In Defence of Benevolent Dictators

press wASNT censored during zias regime?????? hIs opponents wereENt supressED??? which age are u living in my freind????? why dont u start with zamir niazi`s book the web of censorship? it will explai what zia`s rule was REALLY like.
i do NOT on ANy account agree that democracy shouldnt be there. the people should rule, but what i disagree with is a `capatalistic democracy` ....a `socialist or communist democracy` is what would be fair and just in my opinion. no one wants trash like benazir, altaf, or sharif. but no one wants to have dictators and the army however benevolent they are have no business to do this. we have had equally bad experiences with the men in green, as we have had with our so called democratcially elected leaders. even the `70 election was rigged by bhutto, so i really doNt know when the last honest election was. the only way in which the class gap along with poverty and other anti-social elements can be removed, is by bringing in proper CLASSLESS democracy otherwise there will always be a middle class, an elite class and the lower class. Feudalism shuold be completely abolished, and if Musharraf is a so called admirer of attaturk, then he should act rather than collaborating with those idiotic mullah-forces. sorry for being politically incorrect but line `em up and shoot `em. purge this country.

Zeemax #219

Thanks! I mentally said Deal!, but here is PM with another post.

PM #220

``Maybe its because of institutionalized lack of faith in people`s will and supremacy of law, (borne out by 25+ years of dictatorship)``

I meant institutionalized by the `ruling class`. Say you head a family with children. Which would make them most self-confident and dynamic, having clear and consistent rules or arbitrary discipline according to the mood of the moment? Dictatorships are nothing if not breaking the law in the worst way.

Pervez Musharraf can either further destroy the confidence of Pakistani people by being as arbitrary/self-serving/ineffective in his behaviour as others have been, or he could improve the situation by steadfastly acting in the best interests of his country and visibly moving toward real rule of law.

PM: either the popular will reflected in newspapers legitimizes rulers or it doesnot. By the way, are Urdu newspapers widely read by `intelligensia`? Or do they represent a parallel universe which has been kept at bay so far? I am asking out of genuine ignorance.

BTW, in the interests of completeness, I must bring up my much exercised example again. The state government as with many other states is not too happily placed as far as revenues go. Sometimes there is this panic situation where there is no money in the state exchequer at the end of the month to pay govt employees their salaries! Then a lot of emergency measures are taken (though I`m not sure what). Pressurizing the Centre for fiscal rescue of populist schemes in states has been a standard feature in India. For a number of years, there was a `maai-baap` relationship between the Centre and states. The rise of the regional parties has changed this.

Either way, there is a tussle for votes, resulting in ringing up this huge quasi-welfare bill without always being required to show good economic performance to pay for it! That is changing slightly, now.

Sadhana

PS: Am I right in understanding that the provinces in Pakistan are fiscally not badly off?

Zeemax,

bhai, for someone who vowed to turn his back to this interact two hundered replies ago, you sure have hung around a long time.:-)

how about some input? (don`t worry, it`s safe.. nobody`ll know, now that these pages are in the innards of the chowk.)

Sadhana,

``Maybe its because of institutionalized lack of faith in people`s will and supremacy of law, (borne out by 25+ years of dictatorship) that has allowed such abuses to continue. If people think all they plan or do is going to be swept away with all disregard for the rules of the game by an elected or unelected autocrat, they may get really passive after a while(or become fundamentalists).This happens in India, too, to some extent.``

Interesting. I`ve often wondered, though, what part dictatorship really has to play/played in creating this lack of democratic consciousness. I agree it MAY be responsible, but that is far from established.

`` BTW, about the press(English, I presume) reflecting support for the General signifying general approval, does the same hold true for the Urdu newspapers? I got a feeling from attempting to read one or two a while ago that they reflect general approval of jihadis and Osama Bin Laden(though I may be wrong).``

Okay, so if the Urdu newspapers do indeed express the will of the people (as opposed to the the English ones which are `elitist`, then maybe we should go Taliban, eh?). Also, maybe Algeria should, in the true spirit of democracy (!) be run by the FIS, who polled the most votes. Doesn`t this expose the limitations even of democracy? How far could ``all aspirations of all people`` be met through a govt. run by the FIS or the Taliban or Hitler who could (have) easily come to power throught the ballot box.

AS for referrals to `look up`, sorry for being so brief. I said to look up Mcarthy as a rebuttal to your claim that in non-democratic Turkey, being a Kurd could send you to prison. Many American Communists were sent to jail, simply for espousing communism in the Macarthy era. `Kafirs` are treated wit te same disdain here in Pakistan,if not actually thrown behind bars.

As for headscarves, I was reminded of the case a few years ago in France where a lower court ruled that it Muslim girls would not be allowed to wear heardscarves to school.

I understand that these are anomolies in democracies, but I thought I should point them out all the same.

``However, I just suggest that an Islamic country may be expected to mete better justice to Muslims than a Western country. ``

Hey, we could start another thread here: I`ve always wondered about this one. An Islamic country? hmmm... Is Paksitan one? What, indee, is an Islamic country? Iran? Pakistan? A large segemnt of each`s population (really) conciders te other `kafir` (heretical). I have often felt that the two nation theory was bound to fail because freedom isn`t divisible.. especially along spiritual lines. Inother words, it was only a matter of time that Sunni (or Shia, depending on which side of the fence you`re on) replaced `Hindu` as the antagonists in a collective mindset that seems to need enemies to define itself.

Cheers!

Sadna & PM,

Yaar can you pls end this ``kaj behsi`` ? Let me make an arbiteration .. if PM is an abbreviation for Pervaiz Musharraf, then he doesn´t know what he´s talking about - however if that stands for Prime Minister, Sadna loses !

Deal ?

PM #217

PM, it IS getting rather tiresome.

However, let me clarify :-)..

``we have stories that end in widows` self-immolation, growing general discontent, and a rising umemployed suicide rate. And I haven`t even touched on the high-handedness of the politicized adminstrative set-up, from the street cop to the high court judges. Did I mention that slavery flourishes in the Sindh and the Punjab?``

All these problems exist in India, too.

`` Finally, you cite some examples of illiberalism and injustice under dictatorships in Turkey and , Malaysia and Thailand. You don`t / *really/ * want me to start citing cases of (even instituionalised) wanton abuse of religious and other human rights in the oh-so-democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan, now do you?``

Maybe its because of institutionalized lack of faith in people`s will and supremacy of law, (borne out by 25+ years of dictatorship) that has allowed such abuses to continue. If people think all they plan or do is going to be swept away with all disregard for the rules of the game by an elected or unelected autocrat, they may get really passive after a while(or become fundamentalists).This happens in India, too, to some extent. BTW, about the press(English, I presume) reflecting support for the General signifying general approval, does the same hold true for the Urdu newspapers? I got a feeling from attempting to read one or two a while ago that they reflect general approval of jihadis and Osama Bin Laden(though I may be wrong).

``It is regrettable that those of Chinese ethnicity in Thailan and Malaysia were forced to change their surnames``

Look up `bhumiputras`

``As for the man sent to jail for being a Kurd, well, I`ve got one word for you: McArthur. Oh, and another one: Kafir. As for headscarves and uproars, look up `France```

I don`t exactly understand what you mean. However, I just suggest that an Islamic country may be expected to mete better justice to Muslims than a Western country. And is such an austere secularism practicable in Pakistan.

Anyway, best wishes to you too,

Sadhana

Dear Sadhana,

``PM, letting people live the lives they want and allowing them to make their choices, social, political, cultural, legal, is the religion I thought we are talking of. I thought thats what Pervez Musharraf is claiming that he wants for his country. So where is the question of a different belief system? Or are you all only intent on continuing with your `lip-service`, but in another form. Decide, and then let us debate.``

Sadhana, my use of `athiest`, `believer` and `belief system` were purely metaphorical as I`m sure you are aware, and your decision to turn it into an important issue is akin to figuring out how many angels could dance on a pinhead.

Anyway, would it satisfy you if I were to, sticking to metaphors, say that we do indeed share a common belief system but our paths to salvation are somewhat divergent?

The picture you paint of your household help`s lifestyle has indeed made a better ``informed`` person, for which I thank you. However, that picture is as far removed from anything we have ever seen in Pakistan, or, I think, were ever likely to see. I must confess an ignorance of the sociological landscape in India, apart from the wonderful memories of rustic holidays spent in my grandfather`s village in Goa. If this is the way the lower class of India fares nowadays, hmmm... if I ever have the opprtunity to move there.... But I digress.

But Sadhana, as I`ve said on more than one occassion, India is not Pakistan. In place of the happy endings to the story of your household help, we have stories that end in widows` self-immolation, growing general discontent, and a rising umemployed suicide rate. And I haven`t even touched on the high-handedness of the politicized adminstrative set-up, from the street cop to the high court judges. Did I mention that slavery flourishes in the Sindh and the Punjab?

Of course, your refrain is that the situation will find it`s equiliirium given time. That is where I do not share your faith at all. The fact that twice in the space of nine years we re-elected the very governments that we were happy to see brought down earlier; the fact that corruption only got worse, not better, over all those years; the fact that the demographics of the country make it virtually impossible for anyone but a feudal princess or an even more autocratic `God-son` who made his fortune in the narcotics business to stand any chance of heading the government... well, all these things tell me that Pakistan just does not have `Democracy Ready` stamped on it. Did I mention that our elected leaders make constitutional amendements that amount to attaining dictatorship status, or that there was a snowball`s chance in hell that the following elected leader would repeal those amendements? How, in God`s name, do you see an equilibrium being reached here when despite all this, the people don`t take to the street, or when economic bankruptcy loomed large over us??

Frankly, I suspect that the failure of democracy exposes the flaws in Pakistan`s basic ideology (but that`s another thread!), and it`s failure to transform from a largely feudal society to one in which the democratic process can have any meaning. You accuse me of paying lip-service to the idea of freedom of choice. But if you note the conditions under which a majority of votes are polled in Pakistan, you will find that there is little `choice` in the matter; mostly just slavish loyalties. If 83 percent of the people do not vote, it may be because there is so little to choose from. The system, with it`s inherent flaws, just cannot deliver to those with any real choice. It is all very well to say, `well, in due course the people will realise they`re only hurting themselves and that will be the beginning of a meaningful democracy`. Whether or not that may eventually happen (and it is doubtful it would, given that it is kinda difficult to run a country with no money), I feel there is no need to do it the hard way when there is possbly an easier. Lest this begin to sound too self-righteous for your high democratic principles (which in the end is only a set of convictions, and don`t necessarily translate into actual benefits), I repeat (for the umpteenth time!), I am supporting a dictatorship that will hopefully purge the `system` of those elements that prevent a meaningful democracy from taking root here. Naive? A dangerous ploy? Maybe. But from where we are now, we really don`t have much to lose.

``If material prosperity(admittedly important) is the only criteria, the whole country can be run as a commercial enterprise. Only, it may be difficult to later handle the accumulated backlash from not satisfying all other aspirations of all people.``

We can talk of ``all other aspirations of all people`` only when the basic aspirations of roti, kapra aur makaan are met. I don`t mean to downplay the `higher` aspirations of man-- freedom, justice and beauty etc., but I think that your bringing them in the context of a nation that fails to meet the more basic levels of hierarchical needs is a little hyperbolic. Lip service, if you will.

Finally, you cite some examples of illiberalism and injustice under dictatorships in Turkey and , Malaysia and Thailand. You don`t / *really/ * want me to start citing cases of (even instituionalised) wanton abuse of religious and other human rights in the oh-so-democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan, now do you?

It is regrettable that those of Chinese ethnicity in Thailan and Malaysia were forced to change their surnames. Still, on the roll call of human indignities, that ranks lower than having to change your religion, at least outwardly, to stand any chance of social mobility in democracratic Paksitan. As for the man sent to jail for being a Kurd, well, I`ve got one word for you: McArthur. Oh, and another one: Kafir. As for headscarves and uproars, look up `France`.

...but now this dicussion is getting a little tiresome. I have a feeling we`ll only be re-stating our respective viewpoints (and faiths) if we continue on this...

All the same, best regards and wishes for a happy new year. :)

Patrick

PM #215 #214

``Somewhat like the believer telling the atheist that atheismm is wrong because his belief system says so?``

PM, letting people live the lives they want and allowing them to make their choices, social, political, cultural, legal, is the religion I thought we are talking of. I thought thats what Pervez Musharraf is claiming that he wants for his country. So where is the question of a different belief system? Or are you all only intent on continuing with your `lip-service`, but in another form. Decide, and then let us debate.



``If that`s the type and frequency of `delivery` that satisfies you, I guess we won`t ever see eye-to-eye on this. If after 52 years of democracy in India, such scheme(ing) are the best outcomes of democracy you can point out, I really do wonder whether India might not have prospered more under a Thai-, Ataturk or Malaysian style govt. -- at least up until such time that voters are not held ransom to their need for basic amenities.``

My example was not one of once in five years delivery. Our household help benefits in many ways from democracy. Her son gets a free education, free noon meals, free health care, she herself gets free counselling or group support at the states expense. She can practice her religion without fear, in fact her son`s exams are rescheduled by the state school to allow him to fulfil his religious duties(though he is only 7 or 8). If he chooses to go to college, he will get further subsidies, or maybe scholarships. She is not a millionaire, but neither is she estranged from her socio-cultural traditions and she and her descendents should be able to make their life choices based on their needs, not merely something imposed by someone at the centre 2000 miles away. No one says more cannot be done, but this is a good beginning.

If material prosperity(admittedly important) is the only criteria, the whole country can be run as a commercial enterprise. Only, it may be difficult to later handle the accumulated backlash from not satisfying all other aspirations of all people. Hence, it is better to let them decide themselves and reach equilibrium on their. Ask those of Chinese ethnicities who come from Thailand and Malaysia of what compromises they might have had to make. One person I met told me that all Thais were ordered to have Sanskritised surnames, irrespective of their origins. In Malaysia, the Chinese have to face discrminatory policies. In Turkey, an MP was sent to jail for stating that he is a Kurd. A woman created an uproar when she wore a headscarf.

Pakistan may want to go that way, its up to Pakistanis. Let it be a collective decision or it may not be a long-lasting one. You are right, its a question of faith. Let it just be informed faith.

Sadhana

re. sadna (#213)

[I think it would be more constructive at this point to give the rulers food for thought with practical suggestions rather than disowning people`s participation entirely.]

Sadna, where`d you get the idea I was advocating the exclusion of ` people`s participation entirely`?

Nithing culd be better than for the this dictator to form `cabinet` that reflects the aspirations of the people. In this sense, we`re not advocating pure autocracy anyway, but an oligarchy of sorts until suh time that the nation feels it is ready to exeriment with democracy again. Perhaps a referendum every eighteen months?

sadna #213:

``There is an inherent contradiction in the fact that votes cast for Nawaz Sharif are considered less valid than the absence of votes for Gen PM. I am not condoning the corruption of those elected, I am just saying what has made an unelected leader more legitimate? ``

The `contradiction` only exists if the SOLE source of legitimacy are votes polled. But isn`t this line of argument limited and circular in a debate on democracy vs dictatorship? Somewhat like the believer telling the atheist that atheismm is wrong because his belief system says so?

Not that a referrendum wouldn`t be the ideal thing in such a situation... just that the support for the takeover was so overwhelming, it would seem an unnecessary expenditure of time and money. I repeat, if the press had not been kept free, it would be a different matter. So far, however, it is clear that the majority of the country welcomess this change.

However, What you seem to want to do is fault Gen PM on a technicality.

``It was an example of the system delivering at the behest of a single person of meagre means.``

If that`s the type and frequency of `delivery` that satisfies you, I guess we won`t ever see eye-to-eye on this. If after 52 years of democracy in India, such scheme(ing) are the best outcomes of democracy you can point out, I really do wonder whether India might not have prospered more under a Thai-, Ataturk or Malaysian style govt. -- at least up until such time that voters are not held ransom to their need for basic amenities.

And we`re talking India here; not Pakistan, where the juggernaut of feudalism is so much tighter.

But this debate is now boiling down to a question of faith, and I don`t share yours in the delivering power of democracy to all peoples in all places.

PM #202

This is really easy. There is an inherent contradiction in the fact that votes cast for Nawaz Sharif are considered less valid than the absence of votes for Gen PM. I am not condoning the corruption of those elected, I am just saying what has made an unelected leader more legitimate?

And you misunderstood, my example wasn`t a case of `once in five years scheming` or low expectations. It was an example of the system delivering at the behest of a single person of meagre means. Thats what ought to serve the people for many generations and can be fine tuned by them for their own expectations. Its difficult for a single leader or even a group to personally deliver through many years what every citizen personally needs in a country of many million people. Democracy is a good system that can deliver.

Sadhana

PS: I think it would be more constructive at this point to give the rulers food for thought with practical suggestions rather than disowning people`s participation entirely.

re. sadna #208:

[Its impossible to extrapolate, except by scientifically polling, what 25 million Pakistanis thought or think today. Even if each and every Pakistani felt euphoria at the time, would they now cast a considered vote in favor of dictatorship?]

Impossible? I beg to differ.

`Would they now consider a vote in favor of dictatorship?` Well, the press is still free, and we have yet to hear of any disgruntlement except from the politicians themselves.

Granted, there may be no way of being certain, but in these desperate times of meagre resources, one can be forgiven for circumventing `standard procedure`.

[when our daily help gets money for a new roof under some scheme in advance of Panchayat elections, I feel its been worth it.]

Does this once-every-five-years scheming *really * make it worth it, Sadhana? Do you think you could have any lower expectations of this lofty ideal? And do you not think that perhaps more meaningful welfare could be fostered through other means?

Then there`s the problem with the one-man-one-vote system in a place like feudal Paksitan (to which India, post-Nehru, can`t quite be compared) that many find too sacred to touch: Is it fair that the middle class have to suffer the fedual fools in government, whose overwhelming influence over their virtual serfs guarantees them seats in the assemblies?

The difference between democracy in Pakistan and India is a function of the varying degree of feudalism in our two cultures. Other than that, we share the same problem of oppportunistic industrialists.

regards,

Reply #: 208 rajanjua

Dear Janjua,

Appears you missed the last para of my referred post # 197. I reproduce it below :

[By above I however do not wish to imply that these perks are unfair. The armymen, after all, are expected to lay down their lives for the country without a second thought. No monetary benefits could compensate for that expectation. It is quite another story whether that expectation is met or indeed has ever been met.]

Rgds

PM #207

PM, I have full faith in your credibility. My point is merely arithmetic: 17/100 * 148 million = 25 million. Its impossible to extrapolate, except by scientifically polling, what 25 million Pakistanis thought or think today. Even if each and every Pakistani felt euphoria at the time, would they now cast a considered vote in favor of dictatorship?

I may not have been in Pakistan, but I have lived in India all my life till a few years ago. For Indians, democracy is not a `lofty` concept, its a harsh necessity, more for the benefit of the desperately poor than for the affluent or the elite. There are plenty of things that need fixing(not related to democracy as a concept), but when our daily help gets money for a new roof under some scheme in advance of Panchayat elections, I feel its been worth it.

Sadhana

A Lesson for Musharraf?

It is commonly believed that Ayub Khan was the best Pakistani leader/ruler. This is a myth that some people vehemently reject. In his book, ``Pakistan -- A Dream Gone Sour,`` Roedad Khan writes:

``Ayub, according to Altaf Gauhar, ``had one advantage over most other military rulers. His accession to power was generally and quite genuinely acknowledged as the only way out of the mess which the politicians had created during the first eleven years of Pakistan`s existence`` [Altaf Gauhar (1994). Ayub Khan: Pakistan`s First Military Ruler. Lahore: Sane-e-Meel Publications]. Ayub failed not because his military rule was a complete negation of democratic principles and fundamental human rights. He failed because he could not demonstrate to the people that the assault on democracy and the abrogation of the Constitution was justified by his subsequent performance; that he was qualitatively superior to the deposed politicians, and that military rule was an improvement on civilian rule. He failed because his performance fell far short of the promises he had made to the people and the expectations he had aroused. Unlike his democratic predecessors, he commanded absolute power and had no excuses. Why then did he fail to bring about an egalitarian social and economic order? Why did his long rule make no dent in the system he had inherited? Why did he not identity himself with the poor people of Pakistan who listened to him and believed in him? What prevented him from confronting their main anxieties? Why did he promise them a new heaven and a new earth? Is it surprising that, when he was on the ropes, nobody stood by him? Like the Shah`s white revolution, Ayub`s revolution, if it can be called a revolution at all, collapsed like a house of cards. Unlike the Shah, Ayub rests in peace in his ancestral village Rehana, which he loved.

Towards the end, Ayub symbolized a hated regime. He was the first to stab Pakistan`s democracy in the back. It was Ayub who committed the original sin. It was Ayub who inducted the army into the politics of Pakistan. It was he who set a bad precedent. Others merely followed his example. In the process, he did incalculable harm to the country and to the army. He knew that if the army once got drawn into political life -- and this he knew was inevitable -- it could not withdraw itself from the situation. What a mess he left behind`` [Rodad Khan (1997). Pakistan -- A Dream Gone Sour. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Page 46].

Re: #197 zeemax

``The PIA pilots and merchant marine men of your example get none of the above perks.``

The PIA pilots and merchant marine men also don`t have to serve at Siachen. The special perks for the military which the civillians in Pakistan eye so jealously are not unique to Pakistan military. Most militaries of the world provides special privilages to their soldiers. They bloody well deserve it.