Aim of a referendum is illogical

Pakistan's political history has swung from military to civilian rulers and back. From free elections under military rulers like General Yahya Khan to rigged elections under an elected ruler, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Post Eighties, it has been a a decade of political turbulence to which both the military and civilians have contributed.

Military men replacing inept elected leaders boasted of special recipes for Pakistan's socio-economic and political salvation. With the incumbent military leadership on the verge of blueprinting a structure to support 'genuine democracy' what would then be the best course for Pakistan?

Certainly, a referendum is no solution. It will merely perpetuate an individual's rule. However competent or well meaning, the concept of an individual as the sole agent for progress and stability is illogical. In fact it is unreal, as our own history and the principles of socio-political evolution affirms. The idea of holding a referendum to ensure General Musharraf's continuity as president in order to create continuity and 'stability' without having to bank on 'corrupt' politicians is also flawed.

The legacy of Zia ul Haq's referendum aside, it is an option used to bypass politicians who must remain the central actors in the evolution of Pakistan's political process. Bypassing them is a guarantee for perpetuating political instability.

Personalities are important triggers for change for initiating processes, but finally, a reform effort embedded in principles and processes rather than in personalities and prescriptions has more chance of succeeding.

There is the urge to 'reform' Pakistani politics too. Most Pakistanis have wanted it, desperately and promptly. The humbling lesson is that reform of politics cannot be 'event' or intention-based. Moreover, politics cannot be 'reformed' through 'architectural' interventions. Institutional strengthening not architectural changes are required to make the system work.

The improved content of politics comes through a process. In our case, a process determined by our Constitution and one to which our national managers, political and uniformed can remain subservient. Indeed a mutually accountable partnership among the actors of the Clausewitzian 'strategic trinity' - government , people and the army will be a central requirement for political stability in Pakistan.

The central issue in Pakistan is not of policy and programmes. It is about power. About raw ambition to take power and its unbridled exercise. Decrees issued by Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari, the circumstances in which they departed and their willingness to adjust to corruption in exchange for continuing to occupy presidential slots tell the story of desperation for power and position.

That a man of Ghulam Ishaq Khan's integrity and dignity too was enticed by power demonstrates the point. An individual's intent can be no guarantor for checks and balances. Individuals get subsumed in their human vulnerabilities and in the contextual logic.

Hence, the lessons of history have to be viewed in terms of the patterns of behaviour that are created within a given set of conditions, and not how 'corrupt' the politicians are or how 'evil' the bureaucrats are or how interventionist the army is.

To that extent General Musharraf is also recognising the need for checks and balances. However, what is required beyond the Constitution, given that for over a quarter of a century this Constitution has consistently been violated or superseded by PCOs, is a question which requires a collective answer.

Consultation the key

And a collective answer cannot be based on a selective consultation exercise. The president must call all major parties and ask them to suggest the 'rules of the game' which can ensure checks and balances. It is time that Pakistan's politicians step forward and collectively propose, in the spirit of 'sport' and not of 'war', seeking their opponent's destruction, the way forward. There is positive leveraging to be had for the politicians in unity, maturity and responsibility.

This is the process that the President must initiate. And transparently. He should share every step with the public. This will keep the politicians alert as well. A genuine process of rationally moving ahead and of national reconciliation is needed. This is no time for hand-picking favourites.

King's parties do not lend credibility. It's a fact that Musharraf himself fully understands. All the past formulas that have not worked are not worth another try. At the same time, banishing or patronising politicians cannot be General Musharraf's prerogative. Credibly functioning courts must decide the legal fate of Benazir, Nawaz Sharif and other politicians. Beyond that, the fate of politicians must be decided through the ballot paper.

Opening a dialogue between the army and the politicians with the two main politicians, for mutually agreed 'adjustments' is also necessary. Clearly boycotts or threats are tools that are inherently impotent. Politicians boycotted 1985 elections at their own peril. The army hounded and threatened, often with the help of other politicians. Today, a quarter of century later the Bhutto name still occupies centre-stage in Pakistani politics.

While the return of the army to the barracks should be an absolute, Musharraf's presidency, a time-bound Emergency Council with clearly defined powers that do not undermine the supremacy of the parliament and other issues should be candidly discussed between the politicians and the army. Secret deals have proved disastrous for the country. They merely increase the dark spaces, giving room for abuse of power. This must end.

If General Musharraf is not taken in by the apparently 'possible' solutions to whatever dilemmas he believes, he and the country is confronting, he can break the patterns.

Breaking this pattern requires appreciating that in these more aware times, the state no longer has monopoly over power. Justice, rationality, competence and fair play constitute that brand of power which invests politicians and state apparatus with what gives them the ultimate staying power - legitimacy.

This power is generated through the actions of men and women in public service. The rest are mere castles constructed on quicksand. No guarantees that the democratic system that General Pervez Musharraf insists he is committed to, will stand the test of time

The crucial issue, as General Musharraf himself identified, is the nature of working relationship between the president, the parliament, the prime minister and the cabinet.

At this juncture there is no convincing answer to the question of whether the referendum will help to define workable parameters for establishing a smooth working relationship between the President and elected institutions.