As expected--and barring an unlikely last-minute show of fortitude by the SC on October 17th declaring his candidature illegal(in which case I believe he will declare an state of emergency or martial law)--Musharraf has made himself leader for another term.

These recent shenanigans between General Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and the various political parties and movers and shakers of Pakistan’s corridors of power as to who will rule next and how, in spite of being a national embarrassment (which it has become), coupled with a resurgent Supreme Court, have revealed one thing for certain: that is that whoever comes to political power in Pakistan never leaves of his or her own accord willingly and in accordance with any laws or constitutional procedures. Rather, the tragic political history has been that of one dictator or absolute ruler (whether elected or put in power via the Army) taking over another. The country and its poor masses are always left to pick up the pieces.

A wise man once said to me, “Beta, Pakistani masjid ki committee ki sadaarat apni marzi se nahin choRtey, hukumat kaisay choRengay? (Son, Pakistanis don’t voluntarily give up the leadership of a mosque committee, how will they then give up political power?) Those were prophetic words.

The latest embarrassment has resulted squarely from Mr. Musharraf’s refusal to give up his uniform. He has already broken promises of giving up his uniform in the past because he knows that the only power he has is that which comes from Army support. If he gives up his uniform and becomes a civilian President he will be a lame and sitting duck and he knows it. Also, until recently he could rely on the support of the United States as he was a useful pawn in the War on Terror, bending over backwards to cater to every whim and fancy the US may make of him. Indeed in his spinelessness he has proved himself second to none. Not even Tony Blair was so in awe of the US. (At least Mr. Blair could tell himself that the UK-American relationship is a ‘special’ one and it is cemented by a common history and Judaeo-Christian values and common strategic goals.)

By making his own power so reliant on that of US approval and by acceding to their every whim (the extent of which even shocked the Americans if media stories are to be believed) he inadvertently shot himself in the foot. For, as any student of history will tell you, the Americans are fickle friends. They have a famous maxim that in politics there are only common interests not friends. As long as Musharraf served their purpose (in giving them access to airspace and allowing US troops and special forces to operate inside Pakistan with impunity, using Pakistani soldiers to attack groups considered as terrorists by the US, cracking down on the Islamisation of Pakistani society) he could do no wrong. Even now, he is their best bet (with the exception of Mrs. Bhutto who would be even more slavish to their whims as her past record indicates) and so they are playing a waiting game although if recent stories and editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times (traditional mouthpieces of the US establishment) are anything to go buy, his days are numbered and already other, ‘better’ alternatives are being considered.

Because he is not doing ‘enough’ in the War Against Terror in their eyes. I suppose they’ll only be happy if every single Islamic school in Pakistan is closed down, all men with beards are arrested or killed and the veil made illegal as it has been in Turkey for ages. Unluckily for Musharraf, the society in Pakistan has changed. It has become conspicuously more religious than before. This is evident to even a casual observer. Even the private TV channels are evidence of this where Islamic programmes are increasingly common. They would not show Islamic programmes if the viewership wasn’t there.

Yes, there is a problem with an extremist Wahabi-type Islamic terrorist network in Pakistan but it is very small compared to how many Muslims are in Pakistan. These terrorists belong predominantly to the Ahle Hadis group which are less than a few percent of all of Pakistan’s Muslims. The majority being the Sunni Barelwis (which include the Sufis), followed by the Deobandis and the Shia.

However, Musharraf’s blind following of diktats from Washington has alienated even these majority Muslims who, though not supporters of al-Qaida, certainly sympathise with their goal of driving the US from Muslim lands and want a more-pan-Islamic foreign policy as well as more visibly Islamic laws at home. In addition, every successive government has failed to provide the common man with the basics of life (food, clothing and shelter) let alone security, a decent education, healthcare and opportunities for a good career. Therefore, as is the case in many Muslim countries, people are fed up with both the politicians and the military junta.

All it will take is the emergence of a charismatic religious leader who can put sectarian differences aside and enough people will follow him to make an Iranian style popular Islamic revolution possible if not likely in the next decade or so if not sooner. Those who think the sectarian differences in Pakistan are too great do not understand: already the two biggest groups of religious followers, the Sunni Barelvis and the Shias get on fine. Even the differences between Barelvis and Deobandis are not as great as many make out—indeed it is only the extreme fringe of the Deobandi movement which allies itself with the lunatics of the Ahle Hadis. The formation of the MMA is proof that these differences can be put aside. Secondly even if the Deobandis and the Ahle Hadis were left out, the Barelvis and Shia together make well over 50% of Pakistan’s Muslims (probably closer to 80%) so if they got behind a religious leader who wanted to be involved in politics it would suffice. After all, not 100% of Iranians supported Khomeini’s revolution, only a big enough majority that the Shah and his US backed supporters were left with no alternative but to run away.

So, it is my view that in the not too distant future Pakistan too will go through its own version of an Islamic revolution. The outcome of such an eventuality cannot be guessed but for the common man such leadership will mean more than any of the leaders of the past or present since they hail from Pakistan’s feudal or rich ‘elite’ class and religion for most of them is passé, obscurantist or something to pay lip service to. For most Pakistanis—and we Chowkies do NOT represent the average man or woman in Pakistan—a religious leader like Khomeini would be much more acceptable if he was not tainted with being corrupt or a power-hungry only. Out of the hundreds of thousands of religious scholars in Pakistan there are almost certainly many individuals who would fit the bill of the model Islamic ruler of which the masses dream, someone like Sultan Salahuddin: pious, ascetic, generous, just, brave, knowledgeable, independent. All that is needed is just one such individual to come forward. Given the popularity of Usama Bin Laden already in Pakistan, one can imagine the popularity of a homegrown version who also happened to follow the mainstream branch of Islam which most Pakistanis adhere to.

An Islamic regime with nuclear weapons? Don't bet against it in the next 5-10 years.