Sanjay Suri

VALLETTA, Malta, Nov 25 2005 (IPS) — Who Heads the Pakistani government? One could be forgiven for answering that it is President Pervaiz Musharraf, or General Musharraf as he was before he took power in a military coup in 1999.

According to the Commonwealth, the head of government of Pakistan is ”The Hon Shaukat Aziz.” That Shaukat Aziz is not quite prime minister the way Tony Blair is prime minister of Britain or Manmohan Singh the prime minister of India has not stopped the Commonwealth from naming Aziz rather than Musharraf as the head of government of Pakistan.

The switch to Aziz solves a particular Commonwealth problem with Pakistan.

Under the declaration by Commonwealth heads of government in Harare in 1991, the Commonwealth is committed to taking action against any regime that takes power in a military coup.

That is given effect by recommendations from a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG). But CMAG could not initiate action against the government in Uganda over the current unrest over the arrest of the opposition leader because it is not activated ”unless there is a military or unilateral takeover,” Commonwealth secretary-general Don McKinnon told media representatives here Friday.

But that was not the case in Pakistan in 1999, so the Commonwealth did take action. Pakistan was partially suspended. As the Commonwealth decided, it would be suspended only from the ”councils” – the decision- making bodies of the Commonwealth. That meant that Pakistan could, for instance, participate in the Commonwealth Games, and did.

But this too changed after the ‘election’ in Pakistan held in 2002. Pakistan was considered to be on the road to democracy, and the partial suspension was lifted last year. But Pakistan remained ‘under watch’ for democratic progress, and the CMAG was asked to report on progress to the heads of government meeting under way in Malta this week.

CMAG, headed by Nigeria which itself was suspended similarly from the councils of the Commonwealth from 1995 to 1999 delivered a report Friday that was largely sympathetic to Pakistan.

”This morning the ministers did receive a report from the CMAG, and the essence of that report was that we certainly acknowledge the fact that Pakistan has come forward significantly in the democratic way,” McKinnon told media representatives. But, he said, ”there is still concern that there is some way to go”, and some concern that Musharraf remains operational head of the military.

But the continuance of Musharraf seems not to trouble the Commonwealth very much. The issue ”was debated in a profound and mature way, there was no acrimony, there was full acceptance by Pakistan of the issue, and frankly the debate didn’t last very long,” McKinnon said. ”So the position that CMAG has taken was readily accepted by all.”

As McKinnon put it, Pakistan has come much of the way, but with still some way to go, it remains on watch, but less of a watch. From steps that were seen by its critics as half-measures, the Commonwealth is now adopting finer fractions of measures.

But that is only when asked about this at all. McKinnon and Maltese prime minister Lawrence Gonzi did not mention Pakistan at all when summing up ministers’ meetings and presentations. The position on Pakistan was offered only in response to a question.

Nor was any reason offered why the Commonwealth has seen ”significant” progress to democracy, particularly when the Pakistani opposition has been protesting increasingly against the lack of it.

Musharraf has made no secret that he, and not parliament, have the final say in the running of affairs in Pakistan. Before the election in 2002, Musharraf made sure he was ‘endorsed’ as President for five years through a referendum, widely seen as rigged.

He has powers to change the prime minister, dissolve the cabinet, appoint senior officials, judges and of course military generals who would report to him. No explanation was offered by the Nigerians or by the Commonwealth how this amounts to ”significant” progress towards democracy.

In an extraordinary move, the Commonwealth skirted the whole question of its fractional acceptance of Musharraf by officially naming Aziz, and not Musharraf, as head of government. On its part, Pakistan made sure that while Musharraf goes to Washington to meet U.S. President George W. Bush, Shaukat Aziz came to Malta for the Commonwealth heads of government meet.

Where, for the Commonwealth, does that leave Musharraf? McKinnon was asked whether the Commonwealth sees Musharraf as general first, or president first. He did not answer the question.

And that still leaves other unanswered questions about the Commonwealth view on Pakistan. For instance, if the Pakistani head of government is visiting Malta, who met Bush?