cases in point.

The present parliament was elected following a supreme court decision to hold the Constitution in abeyance till new legislative assemblies were chosen. Earlier dictators too had to bring their LFOs to parliament for ratification. General Yahya Khan didn’t bother. That action resulted in the break-up of Pakistan. There are some positive aspects to Musharraf’s LFO. These include larger representation for women as well as joint electorates for minorities. Parliament will certainly approve them.

On their part, the controversial issues include Pakistan’s governance by an incumbent army chief, the president’s power to dismiss assemblies, reform in the election commission and elections, labour rights and other laws. Among the issues to be debated could be Musharraf’s decision to grant himself a $1 million house as army chief and a second house as president.

Story continues below this ad

He has extended this privilege to former presidents. To check this, parliamentarians asked for a list of Musharraf’s edicts they are expected to ratify. That list is yet to arrive.

For months the Jamali administration and political parties negotiated the LFO issue. For some reason, General Musharraf did not want these negotiations to succeed. Even while they were on, he spoke of dissolving Parliament to frighten legislators.

This is an old trick, played by General Ayub Khan in the 1950s and General Zia in the 1980s. Parliamentarians are wise enough to call Musharraf’s bluff. He needs Parliament for indemnity for overthrowing the constitution.

But he would prefer a subservient Parliament. He misses the time when he could change laws at will through edicts. His word was law. Now he finds placating his own allies, not to speak of the Opposition, a frustrating task. If he doesn’t keep them happy, his allies stay away from Parliament, breaking the quorum. Neither does he want to give up the army post. He wants everything his own way.

Story continues below this ad

In retrospect, the lack of leadership qualities is unsurprising. Precisely this absence in Musharraf caused the Kargil adventure. Islamabad had to withdraw unilaterally after 3,000 soldiers lost their lives. He joined the War against Terror without consulting his National Security Council or cabinet. He didn’t feel the need to build a consensus.

Musharraf’s legacy is economic and political suicide, three near wars with India, deteriorating relations with Iran and Afghanistan, renewed violence in Karachi, the Okara Military Farms scandal — peasants losing their lives because Musharraf’s cronies want land.

Musharraf’s promise of clean politics is in shreds. Recently the press reported a senator had offered to purchase 12 MPs for the general. This manipulation of the electoral process is self-defeating. The more Musharraf fights parties, now united in the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, the weaker he gets.

As the Bombay blasts once again shake the fragile peace initiative between India and Pakistan, as renewed Taliban activity hurts Pak-Afghan relations, Musharraf remains mired in a domestic constitutional crisis. He is at loggerheads with the country’s two major parties, the leaders of which he fears. The question may justifiably be asked: is he the right person to lead Pakistan?

(The author is former prime minister of Pakistan)

Story continues below this ad
CORRECTION
The article ‘The Money Flows to Emerging Markets’ that appeared in this page on Thursday was mistakenly attributed to The New York Times. It was from The Wall Street Journal.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement