Army and the President

Re: # 29

BJ:

Good essay on or origins of politics in South Asia. No one can be a leader without ego, self-aggrandization notwithstanding. Accumulation and distribution of power are two unchanged fundamentals of all political systems for governance from time immortal. Democracy is one system, albeit the best solution – if the best can ever be quantified. The checks and balances you mention, and rules that arise out of them, get written and designed in India, presumably in Pakistan too, to treat everyone a thief, law breaker. Innocent until proven guilty is rarely believed doctrine. This immaturity has terrible consequences and manifest in many ways. One of the most observable consequence is that people tend to find ways to break the laws / rules etc. One senior bureaucrat in India used to tell me that Rule book in India you can buy for Rs. 95 (in those days from Jaina Press, New Delhi), but the book by-pass rules is very expensive.

I can quote from my personal experience. The operation that I had set up in early 90s, got the honor to be India’s first ISO9001 electronic manufacturing. During the process, I tried to point out that the procedures that general manager was laying down were too straight jacket, he may like to build these for employees to wear and work.

Rules and procedures were written with the assumption that everyone is going to break them. Instead of on catching and heavily penalizing the culprit, and relying on positive enforcement. Certification was a breeze. No one can argue with success. It was short lived success, soon employees and managers alike were struggling and finding ways to by pass without being caught. Obviously there were hardly any procedures and rules to find the culprit. Managers and general manager wanted new rules to catch them, and the vicious circle could have gone till everything was taking more to fill forms and follow procedures without any production from India's largest and most automated electronic manufacturing. This “power” play obviosly was stopped from within, and did not become cat and mouse game. Managers had rules book, employees had very expensive by pass the rule book.

This immaturity in us all, is the weakness which is treated as the worst enemy in South Asia.

The best system is which has checks and balances that allow for the human errors, immaturity and weaknesses, and permits interpretation for different times and people.

Now one debate it from the holiest book, to the most widely quoted constitution. After all, if the constitution was interpreted today as it was about 125 years ago on slavery, who do you think would have power? Power structure is not a problem, absence of tolerance for human weaknesses is. Each system finds its equilibrium sooner or later.

HP sain,

(The Indian democracy is not extended to the people because the state and its apparatus does not respect the people as the movers or shakers but they are treated as bodies that help the status quo by voting thru force, cajoling or bribes.)

The Indian state is by no means perfect when it comes to ensuring economic freedom, justice and real equality before law particularly to the underprivileged. But at the same time, the state often has to back down on unpopular policies and programmes at times before popular movements at times. And recently we have seen the courts sentencing some high and mighty politicians to jail.

But honestly are we expecting third rate developing countries like India or Pak at a very nascent stage of development with large masses of dirt poor and illiterate citizens to have similar levels of democratic rights to lets say some Scandinavian countries. Did Brit policemen call ordinary Brits "sir" in lets say 1780s?

Besides the electoral process does give psychological satisfaction and a outlet for people's frustration which would otherwise go to jihadi/Naxal channels. That is some blessing.

Regards

Dada,
I will not discuss Indian democracy on this board. We will get to it at some appropriate board.
The problem in Pakistan is breaking the status quo. Breaking the status quo is the hardest thing and takes a whole lot more effort than the staying within the system.

The status quo in India is the elected representation and in Pakistan it is the reverse of that. Though Indian democracy ends after the elections are over.

Have you ever heard of any Indian police officer or even a sepoy address a common Indian as Sir? The Indian democracy is not extended to the people because the state and its apparatus does not respect the people as the movers or shakers but they are treated as bodies that help the status quo by voting thru force, cajoling or bribes.
Will discuss this some other time.

This guy does not even understand what a backhanded compliment is!

#31, #34 Majumdar

Thanks, my dear. And remember, #32 is just HP's way of paying a back-handed compliment! :)

HP Sain,

My appreciation of Bj's post had more to with his analysis of why India has remained a democracy than on his conclusion that Pak's origin (MAJ (pbuh)/TNT/"exclusivism") has resulted in Pak's current problems.

Regards

Tauheed sahib, like you I was also immensely puzzled by Mr. Hamidm’s extraordinary insistence on the coronation of Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, a gentleman of whose track record I had not much knowledge. So I went to Wikipedia and here is what I found:

Sheikh Rashid Ahmad
Sheikh Rashid Ahmad (born on 1950-11-06) is a Pakistani politician and writer. He is currently serving as the Federal Minister for Railways in Pakistan. His previous portfolio was of Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting. He is infamous for alleged affairs with film actresses such as Reema and many others. Known for using his political authority and position to influence beautiful women from media, he is sarcastically known as 'Sheikh Reema.'

Mystery solved!

You see, Tauheed sahib, it is mostly lust for power which motivates people to make political deals.

But for all one knows, mere lust can itself be a great motivator in its own right!

#29
“In making Pakistan – a smaller country dominated by a single state, dominated by a single religion, dominated by a single language – and the worst of all, by a single mindset – all of which were done by design, it was also (inadvertently) designed to be highly unstable.’

This is an amusing post. Considering that this guy has never written anything original in his life, I am positive that this post too is rehashing of several posts on this site. I think the inspiration for this post is perhaps Ranjit. Ranjit writes this stuff but he is much more convincing than this plagiarist! Ranjit is original!

Anyway, anyone who reads this forum can vouch for this fact that Pakistanis even on this site show much diversity in thoughts than most of the Indians do. Basically, barring a few Indians who have learned a few things from Pakistanis, most of the Indians can truly be called run of the mill thinker including this BlowJob-for-50-bucks guy. Well! Calling Indians thinkers is actually an insult to the word! They don’t teach thinking and especially critical thinking in Indian schools!

Dada, you are losing touch!

Bj,

#29

Well written.

But in addition there has been another major contributory factor to the stunted growth of democracy in Pakistan- the relative social and political backwardness of the regions which constitute today's Pakistan and the fact that the political culture had been much less rooted in the local people here as compared to Hindus or Muslims of UP, Bihar and Bengal. And after independence military intervention never allowed much evolution of Pakistan. For that reason, Bdesh which is far more homogenous ethnically than Pakistan and only slightly less homogenous from religion POV (10% minority as against 5% in Pak) has had much more success as a democracy (since 1990) notwithstanding the recent setback

Regards

The following is quite accurate about Mush-BB deal:

Deal to transition or back to square minus one?
By Yousuf Nazar (www.yousufnazar.com)

The right wing calls it a sell out to the Army and the US (look who is talking), PPP loyalists justify it as an objective and pragamatic response (it is all about power) to a difficult situation (too many cases), a section of the media thinks it is probably a good omen for the stability and a Musharraf-BB alliance can effectively counter the extremists.

A similar logic was behind the establishment’s strategy to support the MMA, rig the elections in 2002, and project Maulana Diesel as the opposition leader. The whole logic is deeply flawed but then no one ever accused Pakistani establishment of having a virtue called wisdom. On a serious note, even the JUI(F) with a strong base in the NWFP and considerable influence in Baluchistan failed to prevent the rise in militancy, growing violence, and crumbling of the state’s writ. So what makes the wizards in Washington and Islamabad believe that the PPP with a very small base in the NWFP and almost none in the tribal areas can be relevant - let alone effective - in countering the so-called Talibanization. While BB has played her cards well as a politician, in terms of convincing (she had been at it for some time) the Americans that she can, the policy makers in Washington appeared to have acted more out of desperation and growing frustration with Musharaff’s inability to ‘do more’ at a time when the republican administration’s approval ratings have plunged to historic lows. Two unpopular Presidents sought the help of a political leader whose popularity seemed to have gone up since March 2007. Could they take down her with them?

Unfortunately, many in Pakistan’s half-educated establishment - ridden with complexes - give Washington more credit than it deserves for success in its regional and global policies. True, the Bush administration was able to bully Musharraf into joining the ‘war on terror’ but its policies in the region, both conceptually as well as in execution terms, have been disastrous for meeting its own objectives. In the context of recent history, US support for Turkey’s secular but corrupt politicians in the past two decades ultimately led to historic victories for the Islamists, and its support for the so-called moderates in Lebanon only served to turn Hezbollah into a mainstream political force from a small militant group. It can be argued that most of Pakistan’s political parties can be ‘managed’, which is a fair point. Pakistan has more similarities with Indonesia than with Turkey. But how BB-Chaudris-Altaf combo can help in controlling the growing insurgency is beyond comprehension. Another misconception is to call it Talibanization. Those who do so perhaps either choose to ignore the following or are not familiar with the failures of US policies in the modern history.

1. There is lack of support and at times resistance to the policy of blindly supporting the US within the security establishment. It is virtually impossible to execute a strategy which does not have the whole-hearted support of those on the ground.

2. Occupation by foreign forces - British, Soviets or NATO - has always served to unite the Afghans and Pakhtoons and galavanise them into forming a formidable resistance. This is a national trait well documented in history and has little to do with Talibanization.

3. Religous extremists in Punjab and Sind were never a real issue as the whole problem was created during Zia years and has been brought under control.

4. As for Lal Masjid, it was Zia, his son and then the Chaudhris who encouraged the “official jihadis” to play their own power games. It hardly represented a movement of any sort. All the Lal Masjid saga did was to scare the West just when it was having second thoughts about Musharraf, particularly after Dick Cheney’s visit in February 2007.

Cheney left on February 27th after delievering a ’strong message’ from President Bush. The President and his inner circle moved against the Chief Justice on March 9, in what was then considered a pre-emptive move to consolidate power. Insiders stationed in Islamabad for years tell a long history of support given to the Lal Masjid imams by their neighbors few blocks down the road. But the time had come to sacrifice them.

Now even with Musharraf as President and BB leading a grand coalition of jiyalas, chaudhris, and possibly the MQM in place, it is extremely unlikely that either Musharraf or BB would like to tell Americans that it is basically their policies that need a serious review and their continuation, no matter by whom, will not improve matters. But why should they? Musharraf seems to have survived the worst challenge so far to his rule and BB has made a comeback after being virtually written off .

#22
Tauheed sahib, those who have read my postings in the past are pretty much aware of what I think of the Pakistani situation. But I will summarize anyway.

There is little difference between the people of Pakistan and India – as far as the “maali haalat” is concerned. We started out with the same problems and we continue to have the same problems of poverty, lack of education, and insufficient empowerment of the weak segments (especially of women) – which then result in many other problems, most notably corruption. Pakistani politicians are no more evil-doers than the Indian politicians. Most politicians (with the possible exception of young ones like Yasser here who still try to maintain some sort of an idealist vision) are in that line of work for self-aggrandizement – not for helping anybody else, except perhaps their own families and coteries.

The real threat to democracy always comes from power getting too concentrated. It was true at the time of Julius Caesar and it holds true now. It is in the nature of the ruling beast – any ruling beast – to try to grab power, as much power as possible. Even the Amrikkans, in spite of the remarkable checks-and-balances system which is designed to prevent exactly that – are not immune from it. Our executive guards its “privileges” very assiduously. Our Congress likes to flex its muscle every time the President (from different party) gets weakened. (That is why, every time a ruling party suffers reverses in mid-term elections, you find the Congress opening all kinds of investigations into Presidential wrongdoings of one kind or other.) Even the judiciary likes to get into the act – and liberal courts generally go activist.

In India, when Mrs. Gandhi was handed down a two-thirds majority in 1971 partially based on her slogans and partially due to the (then developing) crisis in what was then East Pakistan – only a few years later, we encountered her version of dictatorship.

The Amrikkan system did not develop overnight. The framers of the constitution had a deep understanding of British history and were very aware of the pitfalls of too much power. Their answer was the “balanced” system.

India and Pakistan – neither had such a system of checks and balances. The present Indian constitution lacks it, too. Our Presidency is symbolic and our judges are pretty much an appointed lot. Therefore, India has some of the same vulnerabilities which have been the bane of the Pakistani democracy.

But India has one advantage that Pakistan lacks. It is a larger country, it comprises of many states which (in any other part of the world) could have been considered nation states in their own right. Nothing matches throughout. So it is virtually impossible for any one segment to dominate the whole. The diversity itself provides a degree of checks and balances. There is never enough convergence of self interests to unite enough of a majority to ride rough-shod over the rest.

This diversity makes us unwieldy. The Indians are a highly fractious lot – they will fight over trivial issues because there is such extreme room for differences. They will argue till the end of time (sometimes not accomplishing anything at the end) – highly inefficient, but also in the process – highly stable. At the end of the day, not much changes.

But you see sir, the whole act of creating Pakistan (no matter what the other superficial justifications be) was directed at and consisted of homogenizing that piece of land. First, you ensured a numerical majority of Muslims which essentially ensured that Sharia will be your law permanently because few Muslims (no matter what they would think privately) will have the ability to publicly oppose such laws. Secondly, you either disposed of most of your minorities and where you did not outright kill them off, you completely marginalized them. (Yes, I agree that some of the ethnic cleansing also occurred in Indian Punjab, but that is just one state among many and does not dictate the course of the whole country.) Where then is the gunjaish for anybody to hold a different opinion – except for superficial differences?!! When the Bengalis broke away, your country lost what could have been another stabilizing factor.

Yes, your civilian leaders could have done a better job, but do not kid yourself that anybody in Pakistan (Jinnah included) could have stopped dictatorship from erupting sooner or later. The dictatorship came – as it always comes – from the human lust for power and the availability of an opportunity to grab it. It is like putting a whole bunch of incendiary devices in one room and hoping that one strong farishta personality can keep an eye and keep control of the bunch of kids playing in the same room and hoping that no fire will ever erupt. As a practical matter, it is only a matter of time.

Therefore, I am absolutely convinced the present predicament results from the very fundamental mistake which occurred right at the beginning. In making Pakistan – a smaller country dominated by a single state, dominated by a single religion, dominated by a single language – and the worst of all, by a single mindset – all of which were done by design, it was also (inadvertently) designed to be highly unstable.

There are a bunch of steps which can still be taken to undo the damages so far but in order to have anything more than superficial change, people there must first come to terms with the original mistake.

Manto mian,

It is ridiculous for a General (or any office holder for that matter) to contest elections and get elected while still an office holder irrespective of what he promises to do AFTER he gets elected. It is just a sad commentary on the state of affairs in Pakistan.

Bj,

(WHO would be your ideal Pakistani leader (from alive people) and what you would like him/her to do.)

I am sure every Pakistani citizen would have some idea of who shud be PM and which party shud rule and like every other people Pakis shud be given that right to choose. Rather than have to put up with a President for 5 years elected by an assembly whose legitimacy is uncertain. Injun politicians are no better than Pakis but it is ages since I have heard the cry that democracy shud be wound up in India.

Regards

Re: # 4 One can agree or disagree with Mr.Masadi.
IT is wrong and partial and not right to put restriction on contribution of Mr. Masadi.This way great contributer is silence aaaand some others gat chance to criticise him and he has no opportunity to respond. This is not fair

hamidm #24 i think sheikh rashid has made a deal with you, and you are already getting jinnah caps and achkans made to wear as the next Minister of Religous Affaris in Pakistan. this is the problem with pakistan politics - too many deals in smoke-filled back offices.

An excellent article. While we deal with the political issues surrounding the elections, it is always a good idea to check up the laws that deal with the elections explicitly. The election is already in the court and this will help us understand court’s judgment.

Javed Choudry is quoting Rana Bhagawandas from Paris in his column, “Lekin mera khayal hai kay humaray Saathi(meaning the judges) 28 september kay faislay ki talaafi ka mood bana rahay hain. This bench will make history on October 17th.”
http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/
20071009/Sub_Images/1100277369-2.gif

Now this may be tongue-in-cheek but if it is quoted correctly then Pakistan is headed for a major crisis. I think imposing of Martial Law is just a hollow threat that is being hung over the Judges head. I hope the Judges decide on the merit of the case instead of paying attention to the Martial Law threats.

Yassar, this quote here is pretty ambiguous. There seems to be major flaws of language in it and the Supreme Court should be able strike this act illegal right away. Please verify the authenticity of your quote by quoting the actual clauses from the Act.

"President to Hold Another Office Act" (hereinafter the "PTHAOA") which empowered President General Pervez Musharraf to continue to be the chief of the army staff as well as president of the country indefinitely.”

Apparently, this law allows Mush the life Presidency and I have not heard of any such thing in any of the court proceedings that I followed.

I think several amendments in the constitutions have created a lot of ambiguity as to what applies in different but ostensibly similar conditions. I think your effort to walk us thru the myriad of position is commendable. You also raised a good point: Would Musharaf’s election create a precedence and what is to stop the judges in future to use this precedent to justify some other Army General’s attempt to become the President.

The only way Judges can help is to throw his elections out the window and pave the way for a civilian President. Musharaf keeping COAS position after any such judgment would make him a fodder for several comedy shows run by Hamid Mir and Dr. Shahid Masood!

Re: # 21

bj,

i vote for sheikh rashid ........

Pakistani people had four chances to come to street
to protest the elected government's untimely and
unjust dismissal.
Wonder why they never did, should not have they
demanded their right to dismiss the government
instead of someone else like president dismissing
them?