Sunday, May 01, 2005
What America wants in Pakistan?
Columns
Written in anguish
By Roedad Khan
For Pakistanis, there are three mysteries in life: When they are going to die, when independent democracy will be established and when army will strike again. There are, in my view, two factors that, above all others have shaped our history during the last 50 years or so. One is the growing power of the military in running the affairs of state. The other, without doubt, consists in the total failure of the politicians, the intelligentsia, the intellectuals, in fact, the entire civil society to comprehend the threat posed by a powerful army to the country’s fragile democracy, and to devise ways and means to thwart it. “Military coups”, Alexis De Tocqueville warned more than 200 years ago, “are always to be feared in democracies. They should be reckoned among the most threatening of the perils, which face their future existence. Statesmen must never relax their efforts to find a remedy for this evil”. Sadly, the warning went unheeded in newly independent Pakistan. When our descendants, in a century’s time, come to look at our age, it is these two phenomena that will, I think, be held to be the determining factors of our history - the most demanding of explanation and analysis. Not surprisingly, 58 years after independence, a General in uniform rules 140 million Pakistanis without their consent. Government without consent, as every student of political science knows, is called tyranny. This is not what Mr Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan. Memories come back to me like shards of glass prompting tears, sorrow and anger. 58 years ago, Pakistan symbolised all our wishes and expectations. It was like a dream come true and carried with it a sense of pride, of excitement, and of jubilation. With Mr Jinnah’s death it was as if a great light had gone out, and people were left groping in the dark. The nation donned black. The airwaves resounded to a perpetual lamentation. 57 years after his death, we should be raising a toast to Jinnah, his vision, and his democratic principles. And we should take that opportunity to ask the question: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here. 57 years after Jinnah’s death, our entire political system has been pulled into a black hole caused by periodic army intervention and prolonged army rule. Today Pakistan is like a nightmare in which you foresee all the horrible things, which are going to happen and can’t stretch out your hand to prevent them. Such is the feeling conjured up by army rule in Pakistan. Why did the army get involved in the politics of Pakistan in the first instance? Why did Ayub Khan stab Pakistan’s fledgling democracy in the back? Why was he allowed to commit the original sin? Worse still, why did everybody acclaim it? There was no breakdown of law and order to justify imposition of Martial Law. There was also no civil commotion to prevent the judges from attending their courts. The country was abuzz with politics, but that happens in all democracies, especially on the eve of elections.Why did the superior judiciary, the guardian of the constitution, the protector of the citizens’ rights, become subservient to the executive and to the philosophy of the party in power? Why is it that no one raised his little finger to protect the Supreme Court when it was attacked by thugs unleashed by the government? Why was the court allowed to be desecrated and demeaned? Why did we allow the rule of law to give way to the rule of man? Why must our judges match their constitutional ideas and legal language to the exigencies of current politics? Why did the courts tailor their decisions for reasons of expediency or, at times, for simple survival? Why did the Parliament, the pillar of our state, the embodiment of the will of the people, become a rubber stamp? Why did it allow itself to be gagged? Why did it surrender its sovereignty to both military and civilian dictators? Why did it acquiesce in the desecration of the Supreme Court? Why did Pakistan become a land of opportunities for corrupt, unscrupulous, unprincipled politicians; judges and generals; corrupt and dishonest civil servants; smugglers and tax evaders who have bank accounts, luxurious villas, mansions, and apartments in the West? Why did Pakistan become a nightmare of corruption, crime and despair? Why? Why? The army of Pakistan struck Pakistan’s nascent democracy four times and has been in power for nearly half the country’s existence. It has cast a long shadow over politics in Pakistan even during the period of civilian rule. Repeated army intervention in the politics of Pakistan has been a recipe for disaster. It has thwarted the growth and development of parliamentary democracy and destroyed whatever little faith people had in their political institutions. What is worse, it has eroded people’s faith in themselves as citizens of a sovereign, independent, democratic country. The country is in a mess. Today Pakistan presents an image of a country plagued by political, ethnic and sectarian conflicts. The country appears to be adrift, lacking confidence about its future. Never before has public confidence in the country’s future sunk so low. Today people are besieged in their own country. Their take-off is held back; their development is blocked, although General Musharraf and his Prime Minister honestly think we Pakistanis are living in the best of times. The reality is that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Poverty is deepening. Educated unemployment is rising. It shows how far removed Pakistan is from the proverbial rising tide of the global economy that is supposed to be lifting all boats. What is going on? Actually it is quite simple: Musharraf and his cronies talk only to their base - the military and its corporate interests and are obliviously to everyone else’s concerns. Where are the voices of public outrage? Where is the leadership willing to stand up and say: Enough! Enough! We have sullied ourselves enough. 58 years after independence, are we really free? Are the people masters in their own house? Are our sovereignty and independence untrammelled? The nation has been forced against its will to accept a totalitarian democracy. “Say Pakistan”, and what comes to mind? Military coups, sham democracy and “elected”, all powerful President in uniform, who is also the Chief of Army Staff, a non-sovereign parliament, a figurehead Prime Minister and a spineless judiciary. For a demonstration of why the mere act of holding a rigged election is not an adequate path to democracy, look no further than Pakistan. A ritual conducted in the name of democracy but without a democratic process or a democratic outcome devalues real democracy. Such elections only solidify authoritarian rule, they are worse than counter-productive. Why are we passively mute? How can we be so comatose as a nation when all our political institutions are crumbling before our own eyes? In trying to describe our situation and our apathy I often turn to a book title of some years ago: Sleepwalking through history by Haynes Johnson. Pakistanis are like sleepwalkers who think all is well because they are blind to reality; if they saw reality as it truly is, they might go out of their minds. Today we are back to square one like Sisyphus, the Greek errant in mythology whose punishment in Hades was to push uphill a huge boulder only to have it tumble down again. Tyranny is not abandoned as long as it is served by a modicum of those two enormous and dreadful powers: the ignorance of the people and organised troops. It is going to be an uphill task.Why is Pakistan, under military rule for the fourth time in its life, largely immune to the winds of democracy that have blown everywhere else in the world? Why? That is a pretty important question. And why is it avoided in the United States? Why does America turn a blind eye to the deficit of democracy in Pakistan? It is because United States basically tells the Generals who rule Pakistan, that all they needed to do was to carry out American agenda, fight the so-called terrorists whom they called freedom fighters not very long ago; in the process kill innocent men, women and children; use the state apparatus against all those who resist American imperialism; withdraw support from freedom fighters in Kashmir; accept LoC as an international boundary, propagate “enlightened moderation” in the Islamic world and be nice to India. If they did all that, they could deny their own people the freedom America advocates everywhere else and rule forever. It all began with the cold war at the dawn of independence and systematically weakened democratic forces in Pakistan. After the end of the cold war, the emergence of international terrorism and Bush administration’s war on terror, have continued to favour the maintenance of “friendly” authoritarian regimes. The Bush administration’s call for democratisation invariably takes a backseat to security considerations perpetuating tolerance of “cooperative” dictators who support the war on terror. Pakistan is not on the Bush democracy list. Democracy, freedom of choice, rule of law and human rights, are highly desirable American goals but their priority has obviously diminished since September 11. In an off the cuff comment on the series of constitutional changes announced by President Musharraf, President Bush conveyed a sense that democracy in Pakistan was not all that important and was an afterthought for him
Reodad Khan ... Nation,Lahore May First.2005
Written in anguish
By Roedad Khan
For Pakistanis, there are three mysteries in life: When they are going to die, when independent democracy will be established and when army will strike again. There are, in my view, two factors that, above all others have shaped our history during the last 50 years or so. One is the growing power of the military in running the affairs of state. The other, without doubt, consists in the total failure of the politicians, the intelligentsia, the intellectuals, in fact, the entire civil society to comprehend the threat posed by a powerful army to the country’s fragile democracy, and to devise ways and means to thwart it. “Military coups”, Alexis De Tocqueville warned more than 200 years ago, “are always to be feared in democracies. They should be reckoned among the most threatening of the perils, which face their future existence. Statesmen must never relax their efforts to find a remedy for this evil”. Sadly, the warning went unheeded in newly independent Pakistan. When our descendants, in a century’s time, come to look at our age, it is these two phenomena that will, I think, be held to be the determining factors of our history - the most demanding of explanation and analysis. Not surprisingly, 58 years after independence, a General in uniform rules 140 million Pakistanis without their consent. Government without consent, as every student of political science knows, is called tyranny. This is not what Mr Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan. Memories come back to me like shards of glass prompting tears, sorrow and anger. 58 years ago, Pakistan symbolised all our wishes and expectations. It was like a dream come true and carried with it a sense of pride, of excitement, and of jubilation. With Mr Jinnah’s death it was as if a great light had gone out, and people were left groping in the dark. The nation donned black. The airwaves resounded to a perpetual lamentation. 57 years after his death, we should be raising a toast to Jinnah, his vision, and his democratic principles. And we should take that opportunity to ask the question: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here. 57 years after Jinnah’s death, our entire political system has been pulled into a black hole caused by periodic army intervention and prolonged army rule. Today Pakistan is like a nightmare in which you foresee all the horrible things, which are going to happen and can’t stretch out your hand to prevent them. Such is the feeling conjured up by army rule in Pakistan. Why did the army get involved in the politics of Pakistan in the first instance? Why did Ayub Khan stab Pakistan’s fledgling democracy in the back? Why was he allowed to commit the original sin? Worse still, why did everybody acclaim it? There was no breakdown of law and order to justify imposition of Martial Law. There was also no civil commotion to prevent the judges from attending their courts. The country was abuzz with politics, but that happens in all democracies, especially on the eve of elections.Why did the superior judiciary, the guardian of the constitution, the protector of the citizens’ rights, become subservient to the executive and to the philosophy of the party in power? Why is it that no one raised his little finger to protect the Supreme Court when it was attacked by thugs unleashed by the government? Why was the court allowed to be desecrated and demeaned? Why did we allow the rule of law to give way to the rule of man? Why must our judges match their constitutional ideas and legal language to the exigencies of current politics? Why did the courts tailor their decisions for reasons of expediency or, at times, for simple survival? Why did the Parliament, the pillar of our state, the embodiment of the will of the people, become a rubber stamp? Why did it allow itself to be gagged? Why did it surrender its sovereignty to both military and civilian dictators? Why did it acquiesce in the desecration of the Supreme Court? Why did Pakistan become a land of opportunities for corrupt, unscrupulous, unprincipled politicians; judges and generals; corrupt and dishonest civil servants; smugglers and tax evaders who have bank accounts, luxurious villas, mansions, and apartments in the West? Why did Pakistan become a nightmare of corruption, crime and despair? Why? Why? The army of Pakistan struck Pakistan’s nascent democracy four times and has been in power for nearly half the country’s existence. It has cast a long shadow over politics in Pakistan even during the period of civilian rule. Repeated army intervention in the politics of Pakistan has been a recipe for disaster. It has thwarted the growth and development of parliamentary democracy and destroyed whatever little faith people had in their political institutions. What is worse, it has eroded people’s faith in themselves as citizens of a sovereign, independent, democratic country. The country is in a mess. Today Pakistan presents an image of a country plagued by political, ethnic and sectarian conflicts. The country appears to be adrift, lacking confidence about its future. Never before has public confidence in the country’s future sunk so low. Today people are besieged in their own country. Their take-off is held back; their development is blocked, although General Musharraf and his Prime Minister honestly think we Pakistanis are living in the best of times. The reality is that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Poverty is deepening. Educated unemployment is rising. It shows how far removed Pakistan is from the proverbial rising tide of the global economy that is supposed to be lifting all boats. What is going on? Actually it is quite simple: Musharraf and his cronies talk only to their base - the military and its corporate interests and are obliviously to everyone else’s concerns. Where are the voices of public outrage? Where is the leadership willing to stand up and say: Enough! Enough! We have sullied ourselves enough. 58 years after independence, are we really free? Are the people masters in their own house? Are our sovereignty and independence untrammelled? The nation has been forced against its will to accept a totalitarian democracy. “Say Pakistan”, and what comes to mind? Military coups, sham democracy and “elected”, all powerful President in uniform, who is also the Chief of Army Staff, a non-sovereign parliament, a figurehead Prime Minister and a spineless judiciary. For a demonstration of why the mere act of holding a rigged election is not an adequate path to democracy, look no further than Pakistan. A ritual conducted in the name of democracy but without a democratic process or a democratic outcome devalues real democracy. Such elections only solidify authoritarian rule, they are worse than counter-productive. Why are we passively mute? How can we be so comatose as a nation when all our political institutions are crumbling before our own eyes? In trying to describe our situation and our apathy I often turn to a book title of some years ago: Sleepwalking through history by Haynes Johnson. Pakistanis are like sleepwalkers who think all is well because they are blind to reality; if they saw reality as it truly is, they might go out of their minds. Today we are back to square one like Sisyphus, the Greek errant in mythology whose punishment in Hades was to push uphill a huge boulder only to have it tumble down again. Tyranny is not abandoned as long as it is served by a modicum of those two enormous and dreadful powers: the ignorance of the people and organised troops. It is going to be an uphill task.Why is Pakistan, under military rule for the fourth time in its life, largely immune to the winds of democracy that have blown everywhere else in the world? Why? That is a pretty important question. And why is it avoided in the United States? Why does America turn a blind eye to the deficit of democracy in Pakistan? It is because United States basically tells the Generals who rule Pakistan, that all they needed to do was to carry out American agenda, fight the so-called terrorists whom they called freedom fighters not very long ago; in the process kill innocent men, women and children; use the state apparatus against all those who resist American imperialism; withdraw support from freedom fighters in Kashmir; accept LoC as an international boundary, propagate “enlightened moderation” in the Islamic world and be nice to India. If they did all that, they could deny their own people the freedom America advocates everywhere else and rule forever. It all began with the cold war at the dawn of independence and systematically weakened democratic forces in Pakistan. After the end of the cold war, the emergence of international terrorism and Bush administration’s war on terror, have continued to favour the maintenance of “friendly” authoritarian regimes. The Bush administration’s call for democratisation invariably takes a backseat to security considerations perpetuating tolerance of “cooperative” dictators who support the war on terror. Pakistan is not on the Bush democracy list. Democracy, freedom of choice, rule of law and human rights, are highly desirable American goals but their priority has obviously diminished since September 11. In an off the cuff comment on the series of constitutional changes announced by President Musharraf, President Bush conveyed a sense that democracy in Pakistan was not all that important and was an afterthought for him
Reodad Khan ... Nation,Lahore May First.2005
