By Paaras Abbas

He claims to believe in democracy, but came to power through a coup d’état. He declared a state of emergency in the country, imposed restrictions on the media, sacked judges of superior courts, and suppressed his opposition for a long time. He claims to be a popular leader, but not one significant Pakistani has joined his new political party. He claims to believe in Pakistan and justice, yet has chosen self-exile in London over returning home to face the consequences of the mess he created. Addressing the audience at the School Of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on Thursday 16^th June, former President Retired General Pervez Musharraf defended every action he took during his nine-year rule, from his coup to the Lal Masjid siege.

The event, titled ‘Pervez Musharraf speaks to the World’s Youth’, was a question and answer session recorded for a Pakistani television show, in which the audience was requested to grill the former leader about his policies and his views on the war on terror. The former president walked in saluting the audience as he had once saluted the armed forces he commanded. He wore a crisp suit, and seated himself in the prominent red chair placed in the center of the stage. His calm demeanour was to fade soon, partly because of some sore spots touched upon by the audience and partly by the moderator’s eagerness to cater to the needs of his show instead of organising a proper debate. Not only was the moderator, Kamran Shahid of SAMAA Television, a supporter of the former leader, but no alternative speaker was invited to challenge Musharraf’s views.

The event began with a few obnoxious statements by the moderator, including requests to applaud for the camera so his show would look good when aired on television. Musharraf was then allowed to give a little speech before the question answer session, and what ensued for the next two hours was a repetitive defensive rant, which clearly indicated contempt for the present government, denial of responsibility when it came to the current mess Pakistan is in, as well a lot of anti-India rhetoric.

The fact that SOAS arranged a platform for the former dictator to speak has aroused anger amongst students, social activists and members of the media. According to a student at SOAS, ‘I completely believe he needs to be tried for the vast amount of crimes he's committed, and if we invite him, then why not Netanyahu or Mugabe? Plus he's a politician with charismatic answers, so there is nothing he can say that we -as an educated student body- could find incredibly new, refreshing, or insightful’. .

Musharraf dismissed a large number of questions by saying they did not concern him and should be addressed to the present government. According to a masters student at SOAS, ‘I feel he passed on a great amount of responsibility for the negative affects felt by this 'war on terror' to the current government. Well, he had fermented political instability for an entire decade and weakened key state institutions, making it much easier for the current government to continue on this whirlwind of failure.’

When asked about the Osama Bin Laden raid, Musharraf stated that unlike when he and Bush were in power, a trust deficit now exists between the currents governments of Pakistan and the United States. When it came to the ISI’s knowledge of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, he stated that it was such a strong case of negligence that it is difficult to prove it was negligence in the first place. His insisted he knew exactly how the ISI works, even today, contradicting his earlier statements about not being in a position to speak about the current situation because he isn’t in power, nor present in Pakistan at the moment.  

Why is it that military men feel like their status as a member of the armed forces justifies any action they take? Is it the fact that they fought for their country and experienced the frontline that makes them feel they have the right to impose themselves on any situation? I once had a math teacher who was an ex-army man. Whenever a student questioned his explanation of a math problem, he would bellow, ‘I’m an army man! I know what I’m doing!’ - That, and an occasional religious explanation for mathematical phenomena, such as aº= 1 because Allah is one. Though Musharraf refrained from using religious rhetoric, he did once again reveal his army-man mentality to the world. When a loyalist of Musharraf’s in the audience accused him of ‘chickening out’ by resigning, the former President flared up and declared ‘I am a military man! I do not chicken out! I simply left because I felt there was no need for me at that point in time.’ He went on to explain how the present government was not catering to the country’s economic needs, which according to Musharraf are more important than democracy. I can’t say this statement surprised anyone– he is after all an army man, even if he doesn’t wear a uniform anymore.   

However, it is important to appreciate some of his contributions to the country he governed for nine years. Although he was a dictator, he does have a fair claim to being the pioneer of independent television channels in Pakistan. He also introduced some good reforms for women; increased women’s seats in the parliament, got legislation passed in favour of the civil society, and turned his guns against the very Islamic extremists who were once nurtured by the military establishment. Having said all of this, I still agree with the analysts who believe that his efforts were neutralized by the actions he took towards the end of his rule, when he suppressed the fundamental rights of the people he governed in an effort to prolong his stay in power.

Musharraf ended the talk with what he considered ‘food for thought’, advising the audience (the ‘youth of the world’ according to the title of the programme) that when they gauge a leader’s potential, they should look at whether or not he catered to the needs of the people – not if he was a democratic leader or a dictator. The purpose of a democratic system is to elect a leader the people think will cater to their needs and then remove him or her if he or she fails. This last statement displayed not only a crack in the nonchalant demeanor he tried so hard to maintain, but also the fact that the uniform he had spent most of his life in would always dominate his political views. He can run away from his arrest warrant by residing in the UK, but he can’t run away from his military-dictator mindset by donning civilian clothes. Despite his pretence of democratic values, he is still the dictator he was in 1999, and nothing, not his civilian attire nor the foundation of the APML can change that.