Military Coup In Pakistan: Challenges And Possible Implications
by Harun Rashid
Pakistan's military has done it again. On 12th October, the army chief General Pervaiz Musharraf dismissed the democratically elected government of Pakistan through unconstitutional means as A tit-for tat response for his dismissal as army chief by the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan reportedly remained calm and there was no demonstration or opposition to the dismissal of the government at the time of writing. All the vital installations were under control of the military and the deposed Prime Minister was reported to be under custody. The movement of troops, according to a reporter, took place only in the Punjab province, Mr. Sharif's province and where the brother of the dismissed Prime Minister Sharif rules as the Chief Minister.
It took almost six hours for General Musharraf to come on national television to announce the dismissal of the government and the reasons for doing so. He assured the people in Pakistan that all of the armed forces were behind him. However, the reasons for such a delay remain a question for many political observers.
The Military Coup And The New Leadership
In his first address, the army chief did not announce his broad policy nor did he indicate the time-frame for the restoration of democratic rule in Pakistan. He seems to justify the coup on the grounds of preventing the splitting and politicising of the army, by the political leadership. The army is seen as the only "viable institution" in the country. He also warned outside forces not to take any advantage of this crisis in Pakistan and the message seemed to have been targeted at India and to some extent the US .
The General looked sombre and serious but a little uncomfortable in the TV footage. The reason could be the unusual circumstances which led to the coup. According to the army chief, he was in Sri Lanka when he was suddenly dismissed from his position, although he was assured some days ago by the deposed Prime Minister Mr. Sharif that he would continue to hold the position of army chief and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff . His plane was not allowed to land in Pakistan. it was at that point of time that the army moved in to remove the government.
The threat of a military coup in Pakistan has existed for some time and the US State Department made it clear to the Pakistani armed forces that they disapproved of any unconstitutional interference in the removal of the civilian government. At the same time the US cautioned Nawaz Sharif's government not to suppress the views of the opposition expressed in a democratic manner. The fact that the coup took place while the army chief was not in Pakistan seems to demonstrate that the plan of the coup was prepared neatly and could be executed at a moment's notice.
Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in an interview with BBC television and CNN on 12th October said that she understood the reasons for the coup but hoped that the military regime would announce the date of the election of a civilian government in Pakistan. It appears that she was faced with a choice between two evils-- Nawaz Sharif's rule vs military rule in Pakistan. To her, it appears that the lesser evil is the military regime if it declares a time frame for an election.
Why A Military Coup In Pakistan ?
Since the departure of General Zia in 1988, nasty political feuds between two former Prime Ministers--Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif- continued. Each one was pursing a political vendetta against the other while in power. The civilian elected governments were not allowed to run for their full terms and they were dismissed by the President on allegations of corruption and mismanagement in accordance with the constitution. ( this power of the President no longer exists as it was deleted from the provisions of the constitution by Mr. Sharif).
Mr. Sharif returned to power in 1997 with a huge majority, and since has dismissed the Chief Justice and forced the President to resign. He also dismissed the former army chief. The military remained a by-stander to these events. These developments led many Pakistani civilian leaders to believe that democracy had been able to consolidate its roots in Pakistan and an elected government would not to be interfered with any more by the armed forces.
Most of the civilian leaders perceived that Pakistan, after all, was a difficult country to govern, given the complexity of the issues facing the country coupled with the crippling economy. The earlier military rule had never successfully addressed the fundamental problems facing the country. The civilian leaders thought that the military rule in Pakistan had been discredited and the armed forces had become professional enough not to disrupt a civilian government. This perception proved to be misplaced and naive.
The political leaders in Pakistan failed to realise that democracy could not take its roots firmly until and unless the average person attained their economic rights. Democracy must provide economic dividends to the people, otherwise democratic governments do not mean anything to them. Democracy does not mean only casting votes at periodic elections. It means participation of the people in the economic and political decisions within the country. Unless ordinary people have vested interests in the democratic regime, democracy tends to be fragile and liable to crumble. The change of the constitutional government to an unconstitutional one does not mean anything to the ordinary person on the street. When the mighty political leaders fall, the people remain quiet, often happy.
Although Pakistan's people had democratically elected governments for the last 11 years, the governments did not undertake fundamental socio-economic reforms. The care-taker government of Moeen Quershi, a former World Bank official, instituted a reform program in 1993, aimed at solving many of Pakistan's fiscal problems. However, the elected governments never bothered to introduce the key land reforms to break the cycle of poverty, as the party in power required the support, money and muscle-power of the feudal lords. As a result, the fate of ordinary people in the rural areas did not improve. Rather, the rich were becoming richer and poor poorer. Pakistan's social order was unsettled by corruption, law and order problems, sectarian violence and a worsening drug problem
Mian Nawaz Sharif appeared to have squandered his golden opportunity to address many key issues confronting the country. The people expected that Mr. Sharif, a businessman, would use his expertise to devote his time to strengthen Pakistan's economy. Instead of doing so, he became gradually dictatorial in running the government and attempted to muzzle the media and the opposition, pushing the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto into exile after being convicted of corruption by a court. Ms. Bhutto called the deposed Prime Minister Sharif "a fascist" and a person who destroyed the judicial independence and the rule of law in Pakistan
Lately Mr. Sharif's government has been accused of violations of human rights and the mismanagement of the economy. Law and order was seen as being in a shambles. Shootings and killings were the order of the day, in particular in Karachi. Pakistan's currency has been devalued substantially, leading to high inflation. Some say that the country faces bankruptcy through the governments inability to secure the necessary IMF loans. How much the fragile economic situation is due to the conduct of its nuclear test last year in response to India's tests remains a matter of debate.
Sharif's controversial Sharia law divided civil society. Pakistan's pursuit of wider regional influence via its support for the ultra-orthodox regime of Taliban in Afghanistan appears to have gone nowhere. In fact its support to the Taliban has resulted in strained relations with Iran. The Kargil incident was negative for Mr Sharif, as it was perceived as A national humiliation when the Islamic militants had to withdraw from the Indian side of the Line of Control. Pakistan was increasingly facing uncertainty, political turmoil and instability. The unmistakable signs of a nervous government were visible when peace demonstrations were not allowed and opposition senators were arrested in Karachi and then put in police vans, an image which was then broadcast by the international media. This image added fuel to the persistently critical views about the Sharif regime from Ms. Bhutto in London.
Possible Implications Of The Coup ?
No one can deny that one of the effects of the Afghan war is that the forces of Islamic orthodoxy or theocracy have taken root in Pakistan. Some analysts believe that many of the army officers support the tenets of Islamic "fundamentalism". The alleged support to the Talibans in Afghanistan by a section of the top-echelons of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) could be cited as an example.
It is not known or it is to early to say definitively what colour the military regime will take. If the regime supports theocracy, the rift between the Islamic moderates and the fundamentalists has the potential to widen social strife, exacerbating the conditions for political instability. A view prevails that under the fundamentalist military government, the liberal democratic values and the fate of the leader of the Pakistan People Party, Ms. Bhutto will suffer. There is a view that the human rights situation, in particular gender equality, may continue to deteriorate. Orthodox Sharia law may be enforced in Pakistan, endangering social cohesion and stability.
One of the fall-outs of the coup appears to be that whatever rapport or agreement Prime Minister Vajpayee of India was able to establish personally with Mr. Nawaz Sharif or with his government has disappeared from the political environment. The new Indian Government will look at the military government with great unease and suspicion. The military regime does not reflect the will of the people and its actions do not have the sanction of the people of the country. Often it has been seen that to maintain its power the military regimes embark on adventurism or political opportunism. There lies the perception of danger for India's security.
Furthermore, Pakistan is a nuclear power with ballistic missiles in its possession. Nuclear technology and weapons now fall entirely into military hands. This scenario must be uncomfortable to India, in particular and to the West in general. India has already put its army on "high alert" because it suspects that the military regime might be tempted to cross the Line of Control in Kashmir in an effort to restore Pakistan's pride which was wounded by the withdrawal of Islamic militants from Kargil under pressure from Shariff's government. At the same time it will be able to divert the attention of the people of Pakistan from the domestic situation and to unite them under patriotic sentiments on the Kashmir issue.
Challenges for the military regime.
Military coups are out of fashion in the present international political environment and are not seen kindly by the international community. Almost all the military regimes have disappeared from Latin America and Africa. The military leaders had to come to power through a fair and free election. Nigeria is the most recent example in Africa.
One of the reasons for the unpopularity of military regimes is that after the end of the Cold War, it has become a uni-polar world and the US does not need to prop up military regimes to support the its policy against Communist regimes. Russia has distanced itself from contesting the might of the US as its ideology is not that much different from that of the US. In these circumstances a military coup is not acceptable to the major powers. Under the rules of the Commonwealth ( the organisation consists of 54 countries) Pakistan is likely to be automatically suspended from membership because of the coup. It is relevant to note that Nigeria was suspended when its civilian government was toppled by a coup.
The immediate challenge for the military regime is to restore Pakistan's crippling economy, and it will need international support to do this. The availability of IMF and World Bank loans will depend on the views of the US and other donor countries. Under US domestic laws, a military government which has emerged from a coup is denied access to financial support or re-scheduling of its debt. This law was enacted with the aim of curbing the practice of toppling elected governments in developing countries by the military. The European Union ALSO may be hesitant to accede to Pakistan's request for monetary assistance if the US adopts a negative attitude towards Pakistan.
It appears that in this negative environment, the military leadership will have to explain to the satisfaction of the donor countries the circumstances under which the civilian government in Pakistan was removed. In fact a convincing case will have to be made that the government of Nawaz Sharif was not democratic and that it encouraged policies leading to fundamentalism, sectarian strife and corruption, and that the people of Pakistan were suffering under the dictatorial rule of the Sharif government. The military leadership came to rescue Pakistan's disintegration as a last resort. The fact that the people of Pakistan remained peaceful after the coup was a reflection that the dismissal of the government was accepted by the people.
Another important ingredient FOR the credibility of the regime will be to announce the time-frame of holding a free and fair general election to restore the civilian government. The military leadership should not be seen to form a political party of their own and contest the election. They should be perceived as a care-taker government and as being ineligible to seek election in future.
Another challenge to the military regime is not to directly or indirectly pose a security threat to India either by their words or by their deeds. If they can develop a working relationship with India, it will provide some credibility to the regime. However India is most likely to be reluctant to work out a deal on Kashmir or on other key bilateral issues with an unelected government in Pakistan, which is not accountable to the people.
Conclusion
The coup does not appear to be the immediate result of the withdrawal from Kargil or of the introduction of Sharia law. It has its genesis in the dismissal of the army chief by the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a political climate which was not favourable to Mr Sharif. Mr Sharif had dismissed the chief justice and former army chief with greater ease on earlier occasions, but seemed to have misread the political power equations in the country and ignored his own political fragility when he dismissed the army chief for a second time. Political analysts maintain that all the tell-tale signs of a coup were there, but he seemed to have closed down his political antennae due to the "arrogance" of power. India and Pakistan are seen as a sharp contrast in so far as democracy is concerned. It is an irony that on the day Mr. Vajpayee is sworn to the office of the Prime Minister of India after an election, the civilian government is toppled in Pakistan by the military. The contrast could not be more vivid. As a result, the image of Pakistan is likely to suffer greatly as will its influence in the comity of nations. In any bilateral issue, India will have an edge over Pakistan. The friends of Pakistan hope that the military regime will be temporary and that a time-schedule for a free and fair election will be announced soon so that the security of the sub-continent is not destabilised.
About the author
Mr. Harun Rashid, a former Bangladeshi career diplomat, was Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. He served as Bangladesh Ambassador to Australia, Philippines and Nepal. He was Additional Foreign Secretary of the government of Bangladesh. Since his retirement, he has been attached to a law firm in Canberra and writes regular columns in English dailies on regional and international affairs in Bangladesh. His book on Indo-Bangladesh Relations will be soon published in New Delhi.