• 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

  • The tops of people's heads. Raised above their heads are "No Kings" signs, an upside-down American flag, and a rainbow flag.
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Protests Like No Kings Can Only Go So Far to Stem Authoritarianism

    Lessons from other backsliding democracies show that mass mobilization needs to feed into an electoral strategy. 

      Saskia Brechenmacher, Shreya Joshi

  • Commentary
    Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil Crisis

    There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.

      Gita Wirjawan

  • Commentary
    Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in Indonesia

    As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.

      Sana Jaffrey

  • Commentary
    Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons

    The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia

    The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

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.