:: Inder Malhotra

Pervez leaves behind no legacy, just a bad taste

Inder Malhotra

AT LONG last, wailing and flailing, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has gone. Had he resigned immediately after the February 18, 2008 elections, when it became clear that a vast majority of Pakistanis wanted him out, people might have praised the manner of his departure. But that is no longer the case. In fact, he had every intention to slug out the impeachment proceedings, as he and his cohorts kept saying till the last minute. But he knew that he did not have the numbers in the national and provincial assemblies to be able to defeat the motion.

The key question is: What next — for Pakistan and, more immediately, for Mr Musharraf personally? It is clear that neither the Pakistan Army nor the United States wants Mr Musharraf to be humiliated. So a "safe exit" for him appears likely. But a deal has yet to be cut. There are differences within the ruling coalition. Pakistan People’s Party leader Asif Zardari is agreeable to letting Mr Musharraf go with dignity. But Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister Mr Musharraf overthrew in 1999, tried, sentenced to life imprisonment and consigned to a "dungeon" in Attock Fort, understandably wants to treat the former general in the same manner. Revenge and vendetta are an integral part of the Pakistani system. However, Mr Sharif might yet be persuaded.

For the US is not the only foreign power applying pressure on behalf of the deposed dictator. So is Saudi Arabia, a major benefactor of Pakistan. Indeed, the intelligence chief of Saudi intelligence has been in Islamabad for some days. If, as generally expected, Mr Musharraf does find refuge in Jeddah, the wheel of fortune would turned full circle. Mr Musharraf would meet the same fate he had inflicted on Mr Sharif nine years ago!

Some are wondering why the former Pakistani President is not going to the United States where his son and brother are living already, especially since he agreed to fall in line after 9/11 and has been America’s "most favoured ally" in the "war on terror". The solution to this riddle is that though he might not be as unacceptable to the US as the Shah of Iran was at the end of the 1970s, Washington would prefer him to stay elsewhere. For one thing, he would be safer in Saudi Arabia than in Chicago or some other American city. For another, the US administration, privately displeased with Mr Musharraf because of his "duplicitous" policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan, does not want to face the criticism of Pakistani people that America is "coddling a discarded dictator".

From reports emanating from Islamabad it is clear that Mr Musharraf decided to throw in the towel when both the Army and his family — including his son Bilal, who visited him the other day — advised him to do so. It is no secret that Mr Musharraf had a meeting with the Army and intelligence top brass late on Sunday night. One of the participants in the meeting quoted him as saying, "You have abandoned me; I am abandoning you."

No one in this country should either gloat over Mr Musharraf’s end or mourn it. India should stay out of Pakistan’s internal problems completely, as external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee has sensibly said. It was wrong of national security adviser M.K. Narayanan to declare that Mr Musharraf’s exit would "create a big vacuum" in Pakistan. Let no Indian, therefore, start applauding Mr Musharraf’s fall. In any case, India has enough problems of its own, as horrendous happenings, day after day, in both Jammu and the Kashmir Valley sadly underscore.

As for Pakistan collectively, the start of the post-Musharraf era would not by itself solve any of the existing problems or usher in political stability and economic progress. Understandably, there are fears about the future within Pakistan, especially over the course of action against militancy and extremism as well as in the field of economy. Throwing politeness to the winds, it must be said that the coalition government is neither very cohesive nor impressive in its performance. The government is controlled by Benazir Bhutto’s widower, Mr Zardari, and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is a mere figurehead. Differences between Mr Zardari and his coalition partner Mr Sharif are acute. In any case, Mr Sharif is credited with the plausible view that the sooner elections are held again the more certain would be his party’s victory.

It was against this backdrop that Mr Musharraf sang his swan song for nearly an hour. His valedictory address to the nation, though at times rambling, was carefully crafted. Not all the claims he made on his own behalf were unfounded. But he vastly exaggerated his achievements and wholly slurred over his failures and glaring flaws.

From the time of his takeover to about 2004, he did serve his country well. For a military dictator he ran a regime that was relatively liberal. But then, things began to change for the worse. He reneged on his solemn promise that he would give up his military uniform by 2005. Last year, when he insisted on getting "re-elected as President" by the old, dying assemblies, he undertook that he could get this election endorsed by the newly-elected assemblies. This promise also went the way of the previous one. As the challenge to his autocratic rule increased, so did his tyranny, exemplified by his abortive attempt to sack an independent Chief Justice, his imposition of emergency in November 2007 and the dismissal and house arrest of 62 Supreme Court and high court judges, including the same Chief Justice he hated so much.

His determination to hang on to the presidency for a full five-year-term was what dictators have always done — from Ferdinand E. Marcos of the Philippines and General Suharto of Indonesia to Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Alberto Fujimori of Peru. In Pakistan itself, Ayub Khan was given the boot by his handpicked Army chief Yahya Khan who himself got buried under the debris of defeat in Bangladesh. Zia-ul Haq was killed in a mysterious plane crash. It is time all leaders, dictators and democrats, learn to go while the going is good.