The cat is out of the bag. It is black as sin, and it stinks to high heavens. But it hardly comes as a surprise. Rather, it comes out extremely pathetic and worthy of our collective pity. It also is worthy of our most categorical condemnation and scorn. And why not? The president of Pakistan has brazen-facedly reneged on his explicit and public promise made to the nation, that he would doff off his military uniform on 31 December 2004. But now the man insults the collective intelligence of the nation by spewing out a string of malodorous gibberish and lies. He says that 96% of the people want him to remain in uniform. He adds insult to the injury by claiming facilely, that the people feel that sans uniform, he would be weakened. Another mendacious prevarication trotted out is, that the circumstances have changed since the promise was made; and that it is imperative in the national interests -- the last refuse of the carpetbaggers -- that he keeps ensconced in the military uniform. So what is new? The new is, that this is the height of chicanery, a new benchmark in our political depravity. The bathos to which the mighty have fallen is not only pathetic but also mind-boggling. Let us examine the issue in more detail.

The initial salvo was fired by the redoubtable Federal Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who after a cabinet meeting announced on Sept 15, that for reasons of national security, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf will remain the country’s military chief as well as its head of state. The latest puppet Prime Minister later endorsed it.

Musharraf’s decision like mentioned earlier was expected, so it is not significant in and of itself. The timing of the announcement, however, indicates that the president weighed the current domestic and international climate, and deemed this the most opportune time to make his intentions official.

Musharraf apparently has secured his position with the military and has received blessings on his decision from U.S. President George W. Bush -- his closest foreign ally. In fact, because the announcement comes in advance of the U.S. presidential elections, the timing could offer Bush some advantage, as it allows his administration to demonstrate that Pakistan -- despite being al-Qaeda’s headquarters -- is in good hands (from Bush’s point of view).
All that remains is for Musharraf to protect his own life and the lives of his political and military colleagues, and Washington can comfortably push ahead with its phony war against terror.

Musharraf faced no threat from his civilian opponents, and that he needed to position the right people to fill openings in the military high command because two of his immediate subordinates will resign in late September. Although the reshuffle must still be formalized, Musharraf has worked behind the scenes to finalize the post-shakeup composition of the military’s top brass.

Moreover, discussion on Musharraf’s future has been the topic of much public discourse in Pakistan and has not created significant backlash, this has most probably made him to renege on an earlier promise to step down by Dec. 31. A Pew poll released Sept. 13 claimed that 86 percent of Pakistanis favored Musharraf’s policies (it does not necessarily means an immunity to renege on solemn promises and to keep in uniform). This, then, was the perfect time from Musharraf’s point of view, to make the announcement -- as waiting may have cost him momentum.

Also bolstering Musharraf’s confidence in making the early announcement are indications that Bush could likely win the November presidential elections. Had the situation been otherwise, he would have taken more time before setting his decision in stone. After all, he had another three-and-a-half months to act.

The so-called “loyal opposition”, that is the MMA clerics and the regime’s so-called liberal opponents will make a lot of noise over this, although the non-Islamists lack sufficient numbers, and the MMA will not go too far with their protests for their own best interests.

Though Musharraf has apparently adroitly maneuvered an about-face and faces only a negligible number of problems in the near term, it is unclear how the civilian-military system will fare in the long run. For now, however, Musharraf is firmly in the saddle in Islamabad, and Washington can continue to prosecute its war against al-Qaeda and push its global agenda of hegemony.

But what about the prospects of “democracy” in Pakistan? Well, they were slim to start with, but the present turn of events have made them even more fragile. Is in essence, the history repeating itself, since we never bothered to learn from it; and are therefore condemned to repeat it, as warned by George Santyana. But what is amazing is, that despite the current political history of Pakistan, our self-imposed Praetorian leaders, blinded and intoxicated by power also become indifferent to history. Witness Ayub Khan, who thought that his so-called “decade of reforms”, would make him continue as the president infinitely. Yahya Khan also had illusions of being a life-long president, after cutting a deal with Bhutto and thwarting the electoral majority of Mujib in the 1970 elections. The most recent example is of Zia, who also kept on reneging his promise to hold elections after 90 days; although he ruled for 11 long, dark years but the fate put an abrupt end to his rule and ambitions.

Alas, our judiciary is supremely supine; otherwise it is a clear case of suo motto judicial action; even this latest shenanigan has gone beyond the much-abused term: “the doctrine of necessity”.

I seems our polity is bereft of even a modicum of ethics or scruples.
We must also consider the bottomline, both its internal and external dimensions. Internally, Musharraf does not seem to have any intentions to bring democracy to Pakistan. He is only going to perpetuate his rule, in the shinning traditions of his Praetorian predecessors. After all he did not topple the previous government for altruistic reasons.

As to the external dimension of the bottomline, would the world trust the word of our leader(s), if they could renege on a solemn promise to their own people for opportunistic reasons?