Military and mullah
The Guardian, 25 July
General Pervez Musharraf has expressed irritation at the “aspersions” cast on Pakistan in the British media. After his extensive efforts to prove his loyalty to the US-British “war on terror” – efforts which have exposed him to assassination attempts – the General’s frustration is understandable. The alleged Pakistani links of the London bombers are a major inconvenience for this most image-conscious of military dictators.
Yet Musharraf himself has been a prime beneficiary of the western double-standards of which he now complains. Just as previous autocrats (in Pakistan and elsewhere) were embraced because of their usefulness in the Cold War, so Musharraf is embraced because of his willingness to fight the war on terror – and his crimes against democracy, serial and on-going, are forgiven.
The parliamentary trappings should deceive no one. This is a regime in which the final say on all policies rests with the military. Since seizing power in 1999, Musharraf has made himself president, repeatedly extended his term of office and his powers and amended Pakistan’s constitution out of recognition. Through the establishment of the National Security Council, he has institutionalised the military’s veto over elected politicians. Last October, he reneged on his 2002 promise to doff his uniform and rule as a civilian.
In Pakistan, the recent round-ups of suspected terrorists and the announcement of yet another crackdown on extremism have been met with weary scepticism. “When you say mullah, you say military” – it’s a commonplace in Pakistan, where people have experienced the symbiosis between the two forces for decades. US-sponsored jihadism took thousands of Pakistani lives long before it blew back on the USA on 9/11.
Since then, Musharraf has sought to package himself as a champion of “enlightened moderation”. But the mullah-military symbiosis remains. As a result of the army’s manipulation of the elections in 2002, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of right wing religious parties which had never before achieved electoral success, became the official opposition in Parliament and took power in the North West Frontier Province, where it has sought to ban music and impose restrictions on women. While Musharraf worked to exclude the established mainstream parties from the public arena, he treated the MMA as a kind of licensed opposition – not least as a safety valve for popular anger at the US over Iraq. In return, the MMA helped ratify his rule and increase his powers.
Musharraf placates the west by high profile security sweeps while at the same time he makes one concession after another to the fundamentalists. He has refused to repeal the blasphemy law (used against religious minorities) or the detested Hudood Ordinances, which discriminate against women. Under pressure from the mullahs, his government recently agreed to reinstate the column in Pakistani passports identifying the bearer’s religion. Cadre from the religious parties are permitted to harass and even murder women’s rights activists with impunity.
Musharraf has talked about increasing women’s participation in sport, but in May, women who sought to defy a ban on running in marathons were violently assaulted by his police. Shortly thereafter, Mukhtaran Mai, an outspoken victim of an officially-sanctioned gang rape, was crudely gagged and blocked from leaving the country. For the military rulers, the greater danger is posed not by the rapists but by NGOs who are accused of bad-mouthing the country in the foreign media.
Under Musharraf, the military has insinuated itself into civil society as never before. In the two years following the 1999 coup, more than 1,000 serving and retired armed forces personnel were inducted into posts previously held by civilians. From universities to the cricket board, there are few institutions in which the military no longer has a decisive say. A recent edict on the electronic media has created a military-dominated panel with powers to “regulate” what is broadcast and who broadcasts it.
Military spending, at 4.9% of GDP already proportionately larger than in India, the US or the UK, has recently been increased by 15% – despite the peace process with India. In addition, the military is one of the country’s major land-owners and through its welfare foundations controls massive financial resources (exempt from public scrutiny). Retired and serving military officers run a multitude of corporate ventures ranging from sugar, cereal, fertilizer production to airlines, real estate and advertising.
As elsewhere, the war on terror has licensed increased lawlessness on the part of state agencies. In the course of the latest anti-terrorist sweeps, Musharraf’s men assaulted women students while invading a seminary in Islamabad and are reported to have killed at least fifteen women and children in a raid on a village in Waziristan. Meanwhile, it appears that no connections have been found between any of those rounded up and the events in London.
Military rule offers no antidote to fundamentalism. Indeed, the latter has prospered in tandem with the former. Musharraf will continue to stage his crackdowns for the benefit of western patrons, but in the end only democracy and accountability, not PR, can tackle the sources of violent obscurantism.
