Pervez Musharraf is another Zia ul-Haq in the making. Come May he would become numero uno charge de affairs and re-establish military's supremacy in the fractured Pakistani polity. In the past several months, the posture adopted by General Pervez Musharraf reminds one of the Zia-ul Haq era, who in 1984 had held a similar referendum to extend his tenure on the pretext of 'saving Pakistan' in conformity with Islam.

Musharraf promised in 1999, "…The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan…" but seems to hold charge for much longer now. The decision to hold referendum on April 30 has further raised serious doubts over his intentions of restoring democracy.

In 1984 referendum Zia-ul Haq had astutely drafted a question encompassing politics, religion, ideology and promise to restore democracy: "Whether the people of Pakistan endorse the process initiated by General Mohammad Zia-ul Haq, the President of Pakistan in any conformity with the injunctions as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and for the preservation of the ideology of Pakistan, for the continuation and consolidation of that process and for the smooth and orderly transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people". Musharraf has justified referendum on similar grounds except religious.

It is interesting to note the post-1984 referendum events. Zia had presumed that the people would vote 'yes' because of the linkage between his extension and issues such as the injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, future of the ideology of Pakistan and a promise to transfer power to the elected representatives. The idea was to seek extension in the garb of value laden issues. The bluff was called. The people of Pakistan gave a blatant thumbs down by virtually boycotting the referendum and refusing to come out to vote. The December 20, 1984 issue of The Muslim reported merely 10% turnout for voting. A displeased military banned the issue's public circulation and all lifted all copies from the market. The subsequent 'official' results said 62 per cent of Pakistan's qualified electorate queued up at the polling booths, of which, 97 per cent of voted 'yes'.

In all likelihood Musharraf would apply similar tactics to win the referendum. This becomes indispensable given prevailing widespread resentment and opposition to the referendum in and outside Pakistan. All the major parties have condemned the referendum as 'unconstitutional' and 'undemocratic', saying the constitution demands the president be elected by members of the bicameral parliamentary and four national assemblies. Benazir Bhutto has labeled the referendum as "constitutionally wrong and morally perverse". Pakistan's main religious parties have also declared to boycott the referendum on account of Musharraf policies that have put excessive curbs on the madarssas, fund raising and actions of the 'jihadi' leaders. Influential religious leaders like Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani and Jamaat-i-Islami chief, Qazi Hussain Ahmed have rejected the referendum and also filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the April 30 referendum.

The judiciary has also joined the protests. A Pakistani High Court Judge resigned in saying he believed the April 30 referendum was unconstitutional and he was being pressurized into giving it his endorsement. Vehement dissenting notes are pouring in from influential US opinion makers, legislators, commentators and newspapers, calling the referendum a sham. They question Musharraf's sincerity about fighting terrorism, and the US administration's decision to wink at what they see as the subversion of democracy in Pakistan. Frank Pallone, Congressman from New Jersey, said, "…The political, social and economic situation in Pakistan is bleak. This fragile country can only be improved by a democratic leader who will represent the interests of the Pakistani citizens. It is unsettling to think of the negative repercussions of five more years of rule under Musharraf."

A New York Times editorial, 'Pakistan's Perpetual President' said, "Musharraf was mistaken if he took the expressions of US support as a green light to press his referendum and avoid democratic accountability. With the war on terrorism far from won and the Muslim world unsettled by the situation in the Middle East, General Musharraf may think he is doing the United States a favour by extending his term. He is wrong, in principle and in practice.' The Washington Post said, "If he is really 'required' for Pakistan, Musharraf should be able to work within a legitimate democratic system. If he is unwilling to do that, continued US support for his rule would be a mistake."

Common Pakistanis also resent the Generals' referendum tactics. They reckon he has failed on all fronts and was desperate to stay in power. They also blame India for legitimizing Musharraf's regime by extending him the official invitation for the Agra Summit meeting. No intellectual, educated elite or even an illiterate person for that matter is favouring the referendum. They firmly believe that this is going to be just another fraud imposed on them. People also lament the West and US in particular for providing legitimacy and support to Musharraf to secure his cooperation in the war on terrorism and criticize the popular misconception of the West of a military regime as a panacea for all problems.

Like previous generals, Musharraf has marginalised and clamped the political parties and their leaders, for he knows that this is the only potential institution which could challenge military's writ and despite all its ills would be preferred by the people. Zia had categorically declared, "Islam has no room for political parties or Western democracy". Musharraf has also towed the same gradually ousted the prominent leaders from Pakistan to exploit their parties for political favours in the national and provincial assemblies. Had Nawaz Sharif been in Pakistan, sooner or later he would have reemerged which now seems is extremely difficult. Like Nawaz, Benazir has also been threatened with a possible arrest upon her return to Pakistan before elections (emphasis added) and accused the two of destabilizing the military regime. Musharraf has warned the two the leaders of a possible arrest on unspecified (could be framed when need arises) charges upon their return. The religious parties and their leaders have also been pinned down by Musharraf in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attack. Presently the democratic forces in Pakistan are too demoralized, subdued and disoriented to stand tall to Musharraf's plans.

Why is Musharraf so eager to hold the referendum and ensure his longevity before the October general elections is obvious? The entire gamut of Zia's measures was executed to make head of the State more powerful than the head of the government. The 1984 referendum made Zia the undisputed master who did not have the slightest of inclinations to leave or even share the privileges and powers. Musharraf understands that he cannot defer the October general elections. He also knows that once democracy is restored, the party in power would make a common cause with the opposition to clip the wings of the military. To avoid this there has to be a head of the state to monitor, check and even veto the ambitions of the democratic forces.