During past five years of Musharraf’s reign, a vast range of questions have emerged regarding the national integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan vis-à-vis the War on Terror. It has been argued by the liberals that the general did what was in the best interest of the nation. Conservatives on the other hand disagree vehemently, arguing that the man has been nothing short of an American puppet. What does an ordinary Pakistani think? Will people come out on streets against his policies? Will ordinary people gather on streets if he ever gets overthrown by someone else? Time will surely tell us the answers when these things eventually happen but till then one can only speculate as to how this country of ours will tackle the challenges that the future poses for it.
Some cynics argue that Pakistan’s political history is marred with numerous instances of manipulation and deception by the military and its allies in political sphere. The fact that we, as a nation, have failed so far to develop a national identity only strengthens their claim. Islamabad has taken so many u-turns in its domestic and foreign policies over the years that it is almost impossible to predict its course over the next few months let alone next few years. The cynics have also often questioned the fact that Pakistani government has never taken a firm stand on any of the sensitive issues; be it the issue of Taliban or the problem of Khalistan movement. They ask why Musharraf or any other Pakistani leader for that matter can’t pull off an Ahmedinijad or Hugo Chavez. Why is it that our foreign policies have more often than not been dictated by Washington?
One does not need to go further back in history to unveil the harsh truths behind this phenomenon. Musharraf, a military man by profession, did not come into the presidential office through a landslide elections victory nor did he have international support and mandate to carry on. What he did have was the precedence of three military coups, a rapidly deteriorating domestic politico-economic sphere and highly volatile relations with India. These factors combined with the lack of leadership qualities in political structure of the society meant that nobody came on the streets to demonstrate against this takeover. Standing alone in the international community after the Kargil fiasco, Islamabad needed another Soviet monster to emerge in Afghanistan to help it gain international support and recognition. The monster did rise but not from Moscow this time around but from Afghans themselves in the shape of the 9/11 tragedy. Lo and behold! What fortunate turn of events for Musharraf and his aides! Pakistan was once again the centre stage of an ideological battle between ‘extremist’ Islam and the ‘free world’. What else could Islamabad have wished for! A military dictator’s regime was legitimized overnight throughout the world; a dictator who comes down hard on the people who don’t respect country’s legal and constitutional structures; Bajaur incidence being a case in point. It is imperative to mention that I am all for punishing those who don’t have a regard for country’s constitution. But I only ask what constitution are we talking about here? Is it the one that Musharraf overhauled completely to legitimize his government? So going by the same logic, if the people in the Northern Areas and Balochistan are being penalized for disregarding the constitutional and legal framework, what prevents Musharraf from receiving such punishment? Double standards I guess!
The question that arises then is that despite all these things why the people of Pakistan have not taken to streets to express their displeasure. What prevents our government from taking a respectable and sovereign stance vis-à-vis Washington’s ever-increasing demands? The answer to the first question is difficult to ascertain given the complex nature of the Pakistani polity. However the answer to the second question is somehow related to the first one. It is significant to note that people’s reluctance to protest on the streets has never legitimized any government neither has it often managed to overthrow a military regime. Musharraf and his political allies know that majority of population does not support Islamabad’s increasing subservience to Washington. They know that they can’t bring out millions of people from their homes like Ahmedinijad or Hugo Chavez can to support their policies. Consequently they look outwards for support. Tragically this phenomenon is not taking place for the first time. Throughout our history our leaders have looked to legitimize their governments through foreign help instead of focusing on gaining domestic support through resolution of domestic problems such as poverty. Sadly our leaders have more often than not opted for an easy way out to prolong their respective reigns rather than focusing on the long term development and growth of the country. Musharraf is no different from our earlier leaders and that is why we have no Ahmedinijad or Hugo Chavez who have opted for domestic legitimization of power through equitable growth and development of their people.
