Guardian on Pakistan: Say mullah, and you also say military

Say mullah, and you also say military

Musharraf's enlightened image has been shattered by the bombs

Mike Marqusee
Tuesday July 26, 2005

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 that 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 image-conscious military dictator.

Yet Musharraf 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 ongoing, are forgiven.

The parliamentary trappings should deceive nobody. 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 powers and amended Pakistan's constitution out of recognition. Through the establishment of the National Security Council, he has institutionalised the military veto over elected politicians.

In Pakistan, the recent round-up 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" is 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 US 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 rightwing religious parties that never achieved electoral success, became the official opposition 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 main 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 increase his powers.

Musharraf placates the west by high-profile security sweeps, while at the same time making one concession after another to the fundamentalists. He has refused to repeal the blasphemy law or the detested Hudood ordinances, which discriminate against women. Cadres 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 run marathons were assaulted by his police. Shortly after, Mukhtaran Mai, an outspoken victim of an officially sanctioned gang rape, was gagged and blocked from leaving the country. For the military rulers, the greater danger is posed not by rapists but by NGOs 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 coup, more than 1,000 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 does not have a say. A recent edict on the electronic media has created a military-dominated panel with powers to "regulate" what is broadcast.

Military spending, at 4.9% of GDP already proportionately larger than in India, the US or Britain, has recently increased by 15% - despite the peace process with India. In addition, the military is one of the major landowners and controls massive financial resources (exempt from scrutiny). Retired and serving military officers also run a multitude of corporate ventures, ranging from fertiliser production to airlines.

As elsewhere, the war on terror has licensed increased lawlessness by state agencies. In the latest sweeps, Musharraf's men assaulted women students at a seminary in Islamabad and are reported to have killed at least 15 women and children in a raid on a village in Waziristan. Meanwhile, it appears no connections have been found between those rounded-up and events in London.

Military rule offers no antidote to fundamentalism. Indeed, the latter has prospered in tandem with the former. Musharraf will continue his crackdowns for the benefit of western patrons, but in the end only democracy and accountability, not PR, can tackle sources of violent obscurantism.