Crunch-time

The balloon has started to go up in Pakistan, where elections are due in two months. When (or if) they are held, they will see the end of President Pervez Musharraf's first elected term. The question on everyone's mind is whether they will see the end of President Musharraf himself. He has been told that he can't seek re-election while wearing an army uniform that he has repeatedly promised to shed while also describing it as his second skin. So, he is hoping to get re-elected before the end of his term through a vote from the present provincial assemblies, whose own term expires at the end of the year. In order to acquire true legitimacy, a fresh National Assembly should elect the next president""but waiting for that body to be formed raises the risks for Musharraf.

The general's plans are further complicated by the existence of an independent Supreme Court, which has allowed the former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in a coup eight years ago, to return to Pakistan. To ward off the challenge, Musharraf tried to make a deal with Sharif's arch-rival, Benazir Bhutto of the Pakistan People's Party, but the negotiations have got nowhere, perhaps because Musharraf has stopped short of promising to close all the corruption cases against Bhutto and her husband. In any case, Bhutto's electoral standing will have suffered because of the latest round of parleying. It is unlikely, however, that her predominantly rural, non-Punjab vote will get transferred to Sharif, whose following is primarily in the urban areas and in his home state of Punjab.

The President, meanwhile, is under siege from America, which would like him to continue in office but also make a bow to the pro-democracy movement by holding genuine, multi-party elections. The US has bankrolled Pakistan like never before during the six years since 9/11, and this partly explains the economy's improved performance. If the US were to pull the financial rug, Pakistan's economy will lose its poise and stability of recent years. For good measure, the sword of terrorism that Musharraf has wielded against India for many years has now been shown to cut both ways, and he knows that he too is a target. This has forced him to turn with a vengeance against people he once called freedom-fighters; that has not increased his popularity. Musharraf has, therefore, decided that he needs the army on his side, and announced that he will remain the army chief until his successor is decided. This is an audacious dare to the new government, whoever forms it and whenever it comes into being, to remove him from the scene.

In other words, it is back to square one in that benighted country, which is caught in the classic instability of a three-person game which, by definition, forecloses a stable equilibrium. It is also interesting to note that the periods of high and low instability, each lasting for about a decade on average, have alternated. If we denote H for high instability and L for low instability, D for democracy and M for military rule, we get the following result: 1947-56 (H, D); 1956-69 (L, M); 1969-77 (H, D); 1977-88 (L, M); 1988-99 (H, D); and 1999-2007 (L, M). This means Pakistan is in for a period of high instability if it gets back democracy.

If the world would like to see a stable and predictable Pakistan, Musharraf or some other military ruler should continue. But most people would accept that a democratic Pakistan is less of a threat to its neighbours. These are mutually conflicting objectives, and there is no easy way to resolve them. All that those outside Pakistan can do is to wait and watch as the country lurches along, accompanied by nuclear weapons, terrorists, radical Islamists, a frustrated voter and continuing poverty. Not, as the poet said, a pleasing prospect at all.