Pakistan is going through many convulsions to ensure that General Pervez Musharraf remains in office. The general believes he is indispensable for Pakistan. His sycophants encourage him in this. As a result, the Supreme Court is hearing several petitions challenging the constitutionality of his election bid while the supremely docile Election Commission is busily amending and reinterpreting rules to approve a Musharraf candidacy.

The opposition says it would not accept Musharraf’s election by an electoral college that has already endorsed him as president once before. One wonders, why can’t Pakistan go through leadership changes like mature nations, with a clearly defined election process that is periodically implemented by an undisputed mechanism?

The difference, of course, lies in Pakistan’s failure to ensure constitutional governance and rule of law that is, in turn, the result of frequent military interventions in the country’s politics. As a result of the military’s culture of unified command flowing over into the political realm, Pakistan’s governance revolves around the man in power, and not a political system.

Nations with evolved political systems do not always have great and charismatic leaders. But their constitutions and commitment to follow pre-determined rules provides stability and continuity in their governance.

The first president of the United States, George Washington, served two four-year terms as head of state and went into retirement. His successors have been elected at four-year intervals, with several being turned out of office after only one term.

The founder of France’s fifth republic, Charles de Gaulle, resigned office and preserved the constitutional order instead of seeking to prolong his rule at the expense of the constitution.

... contd.