Subcontintental Drift: Vote For Me, Or Me

• Share

Thursday, Apr. 04, 2002
When General Pervez Musharraf announces a referendum to seek a five-year extension of his presidency, many Pakistanis will wonder: Why bother? After all, it isn't as if the dictator asked his people for their permission to overthrow the government they elected, to toss aside the constitution their representatives approved, or to appoint himself President. Why seek their permission now?

The answer isn't hard to see. The referendum is an attempt to legitimize the general's regime in the eyes of the world, to capitalize on Pakistanis' anxieties in these uncertain times, and to ensure that any future elected government in the country remains firmly under the thumb of the dictator. Musharraf is hoping the world (and Pakistanis) will accept the referendum as the equivalent of a free and fair election.

	Should Pervez Musharraf continue to rule Pakistan for the next five years? Yes No Not Sure

But nobody's going to buy that. There are crucial differences between a referendum and an election, the most significant of which is this: in an election, voters get to choose between two (or more) leaders or parties. If they disapprove of one, they can pick the other. But Musharraf's referendum offers no real alternatives. The general has already shown his contempt for Pakistan's constitution, its judiciary and the basic rules of democracy. So if he doesn't get the endorsement he desires, there's no guarantee that he will hand over power to an elected government. If effect, he's telling Pakistanis: If you vote for me that would be nice. If you don't, screw you.

It's no surprise, therefore, that most political commentators in Pakistan (and, reports say, some people close to Musharraf) believe the turnout for the referendum will be embarrassingly low. People don't bother to vote when they know it won't really change anything -- we've seen this in all kinds of elections in the subcontinent in recent years. It doesn't help that Musharraf has no backing from a political organization to prod people to the ballot box. And with the world's attention focused on Pakistan because of the war on terror, he can't even use his military to force people to vote.

That Musharraf is a popular dictator (apparently this is not a contradiction in terms) is not in doubt: many Pakistanis, disgusted with the venality that poisoned the country's fitful experiments with democracy, see the general as their best hope for clean, efficient government. But, as Zia ul-Haq, a previous Pakistani dictator, discovered, referendums don't lend any legitimacy to dictatorship. If Musharraf wants a genuine mandate from his people, he must contest a genuine election, with alternative candidates. Or why bother?