The Pakistani dilemma
“I believe democracy to be of all forms of government the most natural, and the most consonant with individual liberty. In it no one transfers his natural rights so absolutely that he has no further voice in affairs, he only hands it over to the majority of a society, whereof he is a unit. Thus all men remain, as they were in the state of nature, equals” — Spinoza.
Ever since the day I was born, General Ziaul Haq has been the subject of debate in our family circles. Maybe it was because of my family’s interest in politics that his name kept popping up in every conversation, or maybe it was because everyone was so miserable during his rule that they had to bring up his name incessantly to curse him. In my mind’s eye, General Zia and cursing soon became synonymous. At that time I was too young to understand the reasons why people were against him, but I remember all too clearly that when he died, there were muted celebrations all around. Death is a sad occasion, but General Ziaul Haq’s death was not mourned by many in Pakistan.
“Pakistan can be described as a praetorian state where the military has acquired the capability, will, and sufficient experience to dominate the core political institutions and processes. As the political forces are disparate and weak, the military’s disposition has a strong impact on the course of political change, including the transfer of power from one set of the elite to another” — ‘Pakistan: Civil-military Relations in a Praetorian State’, Hasan Askari Rizvi (The Military and Democracy in Asia and the Pacific, Edited by R.J. May and Viberto Selochan).
Since Pakistan’s inception in 1947 till today, both under military rule and under civilian rule, it is the exploiters of the poor who have fattened themselves at the expense of the masses. It is Pakistan’s history that whenever military rule has become discredited, a sham parliamentary system has been imposed on the people in the name of ‘democracy’ (whereas these ‘democracies’ are chosen ‘for’ the people – not ‘by’ the people – with the military at their back), and whenever the system has collapsed, as has happened many a time in the past, military rule is re-established. Between military rule and the so-called democratic system, both serving the interests of exploiters, the people of Pakistan have perpetually found themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, “people”, and kratos, “rule”). The people of Pakistan have seldom tasted this type of rule because for much of Pakistan’s lifespan, military dictatorships have ruled the country one way or another. From General Ayub Khan to General Yahya Khan, from General Ziaul Haq to General Pervez Musharraf, military rulers have reigned supreme. Military forces are there to defend a country and all should look up to them. In our case, however, this is difficult to do, as these forces instead of defending the borders and the integrity of Pakistan have helped in its destabilisation and disintegration. The eastern wing of this country – now known as Bangladesh – was lost in 1971 as a consequence of a military ruler’s short-sightedness and what remains of Pakistan is now in imminent danger of further disintegration if the military continues to rule.
To surrender power in the larger interest of the nation has not been the norm in this country and for the military to give up its power, along with the many perks and the privileges that have come of this, would not easily find acceptance among the upper echelons of military circles. On the contrary, the power they now enjoy has made the military men even more ambitious, and they are now found taking over many of the civilian posts as well. This has caused enormous resentment for obvious reasons, and the military needs to come to grips with the fact that this and their other policy pursuits are damaging the country. The military must now realise that they do not have the answer to the problems that the country is facing and that the restoration of democracy is the only solution.
The stance of the military that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto had been tested time and again and have not proved their mettle may have a ring of truth to it. But Nawaz and Benazir were never given a chance to complete their terms. Had the democratic dispensation prevailed and they given the chance to complete their allotted five-year terms and still failed to deliver, they would have been ousted ‘by the people’ in the next elections – the condition being that those elections were completely free and fair. In a democracy it is up to the masses to decide and the military does not have the right to question their will.
Pakistan spends a large chunk of its budget on defence (more than 60 percent). The military rulers have so ignited the fires of disillusionment among the masses, that the people fear there may be no coming back from the position they are likely to put us in. More to the point, most wonder whether or not they would be able to defend the country should an enemy attack. In other words their professionalism as soldiers is being doubted.
There are, of course, dangers of democracy falling into the wrong hands. In the case of Nawaz one could sense what he was up to when he uprooted several military people to get his own men into positions, as well as when he tried to change the constitution to become Amir-ul-Momineen. He would have tried to manipulate the elections so that the next term would see him through as well. Already facing corruption charges, it is felt that Benazir would have done exactly the same. People have seen what direction these leaders take once they get their hands on the treasury: the dollar rose from Rs 19 when Benazir first came into power, to Rs 58 when Nawaz left almost seven years ago.
But dictatorship is no solution and one needs to find new leaders who are sincere. One needs to educate people, create strong independent institutions to act as checks and balance, and make sure no one remains above the law. Pakistan needs democracy, but in order to ensure a ‘true’ democracy, we need ‘true’ institutions. Without independent and strong institutions, even democracy would not have a chance of getting Pakistan out of the quagmire it has been trapped in for the past 58 years.
Ever since the day I was born, General Ziaul Haq has been the subject of debate in our family circles. Maybe it was because of my family’s interest in politics that his name kept popping up in every conversation, or maybe it was because everyone was so miserable during his rule that they had to bring up his name incessantly to curse him. In my mind’s eye, General Zia and cursing soon became synonymous. At that time I was too young to understand the reasons why people were against him, but I remember all too clearly that when he died, there were muted celebrations all around. Death is a sad occasion, but General Ziaul Haq’s death was not mourned by many in Pakistan.
“Pakistan can be described as a praetorian state where the military has acquired the capability, will, and sufficient experience to dominate the core political institutions and processes. As the political forces are disparate and weak, the military’s disposition has a strong impact on the course of political change, including the transfer of power from one set of the elite to another” — ‘Pakistan: Civil-military Relations in a Praetorian State’, Hasan Askari Rizvi (The Military and Democracy in Asia and the Pacific, Edited by R.J. May and Viberto Selochan).
Since Pakistan’s inception in 1947 till today, both under military rule and under civilian rule, it is the exploiters of the poor who have fattened themselves at the expense of the masses. It is Pakistan’s history that whenever military rule has become discredited, a sham parliamentary system has been imposed on the people in the name of ‘democracy’ (whereas these ‘democracies’ are chosen ‘for’ the people – not ‘by’ the people – with the military at their back), and whenever the system has collapsed, as has happened many a time in the past, military rule is re-established. Between military rule and the so-called democratic system, both serving the interests of exploiters, the people of Pakistan have perpetually found themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, “people”, and kratos, “rule”). The people of Pakistan have seldom tasted this type of rule because for much of Pakistan’s lifespan, military dictatorships have ruled the country one way or another. From General Ayub Khan to General Yahya Khan, from General Ziaul Haq to General Pervez Musharraf, military rulers have reigned supreme. Military forces are there to defend a country and all should look up to them. In our case, however, this is difficult to do, as these forces instead of defending the borders and the integrity of Pakistan have helped in its destabilisation and disintegration. The eastern wing of this country – now known as Bangladesh – was lost in 1971 as a consequence of a military ruler’s short-sightedness and what remains of Pakistan is now in imminent danger of further disintegration if the military continues to rule.
To surrender power in the larger interest of the nation has not been the norm in this country and for the military to give up its power, along with the many perks and the privileges that have come of this, would not easily find acceptance among the upper echelons of military circles. On the contrary, the power they now enjoy has made the military men even more ambitious, and they are now found taking over many of the civilian posts as well. This has caused enormous resentment for obvious reasons, and the military needs to come to grips with the fact that this and their other policy pursuits are damaging the country. The military must now realise that they do not have the answer to the problems that the country is facing and that the restoration of democracy is the only solution.
The stance of the military that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto had been tested time and again and have not proved their mettle may have a ring of truth to it. But Nawaz and Benazir were never given a chance to complete their terms. Had the democratic dispensation prevailed and they given the chance to complete their allotted five-year terms and still failed to deliver, they would have been ousted ‘by the people’ in the next elections – the condition being that those elections were completely free and fair. In a democracy it is up to the masses to decide and the military does not have the right to question their will.
Pakistan spends a large chunk of its budget on defence (more than 60 percent). The military rulers have so ignited the fires of disillusionment among the masses, that the people fear there may be no coming back from the position they are likely to put us in. More to the point, most wonder whether or not they would be able to defend the country should an enemy attack. In other words their professionalism as soldiers is being doubted.
There are, of course, dangers of democracy falling into the wrong hands. In the case of Nawaz one could sense what he was up to when he uprooted several military people to get his own men into positions, as well as when he tried to change the constitution to become Amir-ul-Momineen. He would have tried to manipulate the elections so that the next term would see him through as well. Already facing corruption charges, it is felt that Benazir would have done exactly the same. People have seen what direction these leaders take once they get their hands on the treasury: the dollar rose from Rs 19 when Benazir first came into power, to Rs 58 when Nawaz left almost seven years ago.
But dictatorship is no solution and one needs to find new leaders who are sincere. One needs to educate people, create strong independent institutions to act as checks and balance, and make sure no one remains above the law. Pakistan needs democracy, but in order to ensure a ‘true’ democracy, we need ‘true’ institutions. Without independent and strong institutions, even democracy would not have a chance of getting Pakistan out of the quagmire it has been trapped in for the past 58 years.
Comments