Pakistan at Crossroads: What does it Mean for India?

The death of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1988 ushered in the civil governments which lasted till 1999 until General Musharraf took over and once again the military era started which lasted till 2007. It is unfortunate that the democratic governments led by Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif were marred by personal rivalry/vendetta, bad governance, corruption, inefficiency and tussle with the other organs of the state. People of Pakistan remained baffled hoping that the governments would deliver. The political bickering and experimentation with the constitution of Pakistan invited another military dictator to take the reins of the government. As expected the dictator maneuvered to keep intact his governance till 2007 when a civil government restarted the process of democracy in Pakistan. General Zia left a Damocles sword in the form of 8 th amendment in the hands of the President. After Zia's tradition of dissolving the NA and provincial assemblies four times, the tool of 8 th amendment was used to dissolve the legislative assemblies from 1988 to 1997. During this period three elected governments were sent packing. There were four general elections conducted during this period and interestingly, the year of 1993 saw five PMs and three Presidents of Pakistan. It struck as if the democratic order was being built on the shifting sands. This article would discuss the political bickering between Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto and meddling by the military men. It ended in the Martial Law of General Musharraf in 1999 which was again legalized by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This time the judges were really generous as they granted power to a military dictator to make amendments in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The plane crash of military ruler General Zia led Benazir Bhutto to capture the illustrious office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988 after the hanging of her father ZA Bhutto (a former Prime Minister of Pakistan). The PPP emerged in the elections held on 16 th November, 1988 as the single largest party in the National Assembly. It was a momentous occasion for the followers of the PPP when they saw their leader Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto taking oath of the office of the PM on 1 st December, 1988 in the President's House. She had to endure pangs and grief over the trial of her father Mr. Z.A. Bhutto. She took a stand against the Martial Law of General Zia courageously 1. She was gifted with the gab. She was articulate, bright and enthralled with the wealth of confidence. Benazir Bhutto as the PM was required to share power between herself and the President of Pakistan as per the prescribed Constitution of Pakistan amended by Zia. The PM had no restriction as regards the discharge of her function in governmental affairs. The President was empowered with blessings of the 8 th amendment to make appointments to the important positions of the defense services and governors of the provinces. Above all he had the discretionary power to dissolve 2 the legislative assemblies. General Zia had carved this power to strengthen his own position. Now it was Mr.GhulamIshaq Khan, the President of Pakistan was unwilling to relinquish

http://www.iiie.net/

In the beginning, Musharraf got a God-given opportunity, but unfortunately he lost it. When the corruption-ridden Nawaz Sharif regime was ousted, he was widely acclaimed as a hero by the masses in Pakistan, as if a Messiah has descended upon them from heaven to solve all their problems. But his later performance constantly decreased his support. All the previous governments were supporting Taliban against Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Under heavy American pressure, his turnaround of this policy was hailed in the West but loathed by the Pakistani masses, which see him as a traitor of Pakistani national interests, as his policy resulted in bringing the Northern Alliance into power, which had never been friendly to Pakistan. The first act of a Minister of the Alliance was to fly to India direct from the U.N. sponsored conference in Germany and issue a joint statement with India against Pakistan. After betraying Taliban, he betrayed all those Mujahedeen who were fighting for Kashmir's cause since 1948 for the implementation of U.N. resolution of 1948 and 1949 for a free and fair plebiscite under U.N. supervision. He did this to pacify and please India and to present his credentials of faithfulness to the United States in accordance with his January 12 speech promises. Thus he succeeded in demoralizing all Kashmir Mujahedeen, to whom he had called as 'freedom fighters' in his earlier meetings with Vajpayee in Agra. His record of betrayals continued further to encompass his previous colleagues and Generals. He silently sacked all of them who had brought him into power, like Gen. Usmani, ex-Karachi corps commander, ISI chief and several others. He took away the Islamabad corps from the control of Gen. Aziz, who had deposed Nawaz Sharif in a military coup on the ground while Musharraf was hanging in the air, about ten minutes away from his probable death. Gen. Aziz was duped by a promotion to a higher rank of a toothless ceremonial position. He made all these personnel changes after firmly securing his own position by extending his own expired tenure as Commander-in-Chief. The Economist has summarized his 'achievements' in the following words: "In three years as Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf has largely bleached out the Islamist colour given to the armed forces by a former dictator, Zia ul Haq. The top ranks have been purged; many lower-level officers with over-zealous views are being discreetly retired." The secularists have been lauding him as a Pakistani Ataturk. Islamists regard it as a betrayal of 'the ideology of Pakistan'. The Economist has confirmed this betrayal that in three years he 'has largely bleached out the Islamist colour'. His record of betrayals, as seen by the Pakistani public, is too long. Finally, he

2007

RSIS Commentaries are intended to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and analysis of contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do not represent the official position of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. ...

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2014

The paper analysez the state of democracy, process of democratization and challenges to the government in Pervez Musharraf regime. It was a time when Musharraf introduced some new phenomena and reforms to the politcal set up of Pakistan. Some were appreciated in and outside of the country but others were bitterly criticized. Musharraf implemented National Security Council (NSC) to check over parliament. It had been observed that all important issues had been dominated by the military establishment. Military establishment adopted forced methology to attain results which were contradictory to democratic norms and values. Aim of the paper here is to discuss that why Musharraf introduced something new and were considered undemocratic? How political forces challenged his government and international pressure was applied? Methodology used in this research is descriptive-analytical, as to describe the events and then analyze them with arguments. It is concuded in the paper that Pakistani public rejected Musharraf and his allies in 2008 general elections, by bringing a civil democratic political structure in country.

Current history, 2013

ICON, 2018

October 1999. It is argued here that domestic as well as international conditions were successfully manipulated by the military regime to strengthen its grip on power.

1981

Pakistan's strategic importance to the United States and the West has been underlined in recent months by the commitment of several forms of eco-1 nomic support to the Zia ul-Haq regime from a variety of western sources. The example of the Shah of Iran, however, should serve as a reminder that strategic Simportance and acceptance of western aid are not necessarily guarantees of 4 long-term stability. The Pakistani case is further complicated by the lack of clarity concerning the legitimacy, or even the intentions, of the present military regime. General Zia, even after four years in control, continues to assert that military rule is only a temporary, transitional phenomenon, but his is unable to say when the temporary will end or what will emerge from the transition. Still further questions arise concerning the role of Islam within Pakistan's present and future political arrangements. It is therefore helpful to attempt an assessment of the internal stability of the present regime and to speculate on the possible directions in which it might evolve. In an article written shortly after the July 5, 1977, military coup, I argued that Zia and his fellow generals did apparently intend to return power to civilian hands after their ninety-day "Operation Fairplay" culminated in elections. However, two developments ultimately changed these plans. First, the unanticipated intractability and popular support of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became an increasingly obvious threat to the military and eventually led to the first cancellation of elections. Secondly, other priorities rose in importance and supplanted the holding of elections as the major tasks ... i of the military regime. These included (1) the elimination of Bhutto and his / '" political machine (pursued under the aegis of "accountability"); (2) Isldmization; T1=s pape was prepared for Ohe Department o! State as Pairt of its exterl research prooram Views or con:'usic.s CoM L tained herem shod o, be interpreted as reprerenra ti ;