Pakistan: The Military Is The Glue, Everything Else That Goes On Is Irrelevant
Stratfor:
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf finally pulled the trigger Nov. 3 after many weeks of keeping the world guessing. He declared a state of emergency, essentially took control of the judiciary, arrested a group of dissidents and shut down private media outlets (including access to foreign media). The immediate issue was the role of the Supreme Court in freeing 61 individuals charged with terrorism. The deeper issue has to do with the role of the military in Pakistani society.
The Pakistani military has been the guarantor of the state from the beginning — and therefore has been, in the long run, the arbiter of Pakistani politics. Musharraf’s coup in 1999 simply made clear Pakistan’s underlying reality. Pakistan is a deeply divided entity (it is not quite reasonable to call it a nation) presided over by a state. Whatever the formal character of the state, be it democratic, military, Islamist or otherwise, the greatest threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity comes from the divisions among the country’s various ethnic groups. Pakistan requires a unified military to ensure cohesion.
Whatever demonstrations there are, whatever politicians may say, whether elections are held or not — so long as military cohesion holds, the military will be the glue of society. Much of the rest that goes on is irrelevant.
Two things are therefore interesting and important. First, there is no visible sign of dissent within the military concerning Musharraf’s move; thus far, the corps commanders or their subordinates do not appear to be resisting. Second, there is no indication of any mass resistance to the state of emergency. Nov. 5 will be the test — so far it has been the weekend — but by all reports any demonstrations have been scattered, small and quickly suppressed.
The question is why Musharraf made this move. To a great extent it had to do with his own political survival rather than survival of the regime. There was great pressure on Musharraf to take off his uniform — to leave the military and become a civilian leader. However, Musharraf understands what many others do not: His power and legitimacy come from his role in the military, not in spite of it. By giving up his uniform, he would be leaving the chain of command and thereby turning ultimate power over to his successor in the military. However carefully picked, that successor would command the army, and in due course would hold ultimate political power as well.
Musharraf was not going to allow that to happen. He was not prepared to leave the stage just yet; he planned to stay in uniform and put off the election. The challenge from the Supreme Court was simply the catalyst for Musharraf’s deeper decision. His calculation was that, following the immediate shock to the Pakistani polity, things would settle down and he would continue to hold power. There is no indication thus far that he was wrong about this.
The United States scolded Musharraf publicly (and likely privately as well), but in truth Washington has only two interests in Pakistan. First, it wants a state that will fight Islamists along the Afghan border. Second, it wants a government that will hold Pakistan together and prevent internal collapse. In that sense, whatever the moral sentiments expressed by the administration, the United States has only one issue with Musharraf’s move: that it had better not fail.
We suspect that the army remains united and will support Musharraf, and therefore we expect the move to work. Musharraf (or someone like him) will continue to govern. But that doesn’t bring us closer to answering the fundamental question: what exactly is this entity he is governing?
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Interesting to see such a calm analysis while everyone else who reports on this is spazzing out and screaming that the sky is falling. Drama queens.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am….and I’ll be damn, not one suicide bomber killing innocent people. The F*ing tribal animals are not ready for a Democracy where he can step down…
“The immediate issue was the role of the Supreme Court in freeing 61 individuals charged with terrorism”
Those SOB’s should be held for the murders that were committed after they were released
November 5th, 2007 at 9:29 amThis part of the world is not the west. Priciples that work in the west can not be transplanted here. Good example is the Soviet Union, now Russia again. The legacy of tyranny and the lack of a deep seated traditon of the priciiples based upon a system of governence based upon English Common Law leaves an area like this vulnerable to what is happening right now. In the long term, weather you want to call it right or wrong, the lesser evil is one where a strongman maintains the order and keeps the various factions from literally destroying each other in one form or another of long term protracted warfare. That they do not go overboard, threaten neighbors, or turn inward with unwanton savagery, ie Saddam Hussein, this form of government works in a somewhat palatable way. Those governed by this accept it in a limited way in that it is not good, but at the same time, they do not live with the alternative, the nightmare that the likes of Al Queda offers as the other choice. Too many of the Military Dictatorships that have been replaced by the Theocracy form of governments recently have become that nightmare. With Al Queda making ground, the outcome if allowed to evolve is not the one to be entertained. Millions alive regret living under the latter.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:48 amBetter a fascist Musharraf then a bunch of free Islamic Terrorists plotting the next 9-11. That country is on the brink of collapse. Good thing they have Musharraf.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am