The special court set up to try former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf for high treason indicted him on March 31, for subverting the constitution on November 3, 2007 by imposing emergency in the country. The moment was seen as epoch-making. Bringing a former dictator in the dock can deter the undemocratic forces to carry out any misadventure against the democratic system in the future.
The indictment also defied the assumptions, for the time being, that Musharraf has the backing of some powerful friendly countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, in the form of sovereign guarantees, and his former institution, against any such move by the government that can culminate in his conviction.
In fact, the indictment of Pervez Musharraf was preceded by important political events on international political stage that can reshape alignments and alliances in global relations. It seems that the United States has revised its Middle East strategy of direct military intervention to back and support local actors. America, though speaking hot initially, did not repeat its Iraq and Libya strategy in Syria.
[quote]After several visits by Saudi royals, the government took a U-turn on its Middle East policy[/quote]
Besides, the Middle East also witnessed a thaw between Iran and America and its European allies on the nuclear issue, which commentators consider an unprecedented move, that, in the case of some quid pro quo, can cause regional realignments.
In such a changing strategic scenario, Saudi Arabia had no choice but to shoulder the responsibility to take the lead role in Syria to protect its vital strategic interests in the region. And that requires unflinching support from its traditional allies in the region.
After several high level visits by the Saudi royals, the government of Pakistan almost took a U-turn on its Middle East policy by issuing a joint communiqué with the defense minister of the Kingdom demanding an interim government in Syria. This is in sharp contrast to the policy stance of the previous elected government.
More importantly, the initiation of peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban consolidated Nawaz Sharif’s position in the (extreme) right wing constituency once again. The dialogue also gave breathing space to the strategic planners to align their strategy according to the post withdrawal and post-election scenario in Afghanistan.
The decade long militancy gave more space to the military in the power equation. In the past, the military and its right wing allies were riding on the perceived threats, and Taliban provided a more direct raison d’etre to dominate and cow the civilians.
For that matter, a paradigm shift is a prerequisite for such transformation and civil-military balance. In the existing state structure, the civilians only have space for give and take within the ambit of a meticulously drawn circle. The vague civilian narratives, particularly of the government, show that we still are far from any such paradigm change.
Many in the military and its political allies did not agree with Musharraf’s political thinking and considered him as deviating from the traditional approach of the military, particularly of the Ziaul Haq era. Hypothetically, the permission (implicit or explicit) for his limited bashing might not necessarily be interpreted as a love for the constitution and democracy, but could be a message for future deviants.
However, one should not be over-optimistic that mere indictment or trial can deter adventurists in the future by targeting an individual for a selected misadventure. Transformation of a country like Pakistan requires strong civilian institutional grounds, having capacity to ensure good governance.
Currently, the military is not even willing to tolerate criticism in public for its political role. As a defense force having no political role, the army can claim to be absolved from unnecessary criticism, but it has ruled the country directly for half of its life and had been pulling the strings behind the curtain holding firm control on policy matters for many more years, and because of that it will face criticism and scrutiny from the citizens. But the civilians lack the capacity to frame clear narratives yet, such as that they are trying Pervez Musharaf, the president of Aall-Pakistan Muslim League, not Pervez Musharraf, the military general.
If the Musharraf trial is an outcome of some sort of give and take, it will be better for the government not ride on borrowed horses for short term political mileage.
Talimand Khan is a research fellow in the Sustainable Development Center, Islamabad
Email: talimand.khan@gmail.com
Twitter: @talimandkhan1
The indictment also defied the assumptions, for the time being, that Musharraf has the backing of some powerful friendly countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, in the form of sovereign guarantees, and his former institution, against any such move by the government that can culminate in his conviction.
In fact, the indictment of Pervez Musharraf was preceded by important political events on international political stage that can reshape alignments and alliances in global relations. It seems that the United States has revised its Middle East strategy of direct military intervention to back and support local actors. America, though speaking hot initially, did not repeat its Iraq and Libya strategy in Syria.
[quote]After several visits by Saudi royals, the government took a U-turn on its Middle East policy[/quote]
Besides, the Middle East also witnessed a thaw between Iran and America and its European allies on the nuclear issue, which commentators consider an unprecedented move, that, in the case of some quid pro quo, can cause regional realignments.
In such a changing strategic scenario, Saudi Arabia had no choice but to shoulder the responsibility to take the lead role in Syria to protect its vital strategic interests in the region. And that requires unflinching support from its traditional allies in the region.
After several high level visits by the Saudi royals, the government of Pakistan almost took a U-turn on its Middle East policy by issuing a joint communiqué with the defense minister of the Kingdom demanding an interim government in Syria. This is in sharp contrast to the policy stance of the previous elected government.
More importantly, the initiation of peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban consolidated Nawaz Sharif’s position in the (extreme) right wing constituency once again. The dialogue also gave breathing space to the strategic planners to align their strategy according to the post withdrawal and post-election scenario in Afghanistan.
The decade long militancy gave more space to the military in the power equation. In the past, the military and its right wing allies were riding on the perceived threats, and Taliban provided a more direct raison d’etre to dominate and cow the civilians.
For that matter, a paradigm shift is a prerequisite for such transformation and civil-military balance. In the existing state structure, the civilians only have space for give and take within the ambit of a meticulously drawn circle. The vague civilian narratives, particularly of the government, show that we still are far from any such paradigm change.
Many in the military and its political allies did not agree with Musharraf’s political thinking and considered him as deviating from the traditional approach of the military, particularly of the Ziaul Haq era. Hypothetically, the permission (implicit or explicit) for his limited bashing might not necessarily be interpreted as a love for the constitution and democracy, but could be a message for future deviants.
However, one should not be over-optimistic that mere indictment or trial can deter adventurists in the future by targeting an individual for a selected misadventure. Transformation of a country like Pakistan requires strong civilian institutional grounds, having capacity to ensure good governance.
Currently, the military is not even willing to tolerate criticism in public for its political role. As a defense force having no political role, the army can claim to be absolved from unnecessary criticism, but it has ruled the country directly for half of its life and had been pulling the strings behind the curtain holding firm control on policy matters for many more years, and because of that it will face criticism and scrutiny from the citizens. But the civilians lack the capacity to frame clear narratives yet, such as that they are trying Pervez Musharaf, the president of Aall-Pakistan Muslim League, not Pervez Musharraf, the military general.
If the Musharraf trial is an outcome of some sort of give and take, it will be better for the government not ride on borrowed horses for short term political mileage.
Talimand Khan is a research fellow in the Sustainable Development Center, Islamabad
Email: talimand.khan@gmail.com
Twitter: @talimandkhan1