An idea whose time…
S M Zafar, a senior lawmaker and member of the treasury benches in the Senate, severely criticised the government’s policies and called for opening up a debate on the defence budget in the House. He also emphasised the need for a grand national reconciliation between the civil and military leadership on the future of democracy. Zafar termed the 2007 elections crucial for the country and stressed the need for giving autonomy to the Election Commission. He also criticised the way the law enforcement agencies were secretly abducting citizens.
Whether it be the Charter of Democracy or Mr. S M Zafar, the idea of civilian control over the military has cut across the political divide. It is an idea whose time has come. The elemental forces in history have proved that an idea whose time has come will surely be realised – sooner or later. The track record of military-led regimes or direct military rule has all ended in major disasters. Ayub Khan’s 10-year rule laid the foundations for the separation of Pakistan’s East wing and the creation of Bangladesh. Yahya Khan actualised it by not recognising the mandate of the one man, one vote 1970 elections. Ziaul Haq’s regime proved to be Pakistan’s worst nightmare. His Islamisation policy was clearly a hypocritical attempt to cling to power. Not only did he distort the message of Islam, he aggravated the situation by targeting women, minorities and even many Muslims through laws such as the Hudood Ordinance and Blasphemy Law.
When General Musharraf took over in 1999, he presented a seven point agenda. The agenda assured rebuilding national confidence and morale, strengthening the federation, removing inter-provincial disharmony and restoring national cohesion, reviving the economy and restoring investor confidence, ensuring law and order and dispensing speedy justice, depoliticising state institutions, devolving power to the grassroots level and ensuring swift and across-the-board accountability. Almost seven years have passed since then, yet this seven point agenda has not brought about the results hoped for. Inter-provincial disharmony has only worsened, what with the Kalabagh Dam issue being raised time and again by Musharraf. The failure of law and order is clearly visible all over Pakistan, for instance, in Waziristan and Balochistan. Across-the-board accountability has proved to be a hypocritical notion as most of the members in the ruling party are those who were charged with corruption but exempted on the condition of joining the King’s party. Such are some of the misadventures of the Musharraf regime.
But credit must be given where it is due. Abandoning a 30-year old flawed policy regarding Afghanistan and joining the war against terrorism was indeed a wise decision. The paradigm shift to enlightened moderation and laying to rest this Frankenstein’s monster of religious extremism has done a lot of good. Also, there is relative freedom given to the media, which is extremely credible. But even then, history has proved that a direct or indirect military rule often turns out to be a disaster waiting to happen.
In a genuine democracy, there can be both good and bad governments. There is no guarantee that all governments will be good, but the point is that they reflect the mandate of the electorate. The people will vote bad governments out at the first opportunity in the next elections. One cannot expect a flower to blossom if it is nipped in the bud; the same is the case with democracy. There is an imminent need for free, fair and transparent elections, as this is the only way forward to a genuine and credible democratic system. It can only be achieved through the will of the people prevailing peacefully through the ballot.
Whether it be the Charter of Democracy or Mr. S M Zafar, the idea of civilian control over the military has cut across the political divide. It is an idea whose time has come. The elemental forces in history have proved that an idea whose time has come will surely be realised – sooner or later. The track record of military-led regimes or direct military rule has all ended in major disasters. Ayub Khan’s 10-year rule laid the foundations for the separation of Pakistan’s East wing and the creation of Bangladesh. Yahya Khan actualised it by not recognising the mandate of the one man, one vote 1970 elections. Ziaul Haq’s regime proved to be Pakistan’s worst nightmare. His Islamisation policy was clearly a hypocritical attempt to cling to power. Not only did he distort the message of Islam, he aggravated the situation by targeting women, minorities and even many Muslims through laws such as the Hudood Ordinance and Blasphemy Law.
When General Musharraf took over in 1999, he presented a seven point agenda. The agenda assured rebuilding national confidence and morale, strengthening the federation, removing inter-provincial disharmony and restoring national cohesion, reviving the economy and restoring investor confidence, ensuring law and order and dispensing speedy justice, depoliticising state institutions, devolving power to the grassroots level and ensuring swift and across-the-board accountability. Almost seven years have passed since then, yet this seven point agenda has not brought about the results hoped for. Inter-provincial disharmony has only worsened, what with the Kalabagh Dam issue being raised time and again by Musharraf. The failure of law and order is clearly visible all over Pakistan, for instance, in Waziristan and Balochistan. Across-the-board accountability has proved to be a hypocritical notion as most of the members in the ruling party are those who were charged with corruption but exempted on the condition of joining the King’s party. Such are some of the misadventures of the Musharraf regime.
But credit must be given where it is due. Abandoning a 30-year old flawed policy regarding Afghanistan and joining the war against terrorism was indeed a wise decision. The paradigm shift to enlightened moderation and laying to rest this Frankenstein’s monster of religious extremism has done a lot of good. Also, there is relative freedom given to the media, which is extremely credible. But even then, history has proved that a direct or indirect military rule often turns out to be a disaster waiting to happen.
In a genuine democracy, there can be both good and bad governments. There is no guarantee that all governments will be good, but the point is that they reflect the mandate of the electorate. The people will vote bad governments out at the first opportunity in the next elections. One cannot expect a flower to blossom if it is nipped in the bud; the same is the case with democracy. There is an imminent need for free, fair and transparent elections, as this is the only way forward to a genuine and credible democratic system. It can only be achieved through the will of the people prevailing peacefully through the ballot.
Comments
Interests of some people are detrimental to a nation - and their number is not small! For such people to actively participate in a democracy is tantamount to abuse of human rights itself!