In contrast, under him, he said, the country enjoyed an elevated stature internationally, the economy has turned around, corruption in high places has gone down, poverty is on the retreat, and "we have a leading place in the Ummah." While the merits of these claims may be debatable, the point of it all, of course, was his announcement that he would retain both the offices of President and the Army Chief of Staff until 2007.
Referring to the MMA's contention that as per an agreement that he had reached with it, he was committed to give up the post of COAS on December 31, President Musharraf acknowledged that he had said that he would voluntarily relinquish that position - an offer he had repeated in an address to the nation - but pointed out that there is no mention of it in the government-MMA accord.
He went on to state that both the law and the Constitution permitted him to remain the President as well as the Army chief, and therefore, the Opposition should desist from imposing the "will of the minority on the majority." Technically, he is right.
The MMA-government accord did not say that the President had given a commitment to doff his army uniform by December 31. The religious alliance's claim was based on an informal understanding and a constitutional provision, inserted as part of the MMA-backed 17th Amendment, which stipulated that, past that date, no one could hold two offices of profit in contravention of the laws in force. Parliament having passed "the President to Hold Two Offices Bill", the 17th Amendment provision on which the MMA has been resting its case, is valid no more.
Hence so far as legal technicalities are concerned, the President has correctly averred that he is acting according to the Constitution and the statute book. From which it follows that the will of the majority, as expressed by Parliamentary support for his position, should be respected by the 'minority', which sits in opposition.
Yet there is no denying that it is not a morally tenable position for the President to take. He may not have given any firm undertaking to comply with the relevant provision in the 17th Amendment, nevertheless, he had publicly declared his intention to abide by it though he did not have to give any such undertaking in regard to a provision of the constitution he was commonly expected to uphold.
In any case, it is an academic exercise good only for diverting attention from the real issue, which is the restoration of democracy as it is understood universally, not the "true democracy" version of it that the establishment has been trying to impose on this country.
The sad reality though is that our politicians are just as much to blame for the present state of affairs as the military. President Musharraf has been repeatedly, and rightly, reminding the people that during the eleven years of civilian rule, between 1988 and '99, every now and then, those in opposition had kept appealing to the COAS of the time to intervene on their behalf and depose the sitting government. And while the two major parties alternately took over power during this period, unlike the established parliamentary democracies, where the opposition is treated with respect as the next government in-waiting, they resorted to mutual accusations of corruption and mismanagement, backed by practical measures to harass one another.
Which further encouraged the Army chiefs to take active part in politics, something they are prohibited to do as per the oath of allegiance they take at the time of receiving commission as army officers.
The MMA may now want to climb to the moral high ground to insist that the President must give up his military uniform so as to signify the advent of truly civilian rule. But the fact of the matter is that when all the other Opposition parties were agitating against the President's efforts to make his Legal Framework Order (LFO) a part of the Constitution, without going through the democratic route of having it passed by two-thirds parliamentary majority, as is the universal practice, they came to his aid to have certain important provisions of the LFO become part of the Constitution via the 17th Amendment. No wonder, the rest of the Opposition parties are still suspicious of MMA's motives.
It is seen as the establishment's B-team rather than a bona fide opposition alliance. Having provided the President with the room for manoeuvre to make the necessary legal changes in his favour, the MMA can do little at this point but to make some noises and then to resign to the existing reality.
President Musharraf also came up with the usual justifications with regard to his decision not to give up his military uniform, saying it is related to the need of maintaining continuity in internal and external policies, the talks with India on Kashmir, and the problem of extremism and terrorism as well as the need for harmony between the political and military institutions. No doubt, all these matters need to be taken care of by an effective and experienced hand, but it would be unwise and unnatural, indeed, to conceive of a democratic dispensation that is dependent on the heartbeat of a single individual in uniform.
It also needs to be suggested that the President's stated justifications for continuing to remain in uniform may be misconstrued in an already unsympathetic West as a lack of the Army high command's willingness to remain subservient to a President unless he is its own chief.
Which leaves the political class with little choice but to continue to struggle for the restoration of undiluted democracy in place of its present controlled version, but within the parameters available to it.