 | « Back to article | Print this article |
What will happen to Pakistan politics in a post-Musharraf scenario?
It is a question that is as vexing as it is frequent, and it happened to the kicker at a conference on US-South Asia policy at the Council on Foreign Relations here May 11.
And though the event was billed as being on US-South Asia relations, one could well have billed it a talk on Pakistan, as a simple question on Pakistan's stability turned out to dominate the over-an-hour conversation, moderated by Michael Moran, executive editor of www.cfr.org.
As for the post-Musharraf scenario, Daniel Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at CFR, said it was premature to start talking in those terms. Instead, he said, 'we are looking at a period of potential transition.'
With the elections coming up, Markey, a former State Department Policy Planner staff member, said there was the potential for a shift in the political make-up of Pakistan. "Musharraf will have to cede some measure of authority," he said, adding that the return of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto could also mean a rise for her Pakistan's People's Party, and would lead to a political power sharing between the PPP, Musharraf and the other parties.
More important, he said, was the question of what the elections would mean for the Pakistani military. "They will continue to influence military and foreign policy," he observed.
However, Manjeet Kripalani, India bureau chief for Businessweek and currently an Edward R Murrow Press Fellow at CFR, said the US needed to support more democratic groups in Pakistan.
"Currently, the US only loves one Pakistani, not all Pakistanis, and that is Musharraf. It is important for the US to support democratic groups, such as the lawyers' movement, and it needs to rethink the military's role because this (the lawyers' movement) may be the beginning of change in Pakistan," Kripalani said.
The State Department's support of Musharraf's regime also stemmed, after 9/11, with the need to 'weigh relative interests of US' and 'desperate need to work with someone on the ground,' Markey said, adding that the US has a good relationship with Musharraf, but it was also very concerned about militants operating out of Pakistani territory, especially in the tribal border areas.
Both speakers also addressed the instability on the border with Afghanistan, with Kripalani saying it was 'not in Pakistan's foreign policy to control the border areas.'
Markey, however, said the US has long had an interest in containing the lack of control in that region, even as he questioned the Pakistani military's ability to control the border areas.
"The army basically has a counter-India focus, rather than a counter-insurgency focus, so this is not something they can do," he pointed out.
Markey also said that a developmental approach was needed, as there are 'structural barriers to the flourishing of democracy in Pakistan because it has weak civilian institutions. The elections will give an opening to political parties and give rebirth to democratic politics.'
The recent lawyers' movement over the suspension of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court also was the object of much discussion, with Kripalani describing it as a 'democracy vs. dictatorship' scenario.
From a political standpoint, the whole affair was 'terribly bungled,' Markey said, adding that it was every political opposition's greatest dream handed over on a silver platter.' But he also struck a cautions note, saying that there was a fear of the movement being taken over by opportunistic elements that might use the situation to create discord and instability. 'Let us be careful (about) unintended consequences.'