Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned from office one year ago today, in the face of threatened impeachment. Since then, security has worsened and the government has faltered. Why did the controversial leader’s ouster fail to improve the situation within Pakistan?

Pervez Musharraf seized power in Pakistan in October 1999, after a bloodless military coup. In June 2001, he appointed himself president, and an April 2002 referendum extended that presidency for another five years. In his time in office, Mr Musharraf forged friendly relationships with many in the West, especially the Bush administration in the US. But by 2007, criticism was growing of the President’s inability to defeat the Islamic insurgency.

President Musharraf’s 2007 attempt to maintain his grip on power saw him over-estimate his own political capital, when he discharged the Supreme Court’s chief justice and declared a state of emergency. His support both in the West and within Pakistan evaporated. And after the general election in March 2008, President Musharraf resigned from office to avoid impeachment. The end of the Musharraf-era was heralded as an opportunity to strengthen Pakistan's democratic institutions, and put the country on the right track. But one year later, that dream has faded.

Effective governance?
The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), currently the two major parties in Pakistan, formed a coalition promising effective governance, free of strong-arm tactics and respectful of the country’s Constitution. And on 6 September 2008, Asif Ali Zardari, widower of assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, was elected the new president of Pakistan.

But Dr Farzana Shaikh, Associate Fellow in the Asia Programme at Chatham House, says the PPP and PML have not worked well together: 

“The progress, that many expected towards the strengthening of democratic institutions, remains extremely slow. The kind of changes, that many Pakistanis wanted, following President Musharraf’s decision to resign, have not been affected, largely due to the way in which Mr Zardari has decided to govern the country. The most important change that we need would be a meaningful agreement between the country’s two main political parties.”

Lack of security
The lack of political consensus is just one problem facing Pakistan. President Zardari entered office vowing to take more effective action against the Taliban and other Islamic insurgents. But in the year since Musharraf left office, terrorist attacks have increased.

Independent Pakistani analyst and writer Ayesha Siddiqa says the Zardari government’s security strategy doesn’t differ from its predecessor’s:

“The present government is pursuing policies which were instituted and were followed by the Musharraf regime. The basic, fundamental policy with the United States, which is causing a lot of anxiety and hence a lot of violence in the country, is part of a policy which was already there. Pakistan needs to have greater ownership of a policy which would eliminate extremists. And part of the problem is that, no matter what the change is, a civilian government, in particular, is not totally in control of the policy.”

Nuclear neighbours
This duality of a largely ineffective civilian government unable to control the military establishment is detrimental not only to internal security, it influences foreign affairs as well. Pakistan’s contentious relations with India have further soured over the past year. In Mr Musharraf’s final years in office, he made moves to increase dialogue between the two nuclear armed neighbours. That dialogue has stagnated under President Zardari.

Rahul Bedi, a New Delhi-based analyst for Jane’s International, says Pakistan’s military has made the new president a lame duck when comes to foreign diplomacy:

“Relations between the two neighbours have taken a nose-dive primarily because of the attack in Mumbai last November. India is continuing to accuse Pakistan of launching the attack and Pakistan has responded in a very feeble manner. President Zardari may have the intentions to foster good relations with India but he has no authority or power, or even the capability to do so because basically India as well as the problem of the northern province of Kashmir are dictated by the Pakistani military and have been for the last 30 or 40 years.”

Pervez Musharraf may not have been an ideal leader, but since he was forced out of office, Pakistan’s democracy is weaker, internal security has decreased and relations with India have worsened. President Musharraf’s departure is not the sole cause of the deterioration but one year on, Pakistan is a country on the brink.