| August 30, 2008 | Saturday | Sha'aban 27, 1429 |
|
Chatter from cyberspace
AS I watch the glitz and the glamour of the Democratic convention, and listen to the inspirational speeches made in Denver over the last few days, I compare them with our desperate attempts to make a newly-won democratic system work in Pakistan. Alas, the comparison is not exactly flattering.
For days now, my inbox has been flooded with emails complaining loudly and bitterly about what readers see as the appalling choices before Pakistan. The break-up of the coalition, the failure to reinstate the sacked chief justice, and the strong possibility of Asif Zardari becoming the next president are all pointers, to the chattering classes at least, to a looming political crisis. Many readers — as well as some distinguished columnists writing on this page — have expressed the view that Musharraf was far better than the politicians who dominate the stage today.
At the risk of attracting yet more flak, let me try and put a few of these apprehensions and reservations into proper context. And in passing, let me also check off some of our recent political gains: despite serious (and justified) doubts, reasonably free and fair elections were held; the extremists were routed at the polls; and Musharraf has been forced to resign.
In a perfect world, the Zardari-Sharif alliance would have worked smoothly and without friction; Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry would have been reinstated months ago; and a neutral, uncontroversial figure would have been elected president. But as we know, the world is far from perfect, and Pakistan is even less so. And nobody ever said the path to democracy was without its pitfalls.
One problem we Pakistanis have in framing the political discourse is that we have grown up in the shadow of military dictatorship. By and large, we have seen generals acting decisively and without bothering with niceties like forging a consensus, or working within constitutional confines. Most importantly, they don’t have to worry about keeping voters happy.
When we contrast their crisp leadership style with the wheeling-dealing and constant compromises politicians have to make to survive, we find elected leaders to be amoral and indecisive. But we forget that despite all the seeming efficiency of the military style, every dictator has left the country in a worse mess than his predecessor.
The truth is that the military is a force for preserving the status quo. Generals do not want to change the system, they only want to make it more efficient. Thus, they represent stability and continuity. In itself, this would be no bad thing as they provide an umbrella for capitalists and encourage investment.
But in a country like Pakistan, there is a desperate need to change the status quo. We must improve the educational and public health systems, empower women, and roll back extremism. None of this can be done by army generals. Their primary objective, irrespective of their claim to serve the nation, is to stay in power. Period. As we saw last year, Musharraf was willing to sack 60 judges, and beat up and jail hundreds of lawyers and political activists just to cling to power.
When we complain of the fragility of the PPP–PML-N alliance, we forget that the seeds of conflict were sown over 20 years ago. The reality is that the two parties have been rivals for power ever since Nawaz Sharif emerged on the political stage under Ziaul Haq’s tutelage in the mid-1980s. To expect the two parties to suddenly put their rivalry aside is to want a wolf to coexist peacefully with a deer.
To grasp this fundamental reality is to understand why Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry has not been reinstated despite the agreements and the hours of discussions. In a sense, he has become a political football between the two leaders. Nawaz Sharif saw in him somebody who would ensure Musharraf’s exit one way or another.
And he would make the PPP’s task of running the government virtually impossible through a series of suo motu hearings, continuing his approach to jurisprudence that we saw under Musharraf. In addition, he was widely expected to throw out the NRO that granted amnesty to Asif Zardari, as well as hundreds of other politicians and bureaucrats. This would subject the PPP co-chairman to yet another series of legal battles that would further discredit him.
Those beating the accountability drum today ignore the fact that Asif Zardari has spent over eight years in jail on charges that have remained unproven after 11 years of investigation and judicial process. No other major political figure in Pakistan has spent so much time behind bars. I have little doubt that there is some truth in some of the accusations, but I also believe in the sound legal principle of considering a person innocent until proven guilty.
However, many people are so full of venom against the Bhuttos, and anybody related to them, that they would happily hang them without a fair trial. In this poisonous atmosphere, it is difficult to conduct a reasonable discussion about justice and fair play.
These rabid critics are loudly questioning Zardari’s credentials for becoming president. According to them, he cannot be ‘neutral’ as he is the de facto leader of the PPP. While this is certainly true, I would like to know how ‘neutral’ Musharraf was: we all know that his King’s Party of quislings and turncoats met regularly at the presidency, and that he gave instructions to Altaf Hussain of the MQM over the presidential telephone. Or, for that matter, how ‘neutral’ was Zia, or Ghulam Ishaq Khan?
Many of those who have been emailing me know what they are against; their problem is that they don’t know what they are for. Whether they fulminate against Zardari, or insist that Musharraf was better than all the leaders in the political arena, they cannot tell me what they would like to see. If we believe in democracy, we must accept the will of the people. The reality is that voters rejected Musharraf and his PML-Q in February, and we have to live with the results of that choice.
Another problem with so many of the online critics I encounter in cyberspace is that they constantly talk about individuals, not institutions. Thus, they freely express their dislike for Zardari, while voicing their admiration for Musharraf. But ultimately, we can only ensure accountability and good governance by strengthening democratic institutions, and not by having them smashed again and again by adventurers in uniform.
irfanhusain@gmail.com
