Daily Times

In April 2001, our former President Rafique Tarar moved the Lahore High Court, praying that General Pervez Musharraf would not be called the President as he was a usurper and not the constitutionally elected claimant. The petition inspired me to venture some likely alternative monikers for Mush and other Army dictators in case the superior court really grants this petition (Minting New Monikers for Mush, May 27, 2011). No verdict on the petition, however, has yet emerged. Indeed, the august court had to resolve some rather intricate issues, as the apex court had almost thrice pronounced the same general as the President of Pakistan with its imprimatur to amend the Constitution. Somehow, Tarar also singled out Mush, omitting General Zia and Ayub Khan. Of course, the complexities of the cases concerning dictator generals and their patron judges are too serious and sanctimonious to be pondered by this scribe and are better left to the infinite sagacity of the superior courts.
Still, a far more perturbing corollary of the public concern generated by the dictator generals has been the dilemma of several handpicked persons paraded as prime ministers. But evidently if a dictator general, as asserted by an elected erstwhile President, cannot be legally called a President, then his minions obviously cannot be termed prime minister either. This is because the prime minister, being a representative of the people, is an embodiment of their trust and aspirations. Therefore, he or she must be transparently elected by the people’s free will, without any constraints or compulsions. The party planks, policies and the promises made by this candidate have to move the masses and win the votes of the majority. The people must be made to know who is actually going to be the iconic culmination of their trust and confidence. In case no single party wins the requisite majority, the coalition cobbled together by the majority further lends their collective clout, consent and cooperation by accepting a consensus majority leader.
The prime ministers planted by dictator Presidents, in contrast, are generally pulled out of their sleeve, almost similar to the juggler’s sudden sleight of hand. The way the prearranged farce of Mush’s selection of Shaukat Aziz, for instance, was flashed on the media, made a mockery of electing a prime minister. Such surrogates, whether installed through a well-rehearsed spectacle or nominated by the dictators brandishing their self-aggrandising authority to nominate or dismiss a premier, owe their allegiance and devotion to the dictator and not to the masses, their party or its protagonists. They understand and uphold the interests and sovereignty of their masters and not the masses. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, the heavy hockey hunk from Balochistan, for example, was rather quite frank about his nominal position and is on record as having repeatedly and nonchalantly called Mush his boss. The attitude and authority of the other prime ministers of this general-made genre can thus be conveniently extrapolated. The great Pir Pagara, who openly flaunted to have lent Junejo to general Zia-ul- Haq, is also known to have often lamented his dismissal, saying that “Junejo unfortunately began to imagine himself as a real Prime Minister like Bhutto Sahib.” So even a super-celebrity like Pagara, with his pithy political wisdom, prowess, witticism and his unabashed pride in portraying himself as “a man of the GHQ,” had quite categorically confirmed the difference between a real and ersatz prime minister.
The difference between these two categories thus being irrefutably established, the imperatives to devise two distinct separate titles for them becomes instantly self-evident. It is indeed an inexorable onus on the present generations to pass on to posterity a proper perspective of the paradoxes that we produced and endured. If we are sufficiently optimistic that the newer generations would be rid of the spasmodic dictatorship and its puppet premiers, then this precision would help them grasp our tribulations. If somehow, the same cyclic curse befalls them, they would at least have the consolation that we undoubtedly had a conscience to discern this entire drama and affliction. Selecting proper appellations for the two types, obviously necessitates a Constitutional amendment and hence becomes an innate domain of parliament. Still, floating a few proposals to initiate a public debate seems quite appropriate.
The epithet of prime minister, in accordance with global democratic norms and traditions, must be exclusively left to the incumbents elected during our ephemeral, apparently democratic phases. The premiers imposed by the dictators, may be called prime munshis, to define, distinguish, elucidate and preserve their true powers and remove any confusion from our history primers. The word munshi, meaning personal secretary or clerk, incidentally, besides retaining PM as the abbreviation, also evokes the title of Mir Munshi or Deewan, traditionally conferred upon the main ministers or secretaries of the rulers and maharajas of the subcontinent. The real connotation of chief trustee or secretary, serving an unaccountable authoritarian ruler, is thus unambiguously conveyed. Munshi, in the prevailing global parlance, however, may also be substituted by the word manager, making PM an acronym for the prime manager. The word manager also implies some independent decision-making autonomy, which the ministers selected as the principal public face of the dictator certainly lacked. Jamali was indeed widely reported to be seated in the side corner of certain safe-houses, where several superior khaki bosses occupied the central space, poring over exclusive statecraft and strategies.
Most purists and fervid enthusiasts of democracy however, may be even keener to keep the title of PM utterly apart from the dictators’ ministers and acolytes. Some entirely specific sobriquet for them, therefore have to be searched. For example, the chief operative of the dictator (COD) or the principle agent/assistant to the dictator (PAD), could be considered. Social media can certainly evolve some crisper nomenclature. A special instant initiative by parliament, is now even more paramount because, unfortunately, the paradox once again stalks the nation in a far more weird form. The position of the present premier, elected ostensibly though the general elections and not apparently (at least in this stint) crafted by our sovereign super-lords, has become even more precariously marginalised than that afforded to his predecessors, planted by their super-bosses. His command and authority in guiding the National Action Plan in particular, is being obfuscated. Accordingly, an appropriate epithet for him also has to be determined.

The writer is an academic and freelance columnist. He can be contacted at habibpbu@yahoo.com