POLITICS-PAKISTAN: Heard It All Before?

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON, Oct 19 1999 (IPS) - If statements by Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf since he seized power one week ago sound familiar – they are.

The British-trained career soldier led a bloodless coup Oct. 12, Pakistan’s fourth military take-over in 52 years of independence. And, like two of his predecessors, Musharraf claims popular support for his ouster of an elected but unpopular government, in this case that of businessman-turned-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Like the others before him, Musharraf assumes the mantle of reformer – holding kleptocrats accountable, rewarding patriots and leading the country to what he calls “true democracy.”

The experiences of his forebears will prove instructional as the army chief of staff sets about establishing his bona fides as national saviour.

As political scientist Hasan-Askari Rizvi noted in his classic text, ‘The Military and Politics in Pakistan, 1947-1986′, Musharraf’s predecessors “registered a number of initial gains – i.e., restoration of law and order, resumption of normal economic activities, some measure of efficiency in administrative routines and relatively moderate socio-economic reforms.”

“However, when it came to the formulation of a viable participatory framework for political action and the creation of an infrastructure for ensuring socio-economic justice, their performance was no better than their civilian predecessors’,” Rizvi wrote.

Musharraf, in his first broadcast after the coup, railed against the civilian elite’s “self-serving policies…which have rocked the very foundation of the federation of Pakistan.”

So did Gen. Mohammed Ayub Khan, who took over as Chief Martial Law Administrator 41 years ago this month and assumed the title ‘Field Marshal’ during 11 years in power.

Ayub, in an Oct. 8, 1958 broadcast to the nation, lambasted “self-seekers who, in the garb of political leaders, have ravaged the country or tried to barter it away for personal gains.”

The army had resisted calls to take over but ultimately was forced to step in, Ayub said, because “there was no alternative to it except the disintegration and complete ruination of the country.”

Last week, Musharraf told his 140 million compatriots: “The armed forces have been facing incessant public clamor to remedy the fast-declining situation from all sides of the political divide.”

The military finally agreed to intervene as “the last remaining viable institution in which all of you take so much pride and look up to, at all times,” he said.

Musharraf added in an Oct. 17 national address: “The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.”

The putsch’s purpose also was to reverse a situation in which “our economy has crumbled, our credibility is lost, (and) state institutions lie demolished,” he said.

Or, as Ayub lamented four decades ago: “A perfectly sound country has been turned into a laughing stock.”

Like Musharraf today, Ayub evoked democratisation and assured the nation “in unequivocal terms that our ultimate aim is to restore democracy but of the type that people can understand and work.”

Pakistan had gained independence from Britain on Aug. 14, 1947 and became a republic on Mar. 23, 1956. Just over two years later, its parliamentary constitution was abrogated by Ayub, who ruled principally through martial law until riots and mass strikes forced him to surrender authority to Gen. Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan.

“I am left with no option but to step aside and leave it to the Defence Forces of Pakistan, which today represent the only effective and legal instrument,” Ayub wrote to his successor on Mar. 24, 1969.

His final address to fellow citizens, delivered the following day, echoed his maiden broadcast: “The situation in the country is fast deteriorating. The administrative institutions are being paralyzed. Self-aggrandisement is the order of the day. …Every principle, restraint and way of civilised existence has been abandoned.”

Once again the economy and administration lay in tatters, after a period of brisk but politically bruising industrialisation.

“The nation has to be pulled back to safety and normal conditions have to be restored without delay,” Yahya told Pakistanis on Mar. 26, 1969. “The armed forces could not remain idle spectators of this state of near anarchy. They have to do their duty and save the country from utter disaster.”

Yahya imposed martial law but sought to assure citizens that “I have no ambition other than the creation of conditions conducive to the establishment of a constitutional government.”

He then allowed Pakistan’s first ‘one man, one vote’ elections in December 1970, ushering in seven years of uneasy civilian rule.

The polls resulted in a stand-off between Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who won in what was then West Pakistan, and Mujibur Rahman, who carried East Pakistan. Bhutto prevailed and the eastern territory seceded, becoming Bangladesh.

Bhutto, an aristocrat who headed the Pakistan People’s Party, himself imposed and oversaw martial law between Dec. 1971 and Apr. 1972.

He governed until Jul. 5, 1977, when four months of unrest – worsened by accusations that he had rigged the country’s Mar. 7 elections – culminated in a bloodless coup by Pakistan’s most notorious military ruler, Gen. Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq.

Zia arrested Bhutto, his cabinet and the political opposition, became leader of an administrative military council and, in July 1978, assumed the presidency. He later executed Bhutto.

Like Ayub and Yahya, and now Musharraf, Zia asserted that the military had been reluctant to step in, had done so only to avert disaster, and enjoyed popular support for its reform agenda.

“I genuinely feel that the survival of this country lies in democracy and democracy alone,” Zia affirmed before the nation and anxious Western donors whose aid and loans kept the economy solvent and the military – which consumed more than half of Pakistan’s budget – flush with cash.

He would not appoint a prime minister until 1985 – following elections from which political parties were barred – and held supreme power as president until his death in a mysterious plane crash Aug. 17, 1988.

Political analysts have been quick to draw distinctions between Musharraf and the other generals – especially Zia.

The latest coup leader is an immigrant in a military dominated by natives; he is considered a thinker and religious moderate – labels that never could have been attached to the fiercely Islamist Zia.

Given all the eerie similarities, the past again could be prologue.