CURRENT TOPICS: Assessing Musharraf

The other day "Newsweek" published an article on Pakistan titled "Mighty Musharraf." It praised Musharraf as a staunch ally of the West especially of USA in the war against "terrorism," but went on to run him down for accumulating personal power and not allowing democracy to flourish.
I for one believe that this assessment is not accurate. Unlike previous incursions of the military in civil administration, at least Gen. Musharraf did not stage a coup to displace democracy for personal greed. Nawaz Sharif's unwise action in summarily dismissing the Army chief and endangering his as well as commercial passengers' lives by denying permission to the plane to land in Karachi, created conditions forcing the military to take over. The state of the country, particularly of the economy, was so bad that the government in power had to be removed. The very fact that all shades of opinion in the country welcomed the move proves that the change was justified.
There is no doubt that in the modern world, democracy is recognised as the best form of government and there is no room for the soldiers to interfere, whose job is to safeguard the frontiers. However, in the developing countries circumstances do arise necessitating army action and Pakistan is no exception. Governments are meant to administer the country in the interest of its citizens. In our 57-year existence we have been ruled half the time by the civilians and half by the military. Our experience has been that from the practical point of view there is nothing to choose between the two.
Going by the counts of law and order, corruption and economic development I would go to the extent of maintaining that we have been better off during the totalitarian rules. Moreover all our coups have been bloodless and the dictatorship never brutal. However, it does not mean that we should opt to discard democracy, for in the long run even if not perfect it is preferable to dictatorship, however benevolent. The reason being that absolute power ultimately leads to absolute corruption and individual freedom cannot be sacrificed at any cost.
Coming back to Musharraf, he has been at the helm of affairs in Pakistan during the most crucial period in our history, following 9/11 in 2001 which turned the world topsy turvy. At the time Pakistan was economically bankrupt, friendless, in confrontation with India and its survival was at stake. I wonder if any democratic leader could have safeguarded our national interest as Musharraf did by taking decisions as he did, e.g. it would have been impossible for Nawaz Sharif to abandon the Taliban which proved to be a turning point in our foreign policy.
Though a soldier by profession and training, Musharraf is endowed with sound common sense and sincerity of purpose. On taking over the reins of the country he admitted to himself that while much was needed to be done to transform the country with a strong hand there was no escape from ultimate revival of democracy. But he refused to give a timeframe as the task before him was Herculean and it was difficult to predict the duration required to accomplish it. With a view to gain legitimacy in the eyes of his domestic and international critics he accepted the Supreme Court's directive to restore democracy at the end of three years. Having no confidence in the breed of the politicians in the country and their unsavoury background, he set about to take certain safeguards before holding the elections.
Now things started going wrong. The constitutional amendments in the form of Legal Framework Order were seen as an attempt to perpetuate military domination and deny full sovereignty to the Parliament. He also attempted to influence directly or indirectly to get elected parties and individuals supportive of his policies and programmes. He could not weed out the established parties like PPP and PML-N but to weaken them supported Mullahs and the turncoats from PPP and PML-N. A king's party under the flag of PML-Q came into existence which secured a thin majority to form the government but MMA emerged as a strong group which sits in the opposition with PPP/PML-N and causes headaches for the smooth running of the administration. Political instability prevails.
Musharraf would be completing five years by next October. It has been a hectic period during which he has faced one crisis after another and has survived, the most difficult of which was eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with India with real possibility of a ruinous nuclear war. Without surrendering to the threat, he kept his nerves. India realised the possibility of mutual destruction and relented. The crisis proved a blessing in disguise. Vajpayee and Musharraf appreciated the futility of military confrontation and jointly launched a peace process which may or may not resolve the Kashmir conundrum but at least the option of war is now a taboo.
Within the country Musharraf has succeeded in achieving economic stability but on the political front he remains unstable. Come December and the uniform issue would make or mar his future. In the meantime foreign and domestic terrorism continues to keep him on the tenterhooks. In the recent weeks the security agencies had a breakthrough in apprehending quite a few foreign and domestic militants and Wana operations in South Waziristan is making slow but steady headway. This has prompted Musharraf to claim that the terrorists are on the run, which I would take with a pinch of salt. Al--Qaeda is no longer a lone organisation of bin-Laden. It has spread out into many like-minded offshoots, with the sole objective to trounce America and its allies. In Pakistan they thrive because of anti-Musharraf fundamentalists' support and I doubt if they can be crushed or even neutralised so easily.
In spite of all his faults and failures, I do not doubt Musharraf's sincerity of purpose. It is another matter that his perception of "National Interest" may not coincide with that of his opponents.