The indictment on Tuesday of Pervez Musharraf is the first
time in Pakistan
that a former army chief has had charges brought against him.
The indictment comes as a great surprise in many ways. It is
a sign of a new attitude from the civilian administration towards military men
such as Musharraf who have been previously too powerful to take on.
The military is still a dominant force in Pakistani
politics. Many commentators thought that Nawaz Sharif would be unwilling to risk
alienating the current military commanders by prosecuting their former
colleague. Even now, it is possible that the charges will remain symbolic
rather than having any real effect. There is also the possibility of a return
to exile for Musharraf, to avoid any concrete decision having to be made.
But the pursuit of the trial by the government is a sign of
changing attitudes.
This will most likely not end in a convenient exile. The number
of other charges brought against Musharraf did not allow him to run for
election as he had planned to. Clearly when he decided to return he did not comprehend
the scale of the case that would be brought against him. The charge of treason has
raised the stakes significantly - as a capital offence it carries a possible
death sentence. It suggests that the government and the prosecutors really are
going after this prosecution.
The recent Abbottabad Commission report into the death of
Osama bin Laden published findings which condemned Pakistan as ‘’a failing state’’.
Widespread corruption, apathy and incompetence are all highlighted in the
report. The roles of the military and particularly the ISI are criticized in
the report, with both acting well beyond their remit in civilian affairs.
This pitiable state of the government’s administration is
due to long-term military rule. Because of this history, the country does not
possess the developed, vibrant, democratic institutions which are needed for an
effective democratic government.
The zeal of the pursuit of Musharraf is a step towards
setting in place these democratic institutions and establishing an attitude of
the culpability of military strongmen. It is a sign of this civilian government
showing the military they are not untouchable.
Musharraf’s lawyers have claimed that the indictment amounts
to selective justice and ignores others complicit in his crimes. They do so in
the knowledge that many of those who would have to be charged alongside him are
currently serving in the government and military and it would be virtually
impossible to bring charges against them all. The prosecution of Musharraf then
could be a warning to those others; that things in Pakistan are changing; and that
even if it is failing, the civilian government has not failed yet.
The execution of Bhenazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar, offers
interesting comparisons to the current situation with Musharraf. The former
leader was charged with murdering political opponents and then summarily
executed by the military regime. This came after a prolonged and dubiously
handled appeal process.
The civilian administrator being punished unjustly by the
succeeding military government has now become the military leader being prosecuted
by the succeeding civilian government.
This is not to say that Musharraf is innocent in the same
way as Zulfikar (probably) was. Musharraf should be brought to justice for all
the crimes committed during his rule. Nor is it to say that the pursuit of
Musharraf’s trial by the current government is as clearly legally dubious and
un-transparent as the military regime’s handling of the Bhutto trial and
execution was. But make of the comparison what you will. The two cases are
worth considering next to each other.
