Musharraf meltdown

Perhaps inspired by his counter parts in Burma, President Musharraf of Pakistan has decided to clamp down on political dissent like never before. Martial law has been imposed. Political opponents (meaning, activists from practically every political group not in some way bought off by positions in his puppet regime) have been imprisoned. All private television stations domestic and foreign have been banned. The Supreme Court has been sacked. If ever a student of history needed a lesson on the desperation that fuels a despot's hunger for power, even well after they ought to know their time is up, then this is it.

Musharraf the man is perhaps one of the more innocuous of dictators. He is no General Zia, the semi-literate colonel-come-general who executed the incumbent Prime Minister (Benazir Bhutto's father), took control of the country, and invested heavily in Pakistan's jihadi militant movements. In contrast, Musharraf was schooled in the British military tradition. He is a deeply secular man who is known to appreciate the odd shot of malt whiskey.

Yet whatever the character of the man there is one characteristic that makes him much like any other dictator past or present and that is his lust for power. A lust for power is an essential ingredient in the creation of dictatorship. For fairly soon within the mind of a mere mortal stems the false realisation not only that power is good and that absolute power is even better. A dictator begins to believe that society cannot adequately function without their overbearing presence at the top of the political hill. Such a rationalisation trumps all other rational considerations, even often to the extent that the dictator acts against his own self interest.

Mushrraf is no different in this respect. In creating the most draconian political conditions the country has ever known under his rule, he has effectively hastened the prospect of his ignominious removal. President Musharraf has only been able to survive as long as he has because of the abject lack of quality leadership in Pakistan and because of the political and economic patronage of the United States. Previous regimes in Pakistan, ostensibly democratic or otherwise, have been so incompetent and blindly corrupt that even the most elemental aspects of state management have seemed like impossible acts of genius. There has long been an expectation in Pakistan that an incumbent will siphon off the country's wealth into his or her own bank accounts, acquire companies and land, and eventually retire to an estate in the United Kingdom, France or the Gulf. In this climate the fact that Musharraf was able to improve the country's economic situation and curry international support was seen for some time as a powerful case for his continued presence. But even at the height of his popularity he was expected to eventually subside.

Most observers outside Pakistan and Musharraf himself underestimated the extent of popular support for a return to democracy. In the West, Pakistan, like so many other non-Western states, is viewed within the familiar prism of security. The simple premise is that Pakistan is volatile and Musharraf is a secular, educated man who keeps the extremists away from the country's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan may or may not deserve democracy, so the reasoning goes, but whatever else is true, 'we' need a strong man to hold tight on the reigns of power so he can reign in the extremists.

When Musharraf last visited Pakistan a colleague of mine preparing briefing for Australia's Prime Minister remarked that Howard would literally glaze over in admiration for Musharraf whom he saw as a gallant old warrior holding the fort against the terrorist menace rising from the tribal hills. This, and Musharraf's relative eloquence and capacity to talk the war on terrorism talk, meant his regime was relatively uncritically accepted by Western governments. However popular disenchantment has risen to such a level that not even the most pro-Mushrraf governments such as the United States can avoid condemning his regime.