The Quest for Power

Mr. Burki says:

``I will argue below, is precisely what should now happen in Pakistan and why I think President Musharraf may have procured for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong politically in Pakistan`` (Shahid Javed Burki)

There are two problems with the army apologist Mr. Shahid Javed Burki: first, he is not only an intellectual gymnast/contortionist, he is an intellectual soothsayer/palm-reader as well - and secondly his voluminous verbosity. It is almost impossible for Mr. Burki to describe even a hackneyed point in fewer words.

Sure, every 5 year an army dictator appears on the political horizon of Pakistan, the dictator, according to Mr. Burki, always ``procures for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong politically in Pakistan``.

At my age, a person who has heard this SONG so many times before -- I would like to `SING` a couplet of MINE -- for Mr. Burki`s pleasure.

``dekhe meree rindi ne hain mai khaney bahut sey

mai aik hee payee meley paimaney bahut sey``

Feroze

The important question is why does a spirit of tolerance not exist in Pakistani politics? Does it have do with how the State and Economy is constructed?

Concensus does not exist because competing groups within the State do not percieve the creation of wealth and the delivery of services as a necessary condition for their existence. They compete over exactly the same thing over and over again, that is to gain control of the State apparatus and then to drain the public treasury.

A economy where in the politician is the voice of interests within their constituency, is the demand of the public. A politician that delivers using the tools of opinion making and legislation has never existed in Pakistan. This is so because of the very structure of the State and Economy.

The State feels little need to be genuinely responsive as it control the major economic determinants of the citizens lives and is the provider of services, basic amenities. This is a wholly abnormal, perverse situation. This has also resulted in the theft of private property (Nationalization) and the erosion of the Private economy, additionally the State relies not a fair, wide and low tax structure but rather punitively taxes, economic activity itself. The public economy and the State as provider(Loss making State enterprizes as jobs schemes, loss making State services). The citizen is reduced to a virtual slave of the State. The result of this structure of the State and Economy is devastating and completely out of tune with both the demand of the domestic public and international economy. Political consensus cannot be developed if we fail to increase the national ``pie``, so to speak; and the politicians will continue towards the enslavement of the citizen, because it gives them levers of patronage and power over lives, they in no represent. Please consider why ``Accountablity`` is so popular, I`m not arguing that it is fair, but it is very, very popular among those segments of the population that feel least powerful, ie, represented. Tolerance cannot exist in an meliu where large groups compete for ever smaller resources. For purposes of this argument, Imagine having one toilet for every 10,000 persons, can one reasonably expect tolerance in such a situation? Especially when there is absolutely no reason for such a shortage, unless it State monopoly and State disincentives for the building of such.



You will notice that in addition to the local govt setup, there are also ideas such as the enlargement of the Senate, and NSC, being reviewed. Additionally the ``checks and balances`` especially in regard to the powers of the Premier and the President are also being reviewed.

If these reviews do result in a larger Senate, NSC and Checks and Balances bewteen the two executives (Premier and President) and the Judiciary, Pakistan will have a much more stable political scene.

How can ``checks and balances`` be arrived at without constitutional ``tinckering``? How can larger numbers of persons find representation within government? Please review the kinds of authority the local Nizams have, you will note that restructuring of our economic life and the role of the State, is precisely what they intend. Why would anybody want to invest in Pakistan without a guarantee that the State will not disposess them?

Re: hobbyty #95

Pakistan does not need more tinkering with the consitution; it needs tolerance in its politics.

The history of Pakistani politics has been a study in the development of egalitarian ideals and the failure of democracy, because Pakistani politics have been intolerant of opposing opinions.

The hazardous nature of Pakistani politics, where power swings between interregnums of military rule punctuated with experiments in civilian rule is not related to a lack of dissent, but to an institutional failure in Pakistani politics. This institutional failure originates from a need to insure the transfer of political power in an orderly and efficient manner.

It has been the tragedy of the Pakistani politics that it could not develop a meaningful system of “checks and balances” to make sure that there exists a separation of powers and no branch of the government can usurp power for its own ends at the expense of other branches of the government.

There is dissent in the Pakistani politics, but not in the sense of the western democratic tradition. The major difference between Pakistani politics and their western counterparts is in the levels of institutional moderation in their politics. Whereas, western democratic traditions are based on the premise of trouble free transfers of political power through consensus, Pakistani politics are notorious for their lack of consensus in peacefully transferring power from one political group to another.

This drawback of the Pakistani politics breeds an inability to encourage consensus, in the political discourse, and eventually leads to a situation in, which politics become confrontational and inflexible to the idea of a compromise. It is at this stage that Pakistan’s failure to improvise a system, which ensures a smooth transfer of power from one entity to another, becomes its most brilliant political disappointment.

Consequently, the lack of democratic ideals in Pakistan is not due to a denial of political dissent, but because of a need for a democratic mechanism to institutionalize dissent in Pakistani politics.

Ciao

krashid#92

``Under which Army Government there was no corruption. Tell me one name.``

Good question.

BB and NS may be epitome of corruption -- but there is no denying also -- that an illegal, armed hijacking of an elected government by a fired army general - just to save his job -- is the MOTHER OF ALL CORRUPTIONS.

In his most recent article S.J. Burki has suggested that the cause of the political instability in Pakistan is the unwillingness of the feudal elite to share power with other competing groups within Pakistan. Does this mean that constitutional changes are required to ensure political and economic space for competing groups that have thus far been generally excluded from any form of self governing? If the devolution of power plan is a step in this direction, should we not expect the structure of the State itself to evolve at higher levels?

Is democracy as we have known it in Pakistan really a workable solution for the problems we face? There is consencus that will not happen again. There is also concensus that Pakistan will evolve a ``Hybrid`` State. That is it will ensure Republican, representative government at all levels of government, enlarge institutions what constitutionally will allow for greater stablity, similarly constutional remedies will be availed to ensure the representation and enhancement of strategic security.

For a discussion of the future of democracy and the need for ``Hybrid`` states, interested persons can use the following site:

www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm

Musharraf or Politicians? - Is Musharraf too timid or too heavy handed? This is a flawed debate. Every Pakistani will agree that ideally a democratic, civilian set up within which all groups or interests that want to participate, can do so freely and in a fair, transparent and orderly manner. Sadly this not the experience under civilian ``democratic`` governments in Pakistan. Is this not true? The usual answer is that these civilians were subverted. Subverted by whom? All of those whom the civilian democrats sought to marginalize? Result the economy has suffered - And each time the economy has suffered, the armed forces have intervened. The problem in Pakistan is not the debate of Armed forces or civilians, rather it is about a structure of the State and of the Economy that seeks to provide political and economic space to the competing interests within a fair and orderly constitutional envirnonment (new rules of the game). Can one honestly say that their experience of elected government was one of representative government? Why does ``Accountablity`` resonate not only in Pakistan but around the world? What does this imply about what citizens want the role of the State to be?

If we should become fixated on what has passed for democracy in Pakistan as a model for the future, we shall lose the chance to restructure, remodel the State and Economy for the benefit of the large majority of Pakistani citizens.

This of course a complicated debate, but a measure of clarity is offered by J.S. Burki below:

``Democracy & development

By Shahid Javed Burki

Is democracy good for economic development? Or, conversely, does democracy inhibit strong and resolute state actions when they are required to promote economic development? Most economists have ducked these questions. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning Indian economist, is one outstanding exception to this general rule. Among modern economists, he has been the most outspoken advocate of democracy and the contribution it makes to development.

Sen`s case for democracy is based on a simple premise. Democracy, supported by freedom of the press, prevents arbitrary and capricious behaviour on the part of those who hold power. He has applied this belief to a study of famines- a subject for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He has argued convincingly that famines don`t normally occur under democratic rule. They are not necessarily the result of food shortages. More often than not, they occur when state action or inaction by the state causes food prices to rise thereby making it difficult for the poor to feed themselves. Such anomalies don`t occur in democracies. Any serious price escalation not strictly justified on economic grounds will be noticed by the press and democratically elected leaders will be forced to act to correct the distortions. If they don`t they will not be able to preserve themselves in power.

These questions and the line of thinking advanced by people such as Sen has now acquired considerable salience in Pakistan with the further consolidation of political power in the hands of President Pervez Musharraf. On June 20, the general shed the pretence that he was merely a chief executive implementing rather than making policies. Now he is president with no legislative authority waiting in the wings. The only checks on him for the exercise of power are his good conscience, the limits implicitly imposed on him by senior military commanders and, of course, the Supreme Court judgement that requires him to hold national elections by October 2002.

General Musharraf`s decision to elevate himself produced a great deal of critical comment outside Pakistan. The US deputy secretary of state told Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, who was visiting Washington when Musharraf became president, that his administration was ``distressed`` by this development. Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth secretary-general was considerably more explicit in his comment. ``I consider these steps to be unfortunate,`` he said. ``Sattar`s discussions with me last week implied that the Musharraf regime would be moving towards the restoration of democracy. What we have seen instead are steps that signal the consolidation of military rule.``

The western press was not particularly pleased either. ``It is difficult to see how anything that could be recognized as real democracy can develop under an indirectly elected president who is unanswerable to any institution in the land,`` wrote The Economist. That, I will argue below, is precisely what should now happen in Pakistan and why I think President Musharraf may have procured for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong politically in Pakistan.

This is, however, not the way the West has looked at this latest development. ``But despite General Musharraf`s pious hopes expressed after the swearing-in ceremony that he could continue to serve the nation with all humility, many observers will interpret this piece of self-promotion as a step in the wrong direction,`` said The Times of London.

All these comments and opinions assume that democracy is good for development, a sentiment with which I fully agree. A good democratic system needs to be in place for real structural changes to be introduced successfully in the economy. Let me illustrate this point with one example. For some weeks now I have been suggesting in these columns that a good fiscal system is the product of a broad consensus among different groups in a society. Such a consensus will clearly delineate what kind of public services should be provided to the people and how should people pay for them. It is because of the absence of such a consensus that various governments in Pakistan, including the present one, have had such a difficult time convincing people to pay taxes.

It is also for this reason that the quality of public services has continued to deteriorate. It is for this reason that so many loss-making public sector corporations continue to dot the economic landscape, answerable to no one but their own managers. The people have no recourse against public agencies and public servants who don`t carry out the functions expected of them.

All that notwithstanding, it is important to note that holding general elections periodically does not produce good democracy. The West should not have shed many tears when what it had come to regard democracy in Pakistan finally collapsed in October 1999. Now that the circle that began to be drawn with General Musharraf taking the title of chief executive has been completed, he should be guided towards taking the course that will bring fully participatory democracy to the country he leads. Such a democracy has never existed in the country. Those who are concerned about the latest development in Pakistan need to answer a number of questions: What type of democracy do they want for Pakistan? Do we want a repeat of what we saw during the periods we like to call democratic? Were these periods good for economic development?

Following the demise of communism in Europe one cannot but agree with Winston Churchill. There cannot be any doubt any longer that democracy is the best form of government - better than any other form devised to date by man. It allows people to choose those who govern - something that the people of Pakistan did four times in nine years between 1988 and 1997. Democracy also creates a mechanism for holding accountable the people who govern. This Pakistan was not able to do in spite of repeated resort to elections once the country decided to stand on democratic feet.

But, these feet, as we discovered time and again, were standing on sand, not on firm ground. The real question for Pakistan, therefore, is not whether democracy is good for development but what went wrong with Pakistan`s experiment with democracy and why did democracy wreck the Pakistani economy.

It will take a much longer piece of work than an article in a newspaper to answer the last two questions. But there is enough evidence available from Pakistan`s short-lived experiences with democracy to begin to formulate a few opinions.

Pakistan`s three attempts with democracy failed for a simple reason: we were not able to design a set of institutions that could prevail over the interest of a narrow elite. The first experiment with democracy, from 1947 to 1958, foundered as a result of a conflict between two social groups that sought to dominate the political stage. The first group had worked hard to create Pakistan. Most of the people who belonged to it lived outside the boundaries of the new country; a significant number of them migrated to Pakistan once the country was born; and, once there, they began to compete with the indigenous economic and social elite for a place on the political stage.

Most of the indigenous elite had opposed the creation of Pakistan. The conflict between these two groups delayed the process of giving the country a permanent and durable framework to the point that the economy came to a near collapse and gave the military the opportunity and a reason to intervene.

The second experiment with democracy - conducted between 1971 and 1977 - saw the landed aristocracy battle with the social groups who wanted to be recognized as legitimate political players. The old establishment led by large landlords showed little respect for the constitutional order and the institutions established under it. This conflict once again brought the economy on its knees and provided an excuse for the military to intervene once again.

The third attempt lasted for eleven years, from 1988 to 1999, during which those in power did their best to subvert the democratic system. The old established order which continued to be dominated by the landed aristocracy, was so afraid of opening the political system to broad participation that population census could not be held for seventeen years. There was a fear that the demarcation of constituencies in the national and provincial assemblies, based on an accurate count of the size of the population and its geographical distribution, would result in a significant shift of political power from the old establishment to those representing new economic forces. There was a well founded fear that if this was allowed to happen power will move from the countryside to the large and rapidly growing cities.

Therefore, when Ayaz Amir (Dawn, of June 22) hopes that the change that has come about with the self-elevation of General Musharraf would not mean a long ``deviation from the democratic path,`` exactly which path - or paths - is he referring to? Do we really want to go back to the paths taken three times before: in 1947-58; 1972-77; and 1988-99?

My answer is clearly no but then that does not mean that we should continue to be governed by the military. My view, looking from the perspective of economic development, is that we want a system that ensures at least five things. It must be based on laws on which there is a consensus among different segments of society and laws which can be enforced by a system of institutions that are able to work independently.

Two, it must permit all segments of the population to participate in the political process without fear and intimidation. Three, it must protect the minorities against the political force that can be exercised by the majorities. Four, it must allow policy-making on the basis of agreement among the people - agreements that are themselves arrived at on the basis of an accepted system of rules. Five, it cannot be subverted by the people who are put in power.

If we apply these five principles to our previous encounters with ``democracy`` we will soon find that all of them fall way short of what is needed. The same five principles should be applied to any process that is put in place to move Pakistan towards democracy. We should not permit one man or one institution to provide a new dispensation. We should let a fully participatory process to move the country towards real democracy. Only then will we have a system that will sustain itself and one which will provide a framework within which economic development could take place.``

Asim Hayat #87

I laughed a lot after reading your quote ``Deceive me once shame on you. Deceive me twice shame on me``.

Under which Army Government there was no corruption. Tell me one name. The only thing missing was reporting in newspaper.

If the news does not come in newspapaer due to Martial Law Government it does not mean things are not happening. They are just not being reported.

The Lahore High court itself has said that it cannot take any decision on presidency of Musharraf because there is no constitution and Musharraf can do whatever he likes.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely then this is also absolute power.

I don`t know if Pervez Musharraf is doing good. So far none of the indicators of economy, pricing, etc which directly affect people have shown any improvement. In fact this is probably the worst year.

In one and a half year of each previous Government whether Benazir or Nawaz Sharif newspapers were actively maligning them for this kind of performance.

And it is not a matter of living under Martial Law. It is a matter of progress of Pakistan. Without involving the people in the development with benefit reaching to common man, there is no way we can develop.

In the situation of Pakistan we have to realize few things. First apart from highly developed areas like Karachi and probably parts of Lahore, there is no way that influence of Biradri, Feudals, Feudals cum Industrialist can be eliminated. And like Zia if this Government has to survive it has to make partners with them. Ultimately the sufferers will be majority of people of Pakistan. It will also lead to increase in provincialism (simmering), sectarianism etc.

I see an improvement in Pakistan. People have
started to tell the truth......

From The News International today:

Democrats and dictators

By HK Burki

The writer is a seasoned journalist

hkburki@hotmail.com

On Benazir Bhutto`s return from exile in 1986, the writer suggested to her that she should sit out the impending national election. Zia, it was pointed out, had made a complete mess of everything, all the institutions were in disarray and the country was in utter shambles. Whosoever got elected would have his pants taken down within the year.

Instead, she should give the Wali Khans, the Marshals and the maulanas the opportunity to serve the nation. And all the many rotten opportunists surrounding her would depart. With the help of genuine leadership, she could re-organise the party, mobilize her supporters into a solid, committed force and fight the next election. Only then she might have at least the capacity to do some good.

In an hour-long, one-to-one meeting, the first and last, she gave a patient hearing, said nothing. After the stupendous public reception at Lahore, Benazir was obviously looking forward to be the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan. She made it at the earliest, of course, and has been paying the price ever since.

The PPP leader took over in 1988 with only a semblance of power. Vulpine manoeuvres of President Ishaque Khan, inspired and backed by the generals, reduced her to a virtual cipher for the 20 months they had allotted her. And out she went.

Benazir`s second coming in 1993, was a new ball game. Inspired no doubt by Asif Zardari, she acquired the services of old Zia hands who had managed the dictator`s affairs and knew all the tricks of profitable governance. It made one Bhutto sympathiser remark bitterly that had Tara Massih, the hangman, been alive he, too, would have been appointed an adviser.

Soon Premier Benazir`s name was mud. Asif Zardari earned the sobriquet of Mr Ten percent. Stories of corruption were in circulation, based in most part on substantial evidence. It was a horrifying waste of opportunity, talents, and a colossal letdown. All because of her husband`s manipulation of power for personal gain and a seemingly insatiable appetite.

Coming from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s daughter the transgressions were doubly shocking. And recalling her years of struggle against the military dictator and her sufferings during long solitary confinements in inhuman conditions in Zia`s jails, her downfall was a source of deep, widespread anguish. Nawaz Sharif`s two turns were all of a piece and entirely in character. Groomed by the military and promoted by the generals in a milieu reeking with large-scale bribery and corruption, he did exactly what was expected of him.

Both the military and civil bureaucracies wanted a continuation of the jolly picnic to which they had become accustomed during Zia`s Afghan jihad. And Nawaz, their wunderkind, was the fellow best qualified to lay out a lavish spread. There is a great deal of cacophony nowadays about the failure of democracy, plangent across the length and breadth of the country. Sneers about fake democracy, too, are the ton. Both plaints are valid and undeniable facts of life. What remains unsaid are the reasons that brought about the debacle.

Pakistan has never been blessed with too much democracy. The fault was partly of politicians, but mostly of the godfathers, some civil like Ghulam Mohammad and Iskander Mirza, others military; Ayub, Yahya and, above all, Zia. The only time the country had an administration approaching close to democracy was the five and a half years of the PPP`s elected government. And that was snuffed out by a coterie of hungry generals.

For 11 years the Zia Junta had a free run. The generals governed with total disregard of laws of the land and norms of decency, taking civil society and its administration as far away as they could from the norms and habits of a democratic polity.

A parody was reintroduced with song and dance in 1988. Four elections have been held and not one was fair and free. Each outcome was predetermined by the generals in command and the Inter Services Intelligence. Alliances were rigged, crores distributed amongst chosen candidates, ballot boxes stuffed with sheaves of votes. And hey presto, a new rabbit was in power. Democracy? Strictly for the birds.

Only a fool will deny that both Nawaz and Benazir and their governments were anything but democratic. Benazir had excellent credentials. Her liberal impulse and probity were subverted by Asif Zardari and the diseased political environment in which she had to function.

Nawaz had no problem. He took to it with great gusto, for he was a progeny of the generals and had surfaced from the cesspool of a dictator. In his mercurial rise to power, he and his family bought with hard cash and gifts of jewellery many friends and henchmen: generals, pressmen, maulanas, up and coming adventurers and old political swindlers.

With the dexterity of magicians, the Sharifs created the most powerful mafia ever assembled: Chaudhris, Wattoos, Khosas, Makhdooms, Saifullahs, Wali Khan clan, Zia`s kin, Punjabi and Pathan civil and military bureaucracies. And plunder on a massive scale began. Nawaz launched billion dollar projects, the Motorway and the Taxi scheme, to name two, so as to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars like a Las Vegas croupier.

The Kashmiri Premier`s complete sway over Pakistan, cynics noted, had fulfilled a well-known prophecy. A wag had predicted the Kashmir issue would be resolved: India would take Kashmir and to Pakistan`s share would come all the Kashmiris. Nawaz planted trusted Kashmiris in many key positions, and suddenly the dear fellows were all over the place. Power is a heady wine. Not everyone can hold it well. It went to Nawaz`s head. Sycophants inflamed his megalomania further.

First, he had the constitution amended to clip the President`s wings. Then he rushed through the National Assembly the Shariat Bill to prepare the way for his caliphate. A gang of his goons, including an intellectual goonda or two, stormed and subdued the Supreme Court. Only the army remained out of his grasp. For the coup de grace he picked a fellow Kashmiri: Gen Ziauddin Butt, the ISI chief.

Independent insight into the events of October 1999 has suggested that Nawaz had come very close to achieving complete supremacy. Had his coup against the Chief of Staff come off, he would have togged himself up in the robes of a potentate. The new dispensation has been in place for some twenty months. Burdened with a breakdown that is very nearly total, Pervez Musharraf and his team have had their work cut out. What the final outcome of their endeavours is going to be remains an open question. Wide open.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Asim # 87

Good speech. But why was it necessary for him to become president for 5 (or unlimited period of time) years-He was given a time of three years-he gets paid to PLAN & ACT. Why he failed to plan in the first place. Why wasn`t people educated over TV and radio about his plans of ``grassroot democracy``-the pathetic voter turnout in the local elections is an indication that people have no confidence in his plans.

The constitution is once again sent to hell. THe law of necessity was making sense for three years but not for 5 or 10 years. The constitution and rule of law is the only guarantee that will hold this nation together-and he has failed on both accounts.

I dont think that we as a nation are in a Catch 22 situation where we are damned if we have army and damned if we have politicians-the way and the direction is clear; We must only strive for preserving the sanctity of the constitution and nothing else. THat should be the first and only demand we should make to our rulers-in uniforms or in waistcoats.

FYI Ras Siddiqui

Re: Rehmat Shah Afridi

I appreciate your effort to clarify what was behind the news item on BBC. I just went to the BBC website and did a search on the Afridi sentence, as it was appalling to have heard that he may possibly have been framed by the current regime. As it turns out...he was NOT framed by the current regime (I find BBC`s alarmist tendencies with incomplete reporting highly obnoxious and almost deliberate). The guy was arrested much before the coup and only the court proceedings have concluded now (please see link and posting below). He had been in custody for over two years.

It`s actually funny the spin BBC tried to give in the recent article posted by Ras Siddiqui on the sentence...it seemed as if he has been framed and picked up by the military recently rather than putting it in the context of his arrest before the coup and the concluding court proceedings.



I think people still have a hard time actually realizing that the press is infact free in Pakistan. This military establishment is almost playing with people`s imaginations and perceptions of military regimes...especially internationally. It`s almost amusing sometimes to see westerners react strongly and then retract in a confused manner...even in personal interactions.

Also, the Ahmed Faraz interview with Times of India is an eye-opener in many respects (also posted in one of the replies below).

BBC April 1999 article on Afridi`s arrest



http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_310000/310727.stm#top

Saturday, April 3, 1999 Published at 16:28 GMT 17:28 UK

World: South Asia

Protests at arrest of Pakistani newspaper owner

Protestors have been demonstrating in the Pakistani city of Peshawar against the arrest yesterday of the prominent newspaper owner, Rehmat Shah Afridi.

Police say Mr Afridi who owns the Frontier Post, an English language newspaper was arrested in Lahore after twenty kilos of hashish were found in his possession.

They say Mr Afridi later revealed the whereabouts of another consignment of more than six hundred kilos of the drug in Faisalabad.

The protestors - who included journalists and newspaper employees - said the charges against Mr Afridi were without foundation, and his arrest was part of the government`s attempt to gag the press.

The authorities have denied the accusations.

Here is a column from Dawn:

Defining supreme national interest

By Kaiser Bengali

Generel Pervez Musharraf`s self-elevation to the presidency is not the first act of its kind in the world. One military officer by the name of Jean-Bedel Bokasa in the Central African Republic, a small landlocked country of 3.5 million impoverished souls, seized power and proclaimed himself president in 1971 and then went on to crown himself emperor.

In Pakistan itself, Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, and Zia-ul-Haq have established the necessary precedents. General Ayub Khan also promoted himself to Field Marshal in a fit, perhaps, of self-glory. Generals, Pakistani or African, are expected to play their glory games.

`Field Marshal` Ayub Khan, `Emperor` Bokasa, or `President` Musharraf and others before and after them have had or will have their glory days. And the fact that all of them have met ignominious ends has not and will not deter anyone Mercifully, however, no Pakistani general has yet reached the depths of their infamous Central African counterpart, `Emperor` Bokasa, who was a cannibal and also fathered 62 children. Yet, however, the price that the country has had to pay is enormous. What an irony that Malaysia and India, among others, have acquired highly respectable status in the comity of nations, while Pakistan has to contend with being bracketed with the laughing stocks of the world.

General Musharraf`s take-over of the government and his self-appointment as chief executive in October, 1999, was illegal. The self-elevation to the presidency does not confer any more legitimacy or reduce the degree of illegitimacy of General Musharraf`s military administration. A government is only established by law and the Musharraf administration has no legal or constitutional basis. Mere expressions of good intentions does not bestow legitimacy. After all, it would be highly beneficial to the country if an international drug smuggler were to occupy the seat of government and pay off Pakistan`s entire external debt of 30-plus billion dollars. Such a regime would remain bereft of legitimacy.

There are some moral bottom-lines, below which one cannot and should not fall. The rule of law is important for its own intrinsic sake. If a general is justified in seizing power because he is armed, an armed car-snatcher cannot be faulted for his act, which in principle is the same. If the rule of law is jettisoned, then the powerful will take what they want, irrespective of who legitimately owns it. This would be true of a house or a wristwatch. Wives, daughters and children, too, would be fair game. The very basis of civilized society would be undermined. Society would degenerate and descend to unthinkable depths.

The assumption of the presidency has been justified under the much-abused term `supreme national interest`. As a matter of fact, national interest is entirely a matter of definition. Definitions differ according to perceptions and perceptions are a function of one`s interests. For example, in the view of one province, it is in the national interest to build the Kalabagh dam; for other provinces and for social rights and environmentalist lobbies, it is in the national interest not to build it. And so on. The military elite, too, defines national interest in the context of its own perceptions, which may not be in consonance with the perceptions of the people. General Ayub Khan perceived it in the supreme national interest to promote economic growth through the path of inter-personal and inter-regional income inequalities.

The policy caused social dislocation on a massive scale and the alienation of the people of erstwhile East Pakistan. General Yahya Khan considered it in the supreme national interest to ignore the electoral verdict, launch a military operation and inflict enormous bloodshed. The policy led to the break-up of the country. General Zia-ul-Haq considered it in the supreme national interest to place the country at the service of one superpower in its cold-war efforts. The policy led to infecting the country with the curse of drugs and weapons, religious and ethnic extremism, and other social and political ills. It also caused millions of Afghan men, women and children to die or be maimed for life. All in the name of supreme national interest.

The military elite has defined the supreme national interest over the last four decades. It has been enabled to build a corporate empire encompassing manufacturing, transport, banking, and other key sectors. It is now, perhaps, the largest landowner and enjoys the best housing facilities. It has its own educational and medical facilities, which are by far among the best in the country. It has made inroads into the bureaucracy and the police. And so on. In contrast, the civilian economy has stagnated. Agricultural yields are constant or, in the case of some crops, declining. The manufacturing sector borders on recession. Unemployment and poverty have increased significantly. For the poor, housing is becoming unaffordable even in kachchi abadis.

There are cases of middle class families having pulled their daughters out of school because of the rising cost of living. Despair has led many to suicide. For them all, the pursuit of the military defined supreme national interest has only bred misery. The military elite has deemed it in the supreme national interest to build an economy within an economy, a state within a state. That the military sub-economy is highly developed compared to the under-development of the national economy is a price the people have to pay in pursuit of `supreme national interest`.

Across the span of history, a number of nations have risen to the status of a pre-eminent military power of regional or world status. All of them, without exception, have achieved success because the productive sectors of their economies generated the surpluses to finance the non-productive arms of the state. In fact, the non-productive arms of the state, particularly those with coercive power, were used to enhance the capacity of the productive sectors of the economy. These mighty powers declined and withered away because the civil, military and religious elite`s began to extract more out of the productive sectors of the economy than they could produce. Even today, the world`s only superpower uses its military might, say in Iraq, to ensure that its own economy maintains its productive edge. It even managed the 1991 Gulf War in a manner to actually profit by it.

By contrast, Pakistan continues to tax the productive sectors to subsidize the non-productive sectors. The manufacturing sector has been taxed to the limit and now the traders are being rounded up to cough up more than what they can earn for themselves. For the fiscal year ending June 2000, the government spent Rs 1.45 on non-development expenditure for every rupee it raised in taxes and surcharges. Needless to say, not a paisa of the taxes extorted out of the pockets of the people was available for investment in development projects or for the provision of housing or education or health. Pakistan is the case of a factory that spends more on the salaries and privileges of chowkidars than on the purchase of essential raw materials, spare parts and workers` wages. Such a factory is destined to go bankrupt and shut down. Pakistan has reached just such a point. Clearly, something is seriously wrong with the way supreme national interest is defined.

The responsibility for how the supreme national interest has been defined and how the country has fared as a result lies largely, but not solely, upon the military elite. Just as there were many in the Central African Republic who hailed `Emperor` Bokasa, there were many in Pakistan who hailed `Field Marshal` Ayub Khan. The breed of such men and women has not become extinct.

Many eminent personalities among the Muslim League assured the new military rulers, in private and in public, of their faithful service in the event of restoration of assemblies. The military dangled the carrot and party stalwarts, who had fed themselves out of Nawaz Sharif`s hands until a year or so ago, abandoned him in hordes to form the `Like-Minded` Muslim League. The abrupt dissolution of the assemblies and the senate has left them with egg on their faces. They command no public sympathy, however. Those who are prepared to vend their consciences are destined for the dustbin of history.

That, however, does not have much deterrence value. A new breed of men and women is waiting in the wings to collaborate with the military dictatorship. Alternative efforts are under way and a new IJI is in the offing, albeit with a different face. The IJI formed in 1988 marshalled the Ziaist forces and was pinned together under Islamist banners. That was the order of the day.

Today, Islamist slogans are internationally taboo and the order of the day is liberalism; defined culturally rather than politically. The new IJI is, thus, being patched together to hold liberal NGO-crats, `progressive` trade union intellectuals and leaders, and a sprinkling of left-leaning and nationalist politicians. On paper, the new king`s party will have an attractive template. It will be liberal, progressive, and national. In reality, it will be what the IJI was: a handmaiden of the military establishment. That the new dispensation will be used and discarded, as was the `Like-Minded` Muslim League, is a foregone conclusion. However, that too does not have much deterrence value.

Efforts to form a king`s party apart, the dissolution of the assemblies means that the option of using the revived assemblies to effect desired amendments to the Constitution has been discarded. Clearly, this is a result of the failure to assure the military regime of a two-thirds majority. This one-third-plus number of parliamentarians, representing the brave people of Pakistan - across Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan - who declined to barter away their consciences, are the unsung heroes of the struggle for rule of law, democracy, and the rights of the people.

``In the first para you are writing ``Absolute power corrupts absolutelu``

And in the last para you are praising Musharraf.``

Krashid,

What is so difficult to comprehend here. Its the context which is different. Inthe first paragraph, I am merely exposing the dualdealing, hypocrisy of this supposed ``thekedar`` of moral integrity, one who was very much part and parcel of the regime who stormed the Courts, in a bid to subvert justice to protect his ``God``, and now preaches from the pulpits of vaulted virtue long sermons on the dangers of ``unchecked`` power.

In the last paragraph, here is what i wrote,..``More power to the general in bringing out the termites of this debilitated society. Its only when such jetsam and flotsam, and their very feudal masters are carefully preened away from the fabric that we can hope to stat afresh.`` You have toagree that he has been working at eliminating the scum of the society such as the self-appointed ``Lord of Punjab``, or that feudalpari ``Benazir 10% Bhutto and company``. Do u honestly think any politician or party is stable or sincere eneough to rule over Pakistan. I think not. We are not meant for democracy of any sorts till people have a basic understanding of what this western ``hogwash`` is all about and with a limited and dismal literacy rate, few really care, save for the dishinest politicians, and now the so-called press of Pakistan who are clamouring at the top of their voice, as if hypnotised to blurt out,...``Democracy, Democracy``, without realising that I and milliuons like mysefl would never trust the govt with another megalomaniac like Nawazu, or a nek Muslimah like BB, or for that matter that murderous terrorist Altaf, or any combination thereof.

If you have a soft spot for any of these thieves, dacoist, etc,.. i have this words of advice for you. ``Deceive me once shame on you;Deceive me twice shame on me``. Its time we realised that the politicians have taken us for the ride of our life, and we have been accessories to their quest for more wealth from our national exchequer.

The general`s actions need to be understood in terms of his plans fopr reforms. He is certainly no Zia Shaheed :) The paranoia amongst the pseudo-intellectuals of our society is unforunded about his intentions and or mannner of doing things.

Sincerely,

Asim

Asim #80 Relax brother. If you have read the previous posts on this board, you will realize that Mushahid Hussain`s popularity on chowk is about as high as Goebbel`s popularity among the survivors of Auschwitz.

Nasah #82

How come democratic exercise is not good for the Western wing of Pakistan?

For many reasons.

1- Pakistan is surrounded by hostile countries and democracy loosens the grip of armed forces on national defense.

2- There are many anti state parties in Pakistan which enjoy public support like Pakistan Muslim League (N), Pakistan People`s Party, Muttahida Qaumi Movement. In a democratic exercise there are chances that these anti state parties will win again and so this exercise cannot be done.

3- Our Chief Justice who has told Pervez Musharraf not to change the basic structure of constitution himself administered oath of president to Pervez Musharraf. So is a partial judge and cannot do justice.

These reasons are to be spoken. Other unspoken reason is ``Gun is mightier than pen``.

Moreover democratic exercise is going on in some form. Where elections are being held on gun point. And people are being forced to participate in election on gun point. To make sure that democracy works in its full, 45,000 security personnel are brought in and 245 police check posts are put.

We are just waiting for the Messiah Prime minister to be selected for us Pakistanis by armed forces on whose name we can put our thumb.

Don`t worry as long as 60% of Pakistan population is happy to accept any arrangement, it will be considered rule of democracy. With this criteria Pakistan is definitely one of the democratic country right now. Being ruled by consensus of 60% population of Pakistan. Even the elected Governments in Pakistan enjoyed at most consensus of 40% people of Pakistan.

You also see what we are accustomed to.

Asim Hayat #80

In the first para you are writing ``Absolute power corrupts absolutelu``

And in the last para you are praising Musharraf.

Do you think there is contradiction.

Or absolute power only corrupts Nawaz Sharif absolutely and not PM or Army Government.

I think I am at loss in reconciling two conrtradictory position.