Energising Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

Repair and heal

Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Masood Sharif Khan Khattak

In 62 years of independence Pakistan's rulers have, on one pretext or another, not allowed national institutions to grow, mature and become fearlessly functional in order to achieve national objectives. The military rulers, all of whom treated the Constitution of Pakistan with the worst form of contempt, made no sincere effort to utilise this unbridled illegal power for the betterment of Pakistan. These military rulers never made the positive difference that they always promised on usurping political power. After saying the right things for the first few days their actions did not match their words. Each military ruler would soon be captivated by the stinking opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats and other sycophants who would crawl into their dens on their knees and elbows eulogising their most deplorable actions and making them feel as if they were indispensable for Pakistan.

Whatever little ability, courage (both moral and physical) and will to make the difference that may have existed in them was killed by these ever green parasitic sycophants who are always in abundant supply. The politicians too have not made the difference that they should have strived to make in order to bring about a Pakistan that is at peace with itself and has enough to show itself as a developed country with a happy population.

Over sixty years of whimsical governance in an institutional void has taken exploitation of all sorts to unimaginable heights. The provinces are crying hoarse for being exploited by the federation and the weak and poor Pakistanis are up to their neck because of their exploitation by the rich and the powerful. Millions of Pakistanis live a life of deprivations because of their multifaceted exploitation which must come to an end. Exploitation of the weak and the downtrodden Pakistanis by those who are powerful is actually what is stopping Pakistan from progressing. The state has to step forward to end this exploitation by providing the poor and the weak succour and support through national institutions so that the differential between the power of the exploiter and the weaknesses of the exploited is balanced and this, in turn, neutralises exploitation. Pakistan has to do this if it hopes to move forward. No nation, at any time in history, has moved forward under exploitative conditions. We have already reached a point where the weak and the poor are ready to fight for their rights and betterment. They have nothing more to lose. The wind, therefore, has to be taken out from the sails of this readiness to fight and take to the streets in order to avoid a bloody revolution that might, in its wake, bring about the fragmentation of Pakistan.

The way to take the wind out of the brewing storm on the horizon is not through the extensive use of state power but to bring about a state that is magnanimous and fair to the poor and the weak on whose name it exists. The people will now have to take the front seat and only then will the storm on the horizon subside. Too much has already happened to Pakistan that should never have happened. A majority of our people lives a subhuman life and has been very docile to date. All this is clearly changing and docility is giving way to aggression.

If one has an objective analysis to make one should just look deep into the deprived eyes of millions of half-starved Pakistanis and the storm will be clearly visible. Words are not being minced here because that is exactly what must not be done at this critical juncture in order to decipher the trajectory that we are flying on and how that trajectory can be changed for the better. Living with "eyes wide shut" is not going to be of any good to Pakistan.

There is no question that we in Pakistan can ride over the storms that we today face and those that are soon to occur but, rest assured, hope is never going to be enough now. As a parting word let me say that the Army operation in Swat seems to have come to a successful end and the IDPs have started moving homewards. I know what it must have been like for the soldiers and men who fought their way through in these last few weeks. They deserve the nation's applause. At the same time it is also time to take those to task who allowed the situation to reach the threatening levels that we witnessed. What happened to the Pakhtuns in the last few weeks must never ever be repeated again in any part of the country.

Pakistani nationhood has suffered serious blows in the recent past which has caused it many fractures. The only way these fractures can be repaired and our nationhood restored to a level that it can never be harmed again is to bring about a Pakistan free of exploitation of its people and letting the country move towards reforms that will bring in their wake good governance, peace, prosperity and all round equal development for the rural and the urban areas. You cannot have a few bustling metropolitan cities with the teeming millions still living in near stone age conditions in the remote areas. This accursed exploitation must end.



The writer is a former director-general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice-president of the PPP Parliamentarians.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Why so impatient with democracy?

Islamabad diary

Friday, July 17, 2009
Ayaz Amir

This nation suffered Field Marshal (self-appointed) Ayub Khan as its ruler for eleven years, and General Ziaul Haq for another eleven years, and Pervez Musharraf for eight and a half years. There was opposition to their rule at the popular level but it was to little avail when pitted against the army's divisions. Power slipped away from Ayub and Musharraf when they could no longer count on the army's unquestioning support. Zia went because of other causes.

But it is a strange characteristic of our chattering classes -- whose supreme vocation in life, after the worship of Mammon, is the nurturing of conspiracy theories -- that while they resign themselves all too readily to military rule, their impatience starts bursting at the seams as soon as there is a democratic government in place.

For the folly and ultimate futility of military rule their patience is unbounded. But surveying the imperfections and shortcomings of democracy -- which are many -- it is their anger which is limitless. Thus we see the strange spectacle of those who not only saw nothing wrong with Musharraf, but indeed served him loyally throughout his years in power, transformed suddenly into merciless critics of the present order.

This is no argument against criticism. If those who hold democracy's cup in their hands play out their shenanigans, they must be taken to task. But we must remember at the same time that while the alternative in Britain to Gordon Brown is David Cameron, and the alternative in the US to the wild fantasies of neo-con Republicanism is someone like Barack Obama, what usually comes after the wholesale trashing of democracy in Pakistan is the march of the Triple One Brigade.

President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani are easy targets, not least because of their various shortcomings. It is perfectly legitimate to target them as both could do with extended lessons in vital aspects of adult education. But given our past and the ambitions of the Bonapartist class, we must beware of the distinction between those thrown up by democracy and democracy itself.

No calamity could be greater than George Bush. But America waited for an election to rubbish his legacy. Our chattering classes show not the same forbearance. And it's not as if Zardari alone is the problem. If Nawaz Sharif had been in power I can bet anything the chattering classes would have ganged up against him.

Our record speaks for itself. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were in power twice each in the 1990s. They proved their own worst enemies by not managing affairs of state as well as they should have. But they also had to contend with well-entrenched conspiracies. Senior ranks in the military could not tolerate the thought of another Bhutto in power. And there were champions of the liberati, stalwarts of the English-language press, who had convinced themselves that anything was better than Nawaz Sharif, including a military takeover.

During Nawaz Sharif's first stint as prime minister -- 1990-93 --these elements egged on then army chief General Asif Nawaz to undermine the elected leadership. His untimely death frustrated their designs. When Musharraf ousted Nawaz Sharif from power in Oct 99 --- to cover up his Kargil sins and satiate his thirst for supreme power---the chattering classes celebrated, as if their time had come.

I was just now reading the first column I wrote after Musharraf's takeover and I have to say parts of it leave me ashamed. Basically the line I took was that the army's hand had been forced. By the next column my sights had cleared and I was condemning the coup. But in the immediate aftermath of the coup I had, unforgivably, provided some justification for it. I of course recanted within a week but the love affair of the chattering classes as a whole with Musharraf lasted for a long time.

The argument is always the same: that the country is in danger, and saving the country should take primacy over such luxuries as safeguarding democracy. The prescription also is always the same: that riders on horseback should take to their horses to save the country. From Ayub to Musharraf we have had four attempts at saving the country. Each attempt has brought the country to its knees.

The brigade of the perennially disgruntled has a disarmingly simple agenda: to sup at the table of power, even if at the far end of the table. In that exalted, or relatively exalted, state their qualms are miraculously suppressed. But removed from that circle of hospitality it is touching, and not a little alarming, to see their hearts bleed for the nation and its problems.

If in the 1990s it was a favourite refrain of the drawing room classes to condemn by turns Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, now the entire post-Feb 18 edifice is being undermined and called into question because Zardari happens to be president of the republic.

Zardari has his failings and who can deny them? Both he and Gilani are accidents of destiny, gifts from the heavens at their most sardonic. But they are also products of a democratic process and therefore to be tolerated until the next turn of the political wheel. For if it is democracy that we aim to secure then we have to get used to the idea that whatever our preferences, however strong and passionate our likes and dislikes, change must come democratically and not through any other means. If this country can survive Musharraf it won't be undone by Zardari. Let us have greater faith in our ability to override the vagaries of fortune.

Who in Italy would give high marks to Silvio Berlusconi for financial probity and political integrity? India has had its share of scandal-ridden prime ministers. And while we may have much to lament as far as our present heroes on deck are concerned, we must learn from our past and apply some rein to our collective impatience, restraining some of the nihilism that we often demonstrate towards our institutions and democratic processes.

Nowadays of course we are witnessing something new, a variation on the theme of third-party intervention. It is not the army which is being called upon to save the country. It is the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, which is being asked to come to the nation's rescue, even if this amounts to crossing the limits set for it in the Constitution.

Those egging on the judiciary to overstep its limits are forgetting a few simple facts. Their lordships put under house arrest by Musharraf were freed not by any storming of the Bastille but by a few plain sentences uttered by Prime Minister Gilani even before his swearing in. In his maiden address to the National Assembly he said the judges would be freed and, lo and behold, hardly were the words out of his mouth before the barriers guarding the judicial colony were swept away.

Is the irony lost on the self-appointed champions of the judiciary that while the lawyers' movement had boycotted the February elections, it was the outcome of those elections, the emergence of a popular National Assembly, and not any long march, which led to this outcome?

Again the restoration of Justice Chaudhry and the other deposed judges came about because of a complex interplay of factors which were purely political in nature: Nawaz Sharif breaking out of his house arrest and leading the mass outpouring of feeling and marching feet that we saw in Lahore on March 15; and hectic behind-the-scenes activity on the part of Prime Minister Gilani and army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

If no man is an island, no institution can be an island unto itself. An independent and powerful judiciary is a protector of parliament. At the same time, without democracy and the political process an independent judiciary is a meaningless concept. On Nov 3, 2007, when Musharraf imposed emergency, deposing Justice Chaudhry and replacing him with Justice Dogar, all it took to bring this about was a detachment of the Islamabad ISI. It is the imperfect democracy emerging from the Feb 18, 2008, elections which has nullified Musharraf's actions. As we trash everything around us, let us not forget these facts.

The expected meeting between Zardari and Nawaz Sharif is a good omen for it shows that despite their sharp differences they realise that at this juncture when the army is fighting a war within the country's borders, national unity rather than any fresh invitation to instability is of the highest importance.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Analysis: All politics is local

Rasul Bakhsh Rais
July 21, 2009

If there is anything real and basic to democracy, it is local government institutions. No genuine democrat can think of developing democratic culture and traditions without grassroots democracy. Thomas Phillip “Tip” O’Neill Jr, a long-time Speaker of the American House of Representatives and an outspoken Democrat, emphasises how local political issues and rooting politics at the grassroots level would matter for any political aspirant in his All Politics is Local and Other Rule of the Game.

Although it was said and written in the American political context, it is a meaningful phrase and we cannot grasp its wisdom unless we know a bit about the the evolution of democracy and the development of democratic ideas in the western world. In almost every mature democratic country, including developing ones, that has chosen instrumental democracy for social and political development, local government institutions are considered the foundations of democracy.

Democratic systems are intended to have multiple institutional layers and that is for a purpose: to diffuse and separate powers. Horizontal separation of powers — among institutions — and vertical separation of powers — among geographical units — is meant to create a competitive political environment and create a spirit of accommodation and working together.

Contrarily, concentration of powers in a single institution or single unit, even if the governments were elected, would work against the spirit of democracy. And this practice in the past has damaged democracy, giving us civilian dictators. We have substantial evidence for this leadership flaw.

Why have the two major political parties, the PPP and PMLN, allowed local governments to die out, and have then come up with a proposed ordinance allowing provincial governments to appoint administrators at the district level?

The reasons that representatives of the Punjab government and others opposed to elected local governments have given are frivolous. Yes, there has been corruption in the projects implemented by the district governments, and yes, quite a few District Nazims supported Pervez Musharraf. But are these reasons good enough to not hold fresh electiosn? And it is also a thoughtless argument that a military dictator created the system of present local governments to serve his own political interests.

The idea and practice of democratic local governments is centuries old and has nothing to do with the political ideology of Pervez Musharraf or his regime. Even in our country, there have been so many attempts in the past to institutionalise local democracy, mostly by military dictators, but each time elected governments somehow thought they were useless.

Sadly our elected governments have yet to learn some basic principles of shaping true democracy and have to travel some political distance in this respect, beyond elections and getting elected. That is necessary for legitimacy, but it takes more than just elections to build democracy based on shared powers and political cooperation.

There are two reasons why the two major political parties have decided to gun down local governments. First, the district is the real hub of administrative powers and the key centre of social services delivery. The provincial governments run by the PPP and the PMLN in Punjab and Sindh, and the PPP’s allies in Balochistan and the NWFP want greater control over districts through administrators from the bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy today has lost all institutional autonomy as it has increasingly been pushed to serve the political interests of those who happen to rule at the Centre and in the provinces. It is a sad reflection on the decline of administrative institutions. While the chief ministers can handpick civilian administrators, shuffle them around and repost them, they cannot do that to an elected Nazim. Even curtailing the Nazim’s powers might involve political risk and spark unwanted political confrontation.

The second reason is related to the issue of centralised control over the entire province. It is very simplistic to argue that the solution to the bad governance that is a defining character of our country is to place more powers in the hands of provincial chief executives. It has not worked in the past and it is not going to work in future.

The entire struggle against Musharraf and his regime was not about creating civilian dictators but building a democratic polity. That we cannot accomplish without sustaining local government institutions and building their true democratic character.

The local government system that is soon going to be replaced by bureaucratic administrators was not without defects. There were essential controls left in the provincial capitals, like finance and administrative machinery to facilitate a Nazim aligned with the regime, and create hurdles for those who were not. And the chief ministers under the federally designed local governments ordinance could exercise powers against an elected Nazim if he took a different political line.

These flaws were wilfully inserted into the legal system governing the local governments to remote control them and make them dependent on the provincial bureaucracy and the provincial chief executive. Such levers of control in our view are against the essence of local-tier democracy.

We thought that post-Musharraf political governments would be different in dealing with democratic institutions, that they would rebuild them and not destroy them. The recent move through the presidential ordinance in consultation with the provincial governments to end the Musharraf-era local governments is not a contribution to democratic transition, quite the reverse of it.

Democracy operates at different levels, and for open and competitive politics it must have different centres with greater dispersal of power. And that is not taking place, and never will it if we have selective democracy that suits the interests of party bosses.

Continuity in democratic practices is what makes incomplete or even bad democracy get better, and over time transform into a truly people-centred, representative and responsive system.

The system bureaucratic administrators will empower the political bosses with the personalised power of appointment and removal. It may serve the political interests of the parties, but not the interest of building democracy. Our democratic transition has certainly received a major setback with the removal of local governments.

Let us remind the party bosses and the provincial chief executives that democracy is not what they can pick and choose and what essentially serves their immediate political interests. Rather democracy is about sharing power and building different layers, recognised ones in any federals system. And that is not happening.

By removing one basic and fundamental tier of democracy, we have harmed our democratic cause. The institutional flaws and bad practices in the local government system can be corrected with continuity, not by throwing the entire system out of the window.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

 

[muse]

BUt the politicians are determined to kill the local government system in Pakistan (Musharraf)

 

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Did judiciary fail democracy?

July 22, 2009

The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, spoke from the bench in the course of hearing cases related to the application of the provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) under General Pervez Musharraf and said on Monday that judges should accept responsibility for the failure of democracy in the country, and that “the judiciary will have to put its house in order”.

The larger bench was hearing two petitions, one against the validation of the November 2007 PCO oaths and the other against the validity of the judges still in service after having taken oath under the said PCO. Justice Chaudhry said: “Had the judiciary stood firm in those cases, the November 3, 2007 mishap could have been averted”. The bench will review the Tikka Iqbal case that validated the November 2007 emergency. He observed that decisions in the Tikka Iqbal and Maulvi Tameezuddin cases came about because of the “judiciary’s own fault”.

It is understandable that Justice Chaudhry should hold the judiciary responsible for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. It is at the court of law that each dictator is challenged after he has wrested power from an elected government. It is at the court of law that the fine points of validity or non-validity of the new military order are discussed and adjudicated upon. And it is at the court of law that coup-makers have been legitimised on the basis of the law of necessity and monopoly of force. But, even then, one has to assert that democracy has not taken root in Pakistan for a number of other reasons as well.

Lack of spine among the judges in the supreme judiciary in the face of military power has been lamented steadily by the lawyers’ community of which Mr Chaudhry was once a part. That sentiment must be respected and the judges must finally know that civil society will demand that they stand up and, if need be, sacrifice their careers for the sake of democracy. But the supremacy of the army in Pakistan is not only owed to the weak-kneed judges. It is also because of the nature of the ideological and national security state that was bequeathed to us at partition and which has subsequently taken root. And that is a subject which most of us, including the judges, are not willing to discuss.

Therefore, it is difficult to say if the sound wisdom of Justice Chaudhry will hold for very long — unless of course the state of Pakistan changes its nature as a revisionist/challenger state stretched forever beyond its means mainly because it has to keep its army supreme for the sake of “national security”. What can the poor judges do if a civilian ruler errs and a general moves in quoting textbooks that designate enemies and promise another “just” war, overt or covert?

Let us be frank and note the ways in which the judges have betrayed democracy, apart from delivering wrong judgements in cases challenging military fiats. Judges have been scared of governments which use the police and the intelligence agencies to harass a dissenting judge’s family. Judges are also scared of the religious warriors who constantly threaten and punish them with impunity from law — warriors, it may be added, who have been trained by the state to fight its covert wars. Indeed, that is why the world no longer believes that a case against a terrorist can be fairly heard in Pakistan because the “fair” judges can be killed.

Justice Chaudhry will have to reform the judiciary quite a lot before it is able to stand up and become a true ally of democracy. The critical moment of legalising or outlawing martial law comes much later. Before that, the nation tends to become divided over governance in general. And in some cases when the general arrives on the scene he sees that the Supreme Court is itself divided, ready for him to apply the PCO and get the verdict he wants. The Court is not only symbolically attacked by the army; it can be physically attacked by a civilian government, as we have seen in the past.

Democracy also means human rights, as Justice Chaudhry knows very well because of his penchant for the “suo moto” principle. But human rights also relate to the non-Muslims who suffer social discrimination and also judicial bias on the basis of a blasphemy law whose phrasing can easily by challenged by a “democratic” Supreme Court. When General Musharraf was catapulted into power he was wafted by a wave of disappointment in the economic sector over the Appellate Bench’s outlawing of bank interest as “riba”. The PCO simply proved that the judges were divided. That division should be reshaped into a consensus not over “democracy” as such but also its fundamental values.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The ballot revolution

Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Masood Sharif Khan Khattak

We stand on the brink. For a timely return from the brink the lost confidence of the people of Pakistan has to be restored before the rage that is building within the chests of 180 million Pakistanis erupts.

The people of Pakistan will probably blame the politicians and the military rulers for all our adversities, without realising that they too are responsible for their own woes. Having suffered so much for the past sixty years it is time for the people of Pakistan to assert their presence and take charge of their own destiny. They can do so by making just one simple decision and that decision can change the destiny of the country. That decision, on the part of each Pakistani, is to take possession of his own vote and to resolve never ever to waste it for any temptation whatsoever.

To illustrate my point I shall narrate an incident from my own experience of the 2002 elections in which I contested for a National Assembly constituency—i.e., NA-15 (Karak, NWFP). Karak is a very conservative constituency and no one had ever contested for it on the PPP ticket. I stood second to a young man of 28 who contested on a religious party’s ticket. However, the reality was that the people preferred a man 28 years of age with no experience in government to my 52 years, in which the profile would speak of military service, civil service at the highest levels, some enviable achievements in life and a general reputation that was well respected by the electorate. Coming back to the point I want to make let me say that I did not pay a single rupee for anyone to vote for me. Lots of my polling agents and people within my own camp were secretly hand-in-glove with my opponents for monetary rewards. Many of them deserted their polling booths before the votes were even counted. Many of my polling agents influenced my voters to vote for the other side because money had passed into their pockets. On the campaign trail, three days before the actual polling I went to a remote village where the vote count was not much but I was still going there because of my own vow to reach out to the most neglected areas and people of my constituency. On the way to this village I had noticed that along the many deserted miles of the shingle road leading to that village there were many electric poles but the wire was mostly missing. On my asking I had been told that these poles had been there for nearly fifteen years but that people had stolen many poles and most of the wire because electricity was never actually provided.

On the way back, after having very pleadingly asked the villagers not to sell their vote, I was asked by one of my colleagues if I knew what had happened at the village gathering. He went on to tell me that while I was pleading to the villagers not to sell their votes an elderly person had approached him saying that why is your candidate wasting his breath when all you guys have to do is to tell me how many votes you want and what will be your rate. I was shocked but at the same time I also understood why electricity had never passed through to this particular village in over fifteen years despite the poles and wiring having been erected. This is the dark aspect of our so-called democratic elections and may well be the story of every constituency of Pakistan. However there is the brighter aspect too. Despite the treacherous acts of the greedy people on my campaign team who were actually working against my interests and may well have cost me the elections, there were those in the constituency who walked to the polling booths, or used their very own transport to get there and without even telling me just cast their vote in my favour using only their political sense after having heard and seen me at political gatherings. Most of my voters were from the younger generation yearning for a change from traditions and no one and nothing could buy them off. I stood second because of these people who, like me, stood up for a change. I am sure this element that wants a change in traditional politics is on the rise in each and every constituency of Pakistan.

In this lies the remedy to our ills. The people of Pakistan, especially the younger generation, have to step forward and bring about the revolution through the ballot box. Only then will Pakistan truly open itself to the change it yearns for besides opening the door to the ordinary Pakistani to become the master of his country’s destiny.

The writer is a former director-general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice-president of the PPP Parliamentarians.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Guarding our liberties

By Dr Tariq Rahman
Thursday, 23 Jul, 2009

PRIME MINISTER Yousuf Raza Gilani is reported to have said that the order to arrest people indulging in anti-government jokes via SMS and emails would not be implemented.

The whole episode of the ban on cyber jokes indicates two things about Pakistan’s democracy. One, that it is so fragile that any dictator can put an end to the liberties we take for granted. Secondly, there is an articulate civil society in the country which guards our liberties.

We had this experience earlier when Gen Musharraf closed down TV channels threatening his dictatorship. It was generally assumed that the media had become too powerful for there to be a clampdown on it, but this turned out to be only partially true. Brute force was used in clamping down on the media.

However, the other side of the story is that there are people willing to take risks to keep the freedom of the media intact. These are the ones who triumphed in the end. It is a battle which is going on even when we have a civilian government.

Nevertheless, Pakistan is a country where a strong anti-democratic lobby exists as well. It is there because people are so disillusioned with bad governance that they do not have any faith in democracy itself.

Some members of this lobby are members of the state or the armed forces or intelligence agencies who find authoritarian rule in their personal or professional interest. Many others are merely ordinary people who hanker after good governance and assume that their governments cannot provide them that. They want a messiah or a superman. This is dangerous since fascism is supported by people who want a strong leader and who do not value democratic restraints on the leader.

It is often very distressing to talk to the anti-democratic lobby — consisting mostly of educated, middle-class people — whose level of political discourse does not rise beyond monetary corruption, misuse of power and other such matters. Their source of evidence never goes beyond hearsay and their analysis — if one can call it that — is based on conspiracy theories.

Many Pakistanis settled abroad, especially in the US, also belong to the anti-democracy category. These people are enthusiastic supporters of military rule but everything a civilian government does is ridiculed or censured. However, if the civilian government or its important functionaries issue anti-democratic orders — such as those to arrest people sending SMS messages making fun of high government figures — then it must be taken to task. It cannot be spared simply because it is civilian and elected, and not military.

Therefore, it is with relief that one turns to the proactive guardians of our liberties. They came out on the streets when Gen Musharraf had the audacity to throw out a sitting chief justice. The same kind of people forced President Asif Zardari to keep his word. They took to the streets when the PML-N government in Punjab was summarily removed. And now, true to form, they have taken up the cudgels on behalf of civil liberties when the SMS scandal surfaced.

This kind of activism by human rights groups, prominent columnists, letter writers and television personalities are our main protection against dictatorship. But for this we would have been some Middle Eastern or Latin American dictatorship.

However, we talk in our drawing rooms, offices, seminars and discussions with a frankness one normally associates with established democracies. Indeed, foreigners are often surprised that even under military rule we have the courage to express our views openly on most issues.

Amartya Sen once wrote about the ‘argumentative Indian’ giving the hypothesis that the habit of talking about everything under the sun ensures the continuity of a tradition of pluralism and tolerance in South Asia. I believe he is right and that, despite military rule and religious fanaticism, much of our basic culture of pluralism and tolerance remains.

This culture was sustained in our tea houses and roadside cafes. Intellectuals met and discussed everything ranging from Marx to Maudoodi during the 1960s. Now that is no more, but blogs and SMS have taken their place. The anonymity of the blog allows people to unburden themselves.

Since ours is a religious and traditional society where orthodoxy and the suppression of sex are the norm, most bloggers write to question these societal orthodoxies. It is a safe way to allow people to unburden themselves, find answers to questions which cause them anguish and to discover that there are others like them.

The SMS enables a community of congenial companions to share jokes, concerns, interests and answers to questions. If it is banned it would be a serious setback to our culture. It would be a step towards the kind of retrogressive change which would take us away from our tolerant and pluralistic as well as fun-loving culture.

All authoritarian cultures kill humour and promote fascism and cruelty. It is only with humour than we can puncture our own inflated egos and those of others who may have power over us but are as fallible as ourselves. Moreover, suppressing the freedom to talk, joke, write and make speeches takes away our courage. And without courage a nation is like sheep that can be herded to an Orwellian animal farm where they toil endlessly as the upper classes enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Let us hope our leaders realise that a liberal democracy is for their survival too. If they march towards authoritarianism there are those in the wings who are better at marching than them. So, three cheers for democracy; for the guardians of our liberties; for our freedom to keep sending whatever kind of texts we like.

 

[RabzonKhan]

ANALYSIS: Anarchy and democracy

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
July 26, 2009

Violent protests against electricity outages and hikes in petrol and diesel prices last week raised a host of issues, especially about these protests’ implications for civic order and the future of democracy in Pakistan. Was the defiant and anarchic behaviour of the protesters aimed only at registering protest or did it have a wider political agenda of targeting the federal government? This may be the emergence of a new type of violent popular disposition and political culture that threatens democracy.

The protests took place in the major cities of all provinces, although their intensity varied. Invariably the offices of WAPDA or power generation companies, state property and banks were ransacked by the rioting crowd. There were clashes with the police in some places, including Karachi and Hyderabad.

The protests were more widespread and violent in Punjab. Even district and sub-district level areas experienced violence. Electricity-related offices and public property was ransacked in most places. The protesters paralysed normal functioning of business and commercial activities and ordinary people found it difficult to undertake their routine affairs. In some places, the police had to resort to baton charge and tear gas to disperse the rioting crowd. Regular traffic was disrupted by protesters in almost all cities. Some of them went to the extent of stopping railway trains, and, in Jhang, some coaches of a railway train were set on fire.

The pro-PMLN businessmen and traders in Lahore were very active in forcing the suspension of business and commercial activity. Some of them demanded that the federal government resign on account of electricity outages.

Street protest is a legitimate right of the people as the last resort. However, this does not give them right to ransack public and private property and terrorise people. It has been noticed for the last four to five years that protesters appear more interested in making life difficult for others, disrupting normal business and routine city life, causing traffic jams and ransacking property rather than in mobilising support for their demands. Their underlying consideration appears to be that one can draw attention by demonstrating the capacity to disrupt normal life in a city or town. This also demonstrates poor understanding of their responsibilities as citizens.

It is generally observed that aggrieved people have a tendency to walk out of their workplaces or institutions and block nearby roads by erecting roadblocks or setting fire to tyres or other material in the middle of the road. Sometimes, a small group of young people suddenly appears on the road, sets up barricades, lights fires in a commando-like operation and disappears quickly. At times such people also engage in violence and ransack business and commercial centres, official property and especially banks.

In February 2006, a large number of young people protesting in Lahore against the publication of “cartoons” in a European country turned violent without any provocation and engaged in unprecedented arson and looting. The religious parties that had sponsored the rally refused to take responsibility for what happened, declaring that their workers were not involved.

Disruption of traffic has become an established method of protest. The first thing students do to protest is to come out of their institutions and block traffic. In the case of the latest protest against electricity outages, protesters created an anarchic situation in some cities. They also stopped railway trains. In a separate development, when railway workers protested in favour of their demands in Lahore, they attempted to disrupt railway traffic.

It is a dangerous trend; more and more people are resorting to the disruption of civic life and causing inconvenience to ordinary people as a protest strategy. Now, there are more instances of interference with railway traffic. This has negative implications for the current efforts to revive and institutionalise democracy. The success of democracy depends on developing a moderate and tolerant disposition towards socio-political and economic issues, which need to be addressed through the democratic institutions and processes.

The prospects for democracy cannot improve if issues are to be settled in the street, and protest is not viewed as effective unless it becomes violent or disrupts normal functions of society. If democracy is to be stabilised and the prospects for non-democratic and unconstitutional changes are to be minimised, political leaders should work towards problem solving through democratic institutions and processes as set out in the constitution and law.

The opposition, especially the PMLN, may be getting grudging satisfaction from the current protest because it discredits the PPP-led coalition government. They may think that the unpopularity of the current government improves their prospects in the next general elections.

While there may be some electoral gains for the PMLN due to mismanagement of the electricity shortage by the government, this does not necessarily mean that the protests are PPP-centric, and that if the PMLN comes to power it will not face a similar challenge in the streets.

Political leaders should worry about the rise of a culture of defiance and anarchy in Pakistan. If politically active circles imbibe these political orientations, they tend to use them as a routine strategy to pursue their agenda. If the operating political norms are defiance, street agitation, disruption of civic life and economic activity, there is little hope for democracy.

Political leaders should not encourage defiance among people as was done by Nawaz Sharif after the Supreme Court disqualified him from contesting elections in February 2009. His public addresses in the immediate aftermath of this development called upon the police and civil servants to defy the government. If a politician encourages people to defy his political adversaries, what is the guarantee that these methods will not be used against him? If sections of the population imbibe violent protest and anarchic methods as normal instruments for advancing political agendas, they will use them against any government if and when needed.

The tendencies of defiance and anarchy can be discouraged if the PPP-led government pays serious attention to improving governance and bridging the gap between the policy pronouncements of its leaders and performance of the government. It needs to rectify the perception that electricity outages are partly caused by negligence and non-payment of dues to private power producers. The other perception is that the presidency is pursing state affairs in a personalised manner and assigns premium to loyalty over professionalism and judicious management.

No matter if the judiciary is supportive of democracy and the military wants to limit itself to its professional role, civilian democratic institutions can still run into serious problems if the political leaders do not pursue their divergent agendas with moderation and within constitutional limits in letter and spirit. Societal groups need to subscribe to democratic and constitutional norms for pursuing their demands. If they repeatedly resort to violent methods and create anarchy either on the encouragement of some political leaders or on their own, democracy will never stabilise.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst.

 

[muse]

Politics in general, in Pakistan, has no rules - everything is fair game - as we understand the whole power of supply problem is a political problem - now hijacked by Nawaz, as the Judicial crisis, was hijacked by Nawaz -- soon the ambition of Nawaz will once again, effect the institution of the armed forces, and then...?

The lack of agreed upon rules of Politics in the national interest is Pakistan's greatest problem.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Our weakest link

Legal eye

Saturday, August 01, 2009
Babar Sattar

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

While we continue to vie for representative democratic governance, the institution meant to be the repository and emblem of democracy is turning out to be our weakest link. In most functional democracies a new parliament discharges the maximum onus of planned legislation in its initial years when the legislators are still energized and their priorities are not excessively warped due to factionalism and considerations of re-election. But well into the second year of its existence our parliament has nothing to show for itself. Even more pitiable is the fact that in their individual capacities our parliamentarians readily lament the dismal performance of the parliament and champion the need to make it sovereign and functional; but all without the slightest inkling that it is their personal acts and omission that are the object of censure.

Our constitution prescribes trichotomy of powers, with the executive, the judiciary and the legislature as equal pillars of the state. But for all of our history – be it during prolonged spells of praetorian rule or intermittent phases of civilian autocracy – we have unfortunately only had a bloated executive encroaching over the province of the legislature and the judicature. We lay most of the blame for our deformed institutional development on the shoulders of our 'khaki saviors'. But is such usurpation of power by khaki or non-khaki executive possible without simultaneous abdication of authority by other institutions. Our judiciary has habitually acted as an appendage of the executive and willingly exhausted its moral and legal authority in failed attempts to legitimize repeated military rule. The events of 2007 fortunately shook the judiciary out of its deep slumber, burdened the conscience of independent-minded judges and we now have a reconstituted court that seems eager to assume responsibility and discharge its constitutional obligations.

But has our parliament not learnt any lessons? Is there no realization within the legislative chambers that status quo is no longer an option and if no sensible distinction can be drawn between today's parliament and Ziaul Haq's Majlis-e-Shoora even well-meaning people might wonder about the need and viability of our model of democracy? Why do members of parliament seem completely oblivious to their job description as lawmakers? If our MNAs and senators continue to view their hallowed institution merely as recruitment centre for the executive or for seeking ready access to means of state patronage to be used in carrying our municipal functions within their constituencies, who will legislate for the country? How farcical that in the absence of any sense of purpose and having smugly outsourced their legislative function to the executive, our parliamentarians continue making sloppy speeches in their lacklustre debating club highlighting the virtues of parliamentary sovereignty.

What will it take to wake up our parliamentarians to the fact that our fundamental law is currently bedevilled by contradictions our legislative branch must fix? There has been complete consensus in Pakistan that General Musharraf's actions of Nov 3, 2007, were unconstitutional. The only disagreement between minority opinion held by Musharraf-loyalists and the rest of the country was over the legal mechanism to be pursued in undoing such actions. Malik Qayyum & Co. preferred a constitutional amendment to rid the Constitution of the edicts of a dictator and the majority legal opinion favoured simple executive action rooted in the assumption that the acts of Nov 3, 2007, were void ab initio and needed no affirmative act to be undone. The latter approach triumphed with the restoration of the judiciary through an executive order. The paradox however is that the PPP-led government continues to run the country on the assumption that the laws protected under the Article 270-AAA of the Constitution are valid pieces of legislation and the parliament seem to have acquiesced in such view.

On being elected to office, our parliamentarians swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. One would have imagined that their first order of business would have been to address the illegality of Nov 3, affirm the content of the Constitution, validate any laws that were useful and needed to be legitimately enacted, and then move on to amend the Constitution to rid it of such parts of the 17th amendment that are undesirable. We did get mired in PPP's flip-flops on the restoration issue. But now that we have moved on it is inexplicable why our parliament is still loath to address Nov 3? Why is it abdicating its responsibility and hoping that the Supreme Court will devise an all-encompassing miracle solution? After all there are serious limitations to what the judicature can do: it can invalidate law contrary to the Constitution, it can interpret law, but it cannot promulgate law.

Islamabad High Court, for example, was created under post-Nov 3 Constitutional amendments. Though illegitimately conceived, this is an extremely useful judicial forum that needs to be retained. Its composition should to be rethought to make it representative of all federating units. But staffed by able judges, it offers the promise of evolving expert jurisprudence in administrative law and regulatory matters, which is desirable. But it is not within the power of the Supreme Court to declare the Islamabad High Court kosher. Further, while the Supreme Court can strike down the laws protected under Article 270-AAA, while granting partial or complete amnesty to rights that might already have accrued under such laws, or allow the parliament time to validly promulgate laws it deems desirable, the court cannot pick and choose laws and executive actions on the basis of their desirability.

The apex court has no constitutional mandate to make such choices of policy, for it can only determine the legality of laws and actions based on the provisions of the Constitution and principles enshrined in our laws. It is parliament that has the mandate to amend the Constitution to legitimize the Islamabad High Court. Similarly it is an abdication of responsibility by parliament to force the Supreme Court to preserve desirable laws bunched under Article 270-AAA through contrived legal fiction rather than subjecting each piece of legislation to an up or down vote. The Supreme Court has also rightly pointed out that it falls within the competence of the parliament to provide for punishment of persons guilty of high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can require the executive to ensure that legal mechanisms for prosecution of individuals for violation of Article 6 of the Constitution are not disabled. But it cannot make the decision of whether or not an individual is to be prosecuted for alleged violations that is reached in exercise of discretion that is vested in the executive under the law and Constitution.

The refusal to take responsibility and exercise authority cannot be attributed to nonchalance alone and is the manifestation of a larger malice: our continuing proclivity to find virtue in the logic of expediency. It is wise to let bygones be bygones we are told and move on without ruffling any feathers. But what of the feathers that need pruning? "When you belong to the community that you are trying to lead, you are part if the problem. This is particularly true when you have been a member of the group for sometime," write Harvard professors Heifetz and Linsky in Leadership on the Line. This is the problem with the generation currently at the helm in Pakistan that grew up in an independent country without having any role in its creation, has only run the country down over the last two and a half decades, has had its consciousness nurtured by the doctrine of convenience and has an abiding faith in the ability of our nation to continue to bear the burden of a depraved amoral political and social ethic.

It is this mindset that needs to change. Equivocation and sitting on the fence is what has contributed to our sorry state. We need to be wise in crafting policies but must shun expediency when it comes to upholding principles. There is overwhelming consensus in Pakistan that we need to change the way we do business in this country and no progressive change can be built over compromised principles. Let our parliamentarians and political parties take public positions on issues such as Nov 3, prosecution of Musharraf and the NRO, instead of using the judicial process to undo the nefarious effects of vile political compromises made in chambers of power.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Is this the end of military rule?

Reality check

Friday, August 07, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood

Prime Minister Gilani seems to think so. He made an unequivocal declaration in the National Assembly that military rule has been buried forever. Mr Nawaz Sharif was a bit more guarded. He wants the military to make a formal proclamation that it will never intervene.

Chaudhry Shujaat, who has never seen a military ruler he did not like, was not too impressed with this naiveté. He observed dryly that all it takes to bring down democracy is a jeep and two trucks.

The July 31 Supreme Court judgement is historic because of its impact on the superior judiciary. Never before has there been such a mass cleanup of the higher courts. But it is the blanket reversal of everything that Musharraf did on Nov 3, 2007, that has everyone excited.

Also, because the language used in the short judgment is forthright. Setting aside of the Constitution by an army chief has been condemned clearly and directly. The implication is that never again would the superior courts condone any extra-constitutional act.

This is important because every military ruler has sought the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval. The court has obliged every time. The judges, with some honourable exceptions, have also taken a new oath under the dictator’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). Is the Supreme Court now saying that this will never happen again?

We should be careful and never use the word never. In the Asma Jillani case, the Supreme Court had declared military rulers usurpers, and used very harsh language against them. It also said that they should be punished whenever it was possible for the state to do so.

This judgement came in 1972, and yet five years later the same court not only condoned Zia’s intervention in the Nusrat Bhutto case but actually gave constitution-making powers to the most brutal dictator in our history. Some of the people making up the bench were different, but not all.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had the Supreme Court not condoned the intervention and declared Zia a usurper. Would the moral authority of the court have overridden the power of the guns that Zia commanded?

The problem is that dictators do not wait for things to come to this pass. For example, the judges who could have possibly ruled against Musharraf in 1999 were made to take a new oath under the PCO. When they refused, this became a reason to remove them.

In other words, the oath to the PCO is actually an oath of loyalty to the dictator. Once that has been taken, the judges have no moral and, strictly speaking, legal authority, to hold the military intervention unconstitutional. They have in effect become defenders and overseers of the new order. It is inherently impossible for them to declare themselves illegal.

While wishing that this never happens again, what stops a future military intervener to use the same methodology to change the makeup of the courts? Judges that take oath under a new PCO will, by definition, become supporters of the new order, and those that don’t will conveniently be replaced. The Supreme Court as an institution will remain, however devoid of legitimacy. It can possibly endorse a dictator again.

While all military interventions are illegal, given our history the question of moral authority is not insignificant. A dictator can pack the courts through the device of the PCO as Musharraf did in 1999 and again in 2007, but there is a crucial difference. Did he have the moral authority to do so on either occasion?

We know he did not have the legal authority. Our Constitution does not see any eventuality in which a military chief can take over the affairs of the government. He can only do this by setting aside/abrogating or holding the Constitution in abeyance.

But did he have the moral authority to do this? The short answer is no, because no illegal act can be morally correct. However, given the conditions of a Third World country where the military has been an option against the failure of civilians, the question of moral authority becomes important.

Ayub Khan probably needed the greatest justification and moral authority because his was the first intervention. He waited patiently while the civilians shot themselves in the foot. Governments came and went and politicians squabbled or made money as if there was no tomorrow.

Ayub moved when he thought enough dirt has enveloped the political class. He had got his justification and his moral authority. It was a blatantly illegal and treasonable act, but the context had changed. There was jubilation in the country when he took over.

Thus, while the legal question is important, the moral question is crucial. Musharraf’s Nov 3 action was illegal and unconstitutional as held by the Supreme Court, but it was also a patently immoral act. He will be tried, if the Parliament can get its act together, for treason, but he has already been punished by the people for evil intent.

When Musharraf first abrogated the Constitution in 1999, he had created a moral justification for at least a part of the population, as did Zia in 1977. They had the opposition parties on their side and accused the civilian rulers of evil acts. Hijacking for Nawaz, murder for Bhutto.

In 2007, it was only Musharraf trying to hang on to power. Personal ambition, not any form of national interest, was the motive. The illegal and the immoral combined. Virtually the entire nation rose up against him. Within months, he was out of power.

In a country with established traditions of democracy and rule of law, we would not even be debating the moral question. The legal and the moral are the same. However awful the rulers, they have to be endured because they are elected. And if there is a need to hold them to account, it is under the established laws of the land.

We have some way to go before we reach that point. While there are no indications that the military under Gen Kayani has any interest in taking over, we have a long history of military interventions. The Supreme Court has closed the legal door. Who will lock the moral gate?

We seem to be going in the other direction. The National Accountability Bureau has relentlessly been undermined and efforts are on to close it altogether. There is also a move to exempt the political officeholders and parliamentarians from any prosecution for corruption.

And this, while stories of corruption are rife. Just in this paper, Kamran Khan has exposed some egregious wrongdoings. The rulers seem to be banking on legality and exploiting it to the hilt. We are elected therefore we cannot do any wrong, is the underlying refrain.

The legal framework is indeed on their side, and so is the moral, but they are chipping away at it with gay abandon. Things would already have come to a sorry pass had the PML-N decided to exploit it to the hilt. Having learnt from the past, Nawaz Sharif is treading very cautiously.

This reticence of the opposition should not be seen as a licence. If the moral underpinnings disappear altogether, a change would become inevitable.

 

[RabzonKhan]

ANALYSIS: Democracy at the brink?

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
September 26, 2010

Democracy is a delicate system of governance that can easily be destroyed if its spirit is violated and competing political players are strongly motivated by partisan interests, immediate gains or personal ego, or if they engage in a self-serving interpretation of democratic principles and the constitution.

Democracy calls for institutional autonomy and balance. Different state institutions need to function within their defined constitutional and legal parameters. They need to respect each other’s autonomous status and no state institution should endeavour to overwhelm another institution.

Out of the major state institutions, parliament has an edge over other institutions because of its representative character and its position as the supreme legislative body. However, it exercises power within the limits set out by the constitution and the laws it frames.

Such a democratic system faces challenges from two major sources. First, if an institution of the state stretches its domain of authority at the expense of other institutions or if one institution attempts to overwhelm other institutions. Second, a fragmented and divided political class whose commitment to democracy and constitutionalism is nominal and self-serving, i.e. as long as it serves partisan interests. Democracy cannot become viable if the major players are prepared to adopt or encourage non-democratic and unconstitutional methods to pull down the elected government of their adversaries.

In the past, the military dominated other institutions of the state. Four military governments engaged in constitutional and political engineering to hold on to power and advance their professional and corporate interests. This stifled the democratic process and undermined the autonomous growth of civilian institutions and processes.

Pakistan returned to democracy for the fourth time in March 2008 when elected governments were installed at the federal and provincial levels after the February 2008 general elections. Thirty months later, even an optimist finds it difficult to suggest that democracy has become sustainable. Democracy is under strong pressure from the superior judiciary in the wake of a possible executive-judiciary confrontation, sections of the political class that want to get rid of the government by all possible means, and the government’s own poor performance.

All sections of the political class, including the leaders in power, are more enthusiastic about imposing the strictest standards of morality, accountability and democracy on each other without bothering to consider if their individual disposition conforms to the desired criteria.

Most opposition leaders want the Supreme Court (SC) to knock out President Asif Ali Zardari or the PPP-led federal government either directly or by asking the army to send tanks and troops to do this, because they think that the federal government cannot be removed through parliament. They have the mistaken notion of the judiciary and the army fulfilling their partisan agenda.

However, parliamentarians and other leaders do not want anybody to raise any issue about their overall performance or their financial assets. The recent publication of a comparative study of their assets by a non-governmental organisation, the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT), has perturbed most parliamentarians irrespective of party affiliations. They have described this as a conspiracy to malign them and democracy. The data used for the study is taken from the annual statements of assets that parliamentarians submit to the election commission. This information is available in the public domain. Still, they do not want anyone to analyse it and release their findings to the media.

An over-active judiciary may facilitate the opposition’s objective of keeping the government under pressure or its removal altogether. However, the political class is unable to realise the long-term implications of this for the future of democracy and the political leaders and parties.

Past experience suggests that the removal of governments by non-elected institutions like the military did not help democracy and accountability of the ruler; nor did it improve governance. It placed restrictions on the role of political leaders except when they agreed to be co-opted by the ruling generals. Now, another non-elected institution, the judiciary, is mounting pressure, which, if not handled carefully, can lead to a confrontation among the state institutions, causing acute political instability.

The threat of confrontation between the PPP-led federal government and the superior judiciary is going to be extremely destabilising and will be detrimental to the future of democracy. The major opposition parties are expected to support the SC in this confrontation. Unlike November1997, when Nawaz Sharif confronted the SC to save his government, he is expected to support the SC this time for punitive action against the present prime minister and/or the president.

Democracy is a joint exercise of different state institutions and the political class with an emphasis on constitutionalism, the rule of law and respect for democratic principles in letter and spirit. If one institution develops an aura of self-righteousness and adopts a unilateral approach of setting everything right, the political process will be stifled.

All the major cases currently before the superior judiciary involve specific articles of the constitution. Some of the articles like immunity to the president from initiating or continuing with any criminal proceedings (Article 248(2)) are so clear-cut one wonders why this matter should stay unresolved for such a long time. Similarly, the constitution recognises the primacy of parliament for constitutional amendments (Article 239(5), (6)), and a party office is not yet labelled as an office of profit. In the past, the heads of state and government have held the top party slot without triggering appeal to the superior judiciary. Such political issues should be settled in parliament by legislation for the separation of the two offices.

These controversies have brought Pakistan’s current democracy to the brink of collapse. The fact remains that if the present state of affairs is not changed, Pakistan may become a non-functional and non-effective state. What will the military do, whose stakes are very high in political stability, because it is addressing the triangular challenge of terrorism, India’s security pressure, and rescue and relief work for the flood-hit people? It may be hesitant to get involved in another task. However, if the situation gets out of hand with the pro and anti-government elements confronting each other, the military top brass may find it difficult to stay indifferent. Alternatively, the superior judiciary may seek the military’s cooperation.

Unless the present drift between the superior judiciary and the executive is moderated, Pakistan’s capacity to cope with its acute economic problems, the threat of terrorism and the rehabilitation of the flood-hit people will be greatly undermined.


The writer is a political and defence analyst

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Democratic process must continue

September 29, 2010

Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s meeting with the president and prime minister at the presidency has sent out strong signals that the government and the military are on the same page. After Musharraf’s departure, the military, as a matter of policy, has decided to fight the threat to the state from the Pakistani Taliban. The military has also realised that Pakistan’s crisis is so severe and deep that it is a very difficult proposition to govern the country without a legitimate, elected government.

The logic that any option other than continuing the current democratic government is too costly to even consider in the current circumstances seems to have won with all major actors. Despite political differences with the PPP, opposition PML-N’s chief Mian Nawaz Sharif has sided with the incumbent government because he realises that any rift among the political forces will strengthen non-political actors. This was also the essence of the ‘Charter of Democracy’ that was signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif that no party would appeal to the army to pull its rival down, in the light of past experience. To top it all, US officials have given clear statements that they are not ready for a change in the political set-up of Pakistan and would like to see the current dispensation completing its term.

If there is a unanimity of views among all the major actors that determine Pakistan’s political fortunes, it would be pertinent to ask why, then, there is so much negative opinion against the government and that, despite advertising their democratic credentials, wide sections of the media would like see this government go.

The answer is that the rightwing forces have been trying to sabotage and remove the PPP from the day it assumed office. A factor that has been added to Pakistan’s political equation relatively recently is the newly independent ‘free’ media, which overwhelmingly represents rightwing opinion. The PPP is an anathema to the Right for ideological reasons stemming from the party’s history as well as less sublime reasons. Despite the fact that the party has moved far away from its original manifesto and Left ideals, the mistrust and suspicion still lingers. It is still seen to represent the liberal, democratic and secular face of our political spectrum. Secondly, the PPP, too, has been accused of using public office for private gain like all other parties. That taint of corruption continues to dog its steps.

To its misfortune, the Right is out of sync with the situation. Hence all its predictions of doom since this government came into power in March 2008 have proved wrong again and again. However, that does not absolve the government of its duty to perform well in office and, as far as possible, wash off the taint of corruption. If it is able to do that, it can be assured of completing its term. Even if fails to improve delivery in office, it may still complete its term, but that will be more by default than on merit. Nevertheless, it will still be a great achievement, because no other genuinely democratically elected government in Pakistan has been allowed to complete its term since the 1970s.

Democracy is critical for Pakistan. In our history it has not been allowed to function and the political process to play itself out consistently. The result is not only the weakening of state institutions but the state itself. Many aspects of the state are crumbling before our very eyes. Democracy, by itself, is not the panacea for all ills of society, but it offers a level playing field for all forces to contend for their aims and aspirations. If democracy flourishes, that would not be a bad development for Pakistan, which has remained afflicted by interruptions to the process throughout its history.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The party of the old guard

By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 09 Oct, 2010

Young people do not have the experience to discern between genuine criticism and a campaign inspired by dark, cynical forces. –Photo by APP

One striking aspect of the last US presidential election was Barack Obama’s ability to connect with young Americans, and draw them into the political process. Alas, this kind of political engagement is entirely missing in Pakistan.

In a recent article in the monthly Newsline, Ayesha Siddiqa, a defence analyst, cited a survey of young Pakistani students at elite educational institutions in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. While the size of the sample is quite small (608), it nevertheless offers an insight into what educated, well-to-do young Pakistanis think about important national and global issues.

For me, the most depressing finding of this survey was that 67 per cent of the respondents said they would not become members of any political party, and over 80 per cent said they would not contribute funds to any party.

This confirms my personal observation about the depoliticisation of an entire generation of young Pakistanis. When you look at our politicians, the first thing you notice about them is their age. Just as they cling on to their party positions, very few young people are coming through to challenge them. The few who do have been anointed by feudal politicians who pass on their political fiefdoms to their sons as part of their inheritance.

On the national scene, it is the PPP that probably has the most elderly leadership. Over the last two decades, it has been steadily squeezed out of Lahore and Karachi by the PML-N and the MQM respectively. Now reduced to a largely rural presence, it no longer commands the loyalty of young urban members. While I have no figures to support my assertion, a rough reckoning shows the party to be in terminal decline in the major cities of Pakistan.

A major reason for this lack of interest in politics among educated young Pakistanis is the constant hammering of politicians and the ramshackle democratic system by the electronic media. Day in and day out, retired bureaucrats and generals, as well as out-of-power politicians, are invited to TV studios to abuse the government of the day.

Apart from being a destabilising force, this drip-drip-drip of venom understandably turns young people off politics. They do not have the experience to discern between genuine criticism and a campaign inspired by dark, cynical forces.

Another reason — and one that we often do not take into our calculation — is the ban on student politics issued by Zia over 30 years ago. Until he cast his malignant shadow over the land, our campuses had a lively bunch of budding politicians representing different strands of thought. Many political careers were launched from colleges and universities. But after the ban, only the Jamiat, the student wing of the Jamaat-i-Islami, was allowed to function and take over the country’s campuses.

This far-reaching policy effectively marginalised left-wing, liberal campus parties, and gave rise to the dominance of reactionary groups. These elements now support religious forces and conservative political parties like the various permutations of the Muslim League, including Nawaz Sharif’s faction.

A major casualty of this one-sided ban was the National Students Federation (NSF) that had once incubated and encouraged a generation of student activists who went into politics after graduation. Many of them joined the Pakistan People’s Party, fired up by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s populism and radical rhetoric. Others gravitated to even more leftist parties.

Under Zia, however, the NSF was targeted by university authorities and Jamiat hoods, backed by the police and the army. Many NSF activists were jailed; others went underground. Soon, liberal students, with no group to join, were bullied into silence by the Jamiat. Liberal faculty were often subjected to threats from the administration, as well as from reactionary thugs who ran amok on our campuses.

This systematic ganging up on young Pakistani liberal students effectively cut them off from politics: unwilling to join the Jamiat, and unable to express their political views, many were subdued into silence. Swiftly, campuses became graveyards for liberal and left-wing views.

The biggest loser of this reactionary onslaught was the PPP. Already hounded by the police and the army across the country, it lost much of its urban support from student activists. Worse, even when Zia finally left the scene, it was the religious parties who had trained young cadres to continue to destabilise and harass a fledgling democracy headed by Benazir Bhutto.

Another beneficiary of this rightward tilt is Nawaz Sharif. With his deeply conservative mindset, he has attracted many young people who have been influenced by the Jamiat as students. Although they might not have become members themselves, they are attracted to a politician who once wanted to declare the Sharia the law of the land to replace the constitution, and was on the verge of declaring himself the amir-ul-momineen, or commander of the faithful.

The PPP, for its part, has neither analysed the problem, nor has it sought to reach out to the young. It seems to assume that its vote bank will last forever, and that somehow, it has the trust of its supporters unto perpetuity. And then, of course, it suits the old guard not to have to fend off the challenge of young politicians who want to get to the top.

All too often, I am on the receiving end of angry emails from young readers who demand to know how I can support corrupt politicians, and why I defend democracy when it produces leaders like Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. This attitude demonstrates their concern for Pakistan, as well as their confusion. When I ask them if they are for dictatorship, they are usually clear they are not. Through a lack of a political understanding of the situation, they know what they are against, but don’t know what they are for.

Without a charismatic leader to inspire voters, I do not expect the PPP to activate its base in the next election. For the foreseeable future, I can see it decline into irrelevance. While it will form a vocal opposition, I don’t think it will be a serious contender for power any time soon.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s increasingly conservative urban population will continue to provide new recruits to Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League faction. Thus far, the PPP has branded itself as the party of the poor. It is now in danger of becoming the party of the elderly.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The saviour complex

Dawn Editorial
Wednesday, 13 Oct, 201

Eleven years ago yesterday, the country was plunged into its fourth round of direct military rule. The ‘decade of democracy’ which preceded that fateful day had proved to be a governance disaster, clearing a path for yet another would-be saviour in uniform to rescue Pakistan from the clutches of venal, incompetent and corrupt politicians.

But by the time Gen Musharraf was hounded out of office in August 2008, it seemed at long last Pakistan and Pakistanis had embraced the only form of governance that has never really been given a shot: a democratic form of government built around a succession principle allowing the regular, peaceful transfer of power between political parties. Worryingly, however, this time too the memory of institutions, the media and the people has proved short-lived. If another coup seems unlikely today — which it does, notwithstanding all the political rumour and gossip — it has little to do with a love for democracy. The three strongest arguments against a coup today are: one, the army has its hands full fighting a fierce internal insurgency; two, the political government has surrendered control of foreign and national security policies, matters the army cares about the most; and three, no acceptable political alternative to the present government is available to the extra-constitutional powers-that-be. Hardly the kind of arguments that make for a resounding defence of the democratic project.

So, unhappily, there is little reason to believe the days of would-be uniformed saviours are a thing of the past. A report in this newspaper yesterday, outlining the story of the short-lived ‘army chief’, Ziauddin Butt, who temporarily replaced Gen Musharraf on Oct 12, 1999, suggests how fine the line is between an apolitical chief and a would-be saviour. Ziauddin Butt may have reasons to exaggerate or distort history, but it is telling that to this day rumours persist that the army under Gen Musharraf had in principle decided it was time for the civilians ‘to go’ and only the details were left to be filled out by circumstance. True, Nawaz Sharif eventually obliged the army by trying to get rid of yet another chief, but Mr Sharif did not create the institutional mindset of the military which made the Musharraf coup possible in the first place.

Equally, however, if a certain kind of military mindset is ever to be defeated, the civilians will have to raise their game. Ceteris paribus, the political government’s staggering indifference to issues of governance and policymaking has done much harm to the prospects for democracy. The villain cannot be expected to just bow out gracefully; it will need to be out-thought and outfoxed.