• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
Musharraf's Nice Little Coup

Source: Getty

Article

Musharraf's Nice Little Coup

In attempting to hold on to power at any cost, Pervez Musharraf has alienated Pakistanis and precipitated a political crisis that could reverberate throughout the region. But in this unseemly effort the Pakistani president has found an important ally—the Bush administration.

Link Copied
By Frederic Grare
Published on Nov 14, 2007
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

In attempting to hold on to power at any cost, Pervez Musharraf has alienated Pakistanis and precipitated a political crisis that could reverberate throughout the region. But in this unseemly effort the Pakistani president has found an important ally—the Bush administration. 

To be sure, the administration has publicly voiced demands that Musharraf end the emergency, organize elections, and take off his army uniform. But at the same time, it is quietly accepting Musharraf’s coup as a fait accompli. The end of the state of emergency will not mean restoring the Supreme Court and its chief justice to power. It will mean implicitly accepting the fiction of Musharraf’s election as president of Pakistan.

The Bush administration believes that it needs the cooperation of the Pakistani military in the “war on terror” and in its anti-Taliban operations and it has bought Musharraf’s argument that he staged the coup in order to protect the military and to enable the anti-terrorist operations to continue. But this is simply not true. Musharraf staged a coup in order to retain his own personal power over Pakistan. And by helping him do so, the United States is pursuing a policy that could undermine Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror. 

Indeed, the Bush administration’s policies make no sense at all. By backing Musharraf’s attempt to remain in power but insisting that he take off his uniform, the United States is potentially weakening Musharraf, who has no significant constituency outside the army, to the extent that he would no longer be an effective instrument of American policy. By doing this, it would also incur the distrust of the Pakistani establishment without improving its democratic credentials. Securing his presidency in this manner will only postpone the issue of legitimacy that his regime has faced for the past six months. The current crisis cannot be blamed on the former Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudry, who by simply doing his job had become too much of an embarrassment for many people in and out of Pakistan.

Perhaps Musharraf will weather this crisis. But the consequences of his remaining in power could prove even worse than his disappearance from the political scene. Because his main opposition comes from the liberal branch of society, his political survival will depend on its ability to silence it. Silencing opposition will allow radical voices to dominate the public space. Indeed, the political crisis of the past six month has been misunderstood. The same liberal forces that oppose Musharraf because he is a military dictator supported him when he moved against the radicals who had found refuge in the Red Mosque in Islamabad. These liberals support democracy and reject Islamic radicalism. By suppressing them, Musharraf will make it more difficult to mobilize the population in the fight against terrorism. And mainstream politicians of every affiliation will be increasingly uneasy about cooperating with the United States.

The present situation offers Washington a unique opportunity to help a smooth and gradual transition toward a more effective and representative government that could aid the United States in the war on terror while maintaining its control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Indeed, no civilian government, nor the Pakistani army, for that matter, will question the need to maintain strong links and cooperation with the United States. How can this opportunity be seized?

It’s clear what the United States should not try to do. It should not try to work out a backroom deal with either Musharraf or his potential successors. Such deals will inevitably be rejected by the Pakistani people. The solution lies in the restoration of both the Pakistani constitutional process and the Supreme Court. That should be the primary demand of the international community. Everything else, including the restoration of a level playing field for all political parties, will follow.

For sure Pakistan will not become a Jeffersonian democracy overnight. What can reasonably be expected is at best something close to the 1988 situation, when the army voluntarily decided to withdraw behind the scenes while continuing to manipulate the game. This would offer the potential for opening up new political space. It would then be up to the Pakistanis themselves to gradually develop the structural reforms that will put Pakistan back on track. In this process, Washington’s best course of action would be to remove its support for the Musharraf regime.

About the Author

Frederic Grare

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Frédéric Grare was a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on Indo-Pacific dynamics, the search for a security architecture, and South Asia Security issues.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    France, the Other Indo-Pacific Power

      Frederic Grare

  • Article
    What Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election Means for Foreign Policy

      Frederic Grare

Frederic Grare
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Frederic Grare
North AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaPakistanPolitical ReformDemocracyEconomySecurityMilitaryForeign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A white humanoid robot with a black head and hips stands behind a rope barrier. It stands with its feet apart, knees bent, and elbows raised at its sides.
    Commentary
    Europe Is Falling Behind in General-Purpose Robotics. Here’s What It Can Do to Catch Up.

    The continent needs to improve conditions for production of complete AI robotic systems and preserve its edge in hardware.

      Pavlo Zvenyhorodskyi

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.Trump raises hands behind a lecternCarney speaking on stage
    Collection
    The Middle Power Moment?

    The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.

    Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?

  • Mullin with his hand raised, taking an oath
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Can Mullin Revive FEMA?

    Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.

      • Sarah Labowitz
      • Debbra Goh

      Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.