General musharraf may have won a legal battle when Pakistan’s Supreme Court made it possible for him to run for president without giving up his position as army chief. But ‘legal’ is not the same as ‘legitimate’.

A government headed by a serving general in uniform is, by definition, a military regime. For a government to qualify as civilian and democratic, its head must be elected as a civilian and under the spirit of the constitution.

Since taking power in a military coup in 1999 and especially since 9/11, Musharraf has invoked three principal arguments to justify his continuation in power.

The first of these is his status as a US ally in the war against terrorism. The second relates to Pakistan’s rapid economic growth under military rule, and the third is based on the idea that Musharraf is a benign dictator, not a malevolent one.

Recent developments in Pakistan have contradicted each of these.

Musharraf’s efficacy as a bulwark against terrorism has been exposed as parts of Pakistan have slipped deeper under the influence of Islamist extremists. The recent economic growth under military rule is the result of macroeconomic restructuring, capital inflows and privatisation of state enterprises and banks. It is not based on major expansion in manufacturing or agriculture, the areas that affect the lives of a majority of Pakistanis.

Pakistan has had a succession of flawed civilian and military rulers and several people (especially among the country’s professional middle class) argue that it is more important to have an honest and effective helmsman than a democratically elected one.

... contd.