Democracy is a Question Mark (What will it take for democracy to return to Pakistan?)

The Indian Express ^ | Tuesday, June 07, 2005 | KULDIP NAYAR

[nickcarraway]

While in Lahore a few days ago, I picked up a book, We’ve Learnt Nothing From History, by Mohammad Asghar Khan, first commander-in-chief of Pakistan’s Air Force. I met him in his political incarnation; he was the founder of Tehrik-e-Istaqlal. This was the time when former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had been sentenced to death. I requested Asghar Khan to issue an appeal for the release of Bhutto. My argument was — the same point I had earlier made to Wali Khan from the Northwest Frontier Province — that Bhutto should be fought politically. If the military finished him, it would set a ruinous precedent and also hit democracy beyond repair. Both Wali Khan and Asghar Khan had suffered at the hands Bhutto so much that they had no sympathy for him. Wali Khan told me that Bhutto had arranged a murderous attack on him. Both said that a person like Bhutto could be destroyed only by the military, no one else. Finally, it happened that way. For the first time, the military rulers hanged an elected prime minister, thus establishing a dangerous precedent. I was unfortunately proved right. Democracy in Pakistan suffered a fatal blow.

I have gone through Asghar Khan’s book to find out if he has explained why he did not appeal for Bhutto’s release. All that he has written in the book is that President Zia-ul Haq did not want to hang Bhutto originally but ultimately took the decision to do so. This is not correct. When I met Zia soon after the coup, he described to me at length how Bhutto had tried to prevail upon him that they could rule together — ‘‘my brain and your brawn,’’ as Zia put it. It was as if only one of two could survive. Obviously, Bhutto was eliminated.

What changed Zia’s mind, Asghar Khan says, was a series of happenings between July 15 and the end of August 1977: the reception that Bhutto received on arrival at Lahore in August 1977; the advice of the junta who were not prepared to take the risk of Bhutto winning the election, the pleadings of some Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) leaders that Bhutto should be tried and the elections postponed; the provisions of the 1973 constitution which laid down the death penalty for abrogation of the constitution; and finally Zia-ul Haq’s inbred distrust of politicians. All this may well be true. But what ultimately weighed with Zia, I believe, was the fear that if he let off Bhutto, he would try him (Zia) one day. Zia was saving his own neck.

As for the state of democracy, I believe that politicians in Pakistan are primarily responsible for its eclipse. The men in khaki and those in grey suits (bureaucrats) have been in league with each other to perpetuate their stranglehold on the administration. Politicians have weakened themselves by fighting one another for power and the military has exploited the situation to pit one against the other. Still, had General Pervez Musharraf discarded the uniform as he had promised, he would have ignited hopes that military rule was on its way out.

Yet, I am sorry to infer that the Pakistanis have reconciled to military rule. I do not see any genuine challenge to it, although the armed forces are very unpopular. As a people, the Pakistanis are similar to the Indians. But the latter were brave enough to throw out Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian regime within 19 months of her imposing the Emergency in June 1975. It may be that Pakistan has not gone through the independence struggle as India has. Or that the Muslim League has not suffered or made sacrifices the way the then Congress party did. Whatever the reasons, the fact is that the people in India, however dispersed, have established a democratic system in which the military has no role. It exists only for the country’s defence.

It is apparent that Pakistan cannot have democracy so long as a person in uniform heads the country. Even otherwise, I do not see Pakistan becoming as democratic as even Bangladesh. My several visits to Pakistan have convinced me that a Turkey-like structure may come to be acceptable in that country some day — the army, air force and navy chiefs sitting with the prime minister and some of his colleagues in a top ruling council. This is tragic but unfortunately true.

Asghar Khan’s observations on Kashmir are realistic. ‘‘Whatever the moral strength of Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir issue,’’ he says, ‘‘it is not realistic to expect India to walk out of occupied Kashmir. The facade of a secular India would thus be exposed, which India fears will lead to a strengthening of the centrifugal forces in different parts of the country. A settlement on Pakistan’s terms, therefore, is unlikely... for another fifty to hundred years. The chances are that before the end of this period, the two nuclear powers with a common border will destroy themselves in a senseless nuclear holocaust, the likes of which the world has not yet seen. Even if this did not happen, the population explosion alone would impose a burden on the economy of both the countries which they cannot bear when they are spending their meagre resources on non-productive expenditure.’’

Asghar Khan describes how Pakistani democracy degenerated into mere electoralism and how a new crop of leaders, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, played musical chairs in Islamabad with disastrous consequences for state and society. As national values declined, cynicism spread like cancer. He believes that the real issues of a developing country must be addressed without the politics of rhetoric. Humanitarianism, social justice and democracy are the crux of his political philosophy. He is still optimistic about Pakistan becoming a tolerant, modern society. If people do not stand up for their ideals and do not voice them as and when they can, who can safeguard a society’s freedoms?

In many ways, this applies to India as well, although we are a democratic, secular polity.

[llama hunter]

I hate to say this but the more I see how crazy Pakistanis are, the more I'm glad Musharraf is in power, and I know, I am a hypocrite

the fact of the matter is that Pakistani politics is so deeply corrupt that Musharraf is in fact an improvement, now I am not naive Musharraf is not pure as the driven snow but in many aspects he exhibits innate common sense, not tht he has been able to implement his common sense like reforming the madrassas in Pakistan, assuming he wasn't just talking the talk but in Pakistan, just talking the talk can get you killed, so I have to impute some sincerity to Mushy, I just think he has gotten a little heady with all his power but on the other hand, given Pakistan has the nuke, I don't want a bunch of flag burning bride gang banging honour killing Shia bombing crazies to get their hands on those nukes anytime soon

rumour has it, and one of the reasons Al Queda wants Mushy dead is that Mushy has a deal with the US to take control of the nukes if the Islamists nutbars grab power at some point, don't know if it is true or not, could be anti Mushy propaganda....

I use to be a fan of Benazir Bhutto, until I read allegations that Bhutto, a supposed secularist, made her own deal with Al Queda

her predecessor was alleged to be receiving money from Saudi Arabia to not allow Al Queda to operate in Pakistan

of course he took the money and let Bin Laden operate, sounds quite plausible because Kashmir is still a priority for the Pakistan government....and AQ was heavily involved in Kashmir

Bhutto decided she's keep up the same scam whilst in office as well

and I thought, et tu Benazir, and you represent moderate Pakistan?????

[Cacique]

How on earth can something return that was never there in the first place?

When was there ever a working democracy in Pakistan?

Simply because you hold questionable elections every now and then, does not mean you have a functioning democratic regimen. They held elections in Nazi Germany too, as well as the old USSR.

[Americanexpat]

If your a hypocrite then there will be two of us and for the same reasons.