There seems to be no limit to the manoeuvring that is going into the effort to ensure that President Pervez Musharraf continues in his august office. Also transparency, at least of a certain kind, does not seem to be a problem anymore. Consider the latest statement to emanate from the hallowed halls of the presidency: The president has solemnly declared that he will forego the office of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) if he is re-elected as president and that he will take off his uniform only after he is elected. This is a remarkable, conditional, offer. It amounts to announcing the cost to those concerned of not electing him. There must be few attempts made in so straightforward a manner to divorce the exercise of elections from its spirit.

The announcement comes at a time when a full bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Rana Bhagwandas, is hearing petitions questioning the president’s right to hold dual offices. While the announcement can be seen as a ‘concession’, there is a problem of credibility here. Few have forgotten the promise made by President Musharraf as part of the deal struck with the MMA under the 17th amendment to doff his uniform by the end of 2004. And even though Ms Benazir Bhutto has opted for the transition route, she has made it clear that the PPP will not elect him in uniform.

There is also the other problem of the president’s desire to be elected by the sitting assemblies. Those supporting the president’s quest may argue that there is nothing in the constitution that bars the president from being elected by these assemblies. But whatever the finer points of the law and constitution pertaining to this matter, there are two basic issues that are difficult to ignore. First, if the assemblies themselves have a mandate spanning five years, how can they invest a president with a mandate for ten? And second, what happens to the principle of equity if the sitting assemblies vote twice in their tenure to elect the president while the assemblies sworn in after the elections are deprived of this right altogether? While the president had sought to legitimise his continuation as president through a referendum in 2002, the sitting assemblies gave him a vote of confidence in 2004. Not least, there is the issue under Article 63 of the Constitution of being rendered ineligible to be a member of
parliament (or the president) if a period of two years has not elapsed since a person ceased to be in government service.

To further confound matters, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) took it upon itself, or was directed, to issue a notification on September 10, made public only subsequently, that changed the rules so that the two-year condition under Article 63 is not applicable to the president. Whatever the rationale provided by the commission, it is difficult to argue that this change has not been effected simply to facilitate one person’s candidature. It could be that the inability of the PMLN and the APDM to bring their supporters out on the streets in the face of large scale arrests and intimidation, emboldened the Musharraf team. The hope is that the courts will sort out the mess but it has to be kept in mind that their role is to interpret the law, not make it.

In any case, for someone so concerned about Pakistan’s image as President Musharraf seems to be, given his frequent expositions on this issue, one wonders if he ever stops to think about what is being done on the ground. Near the top of the list has to be the spectacle that was the Nawaz Sharif deportation — not that any state can actually exile its own citizens. The Saudi intelligence chief holding a press conference, in effect announcing that Nawaz will be taken back, and the script unfolding to plan was certainly the stuff of banana republics.

Meanwhile, the over 200 soldiers kidnapped by militants at the beginning of the month are still being held in South Waziristan. More recently, a number of commandos lost their lives in a suicide bombing attack at the SSG mess at Tarbela Ghazi. And the month of September has also seen a shortage of flour despite a bumper wheat crop.

The court’s ruling in the coming days can either open the way for Musharraf to get elected by these or the next assemblies. Or, as we have been warned, if Musharraf is left with no ‘continuation’ (not exit) strategy then there is always the emergency or martial law option. Taking the last first, instead of khaki democracy we may be left with the khaki and no democracy. This could help keep Musharraf in place for some time but will isolate Pakistan and aggravate the dangerous and growing fissures within. Nawaz Sharif’s bid has in part demonstrated the difficulties of forcing the issue on the streets or, in other words, the problem with the transformation option.

And this brings us to the transition route that Benazir Bhutto has set out on. Even if everything gets resolved, we have a scenario in which the PPP ends up sharing power with the PMLQ at the centre and in Punjab and with the MQM in Sindh. Add on a relatively strong opposition and President Musharraf in civvies presiding over it all, presumably with the help of an energised National Security Council. One would have to summon a huge amount of optimism to bet on such an arrangement lasting beyond a few months, even if it could be put in place. If the country comes first, then the only way out is via free and fair elections under a genuinely independent election commission, without preconditions and without political blackmail. Only then can Pakistan begin the real task of getting itself out of the profound crisis which it now faces at more than one level.

(Abbas Rashid is a freelance journalist and political analyst whose career has included editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers)