The Last Trumpets

Mr. Feroze you failed to make a case in one way or the other thru this littany. I have no idea, what you are trying to say - even with the title introduction on the front page.

re: Rozaiba # 36

Ideally, I would like the institutions in Pakistan to evolve without any political meddling over a period of time. However, that is being really idealistic in Pakistan and its present political context. The next option is to reject the political reality of Pakistan post October 1999 and revert to a status quo ante as it existed prior to the coup d`etat. In many ways, the crisis over LFO is about this issue. The third option is that neither option ``a`` or option ``b`` is feasible. Hence, I have to compromise with the devil and hope that I do not end up regretting my decision.

Rozaiba, this is a very unsavory choice, but the best option, given the constraints, seems to be to massage the present Musharraf based local bodies system and allow it to mature and evolve naturally. In Pakistan, the institutions have not been allowed to grow and have been mindfully stunted, and we have to avoid this mistake again and let the political process in Pakistan find its own reason and justification. In this sense, the present parliament should be allowed to end its duly mandated term. Even if the present grid lock continues, it should be allowed to continue and if nothing happens; then let nothing happen, but do not derail the process. In this sense, Yogiraj has a very conscise agrument and that is, allow the process to iron out its own wrinkles. There is a parliament and even though its birth can be debated, it exists and in its existence it does offer an opposition to the government. Pakistan should institutionalize this dissent. Pakistani government should make this dissent formal by rejecting the notions of dissolving the parliament, because it is not behaving like a ``gentleman``. There is a valid agument that LFO is an obstacle, but the obstacle of LFO should not be allowed to occupy detract attention from what is important; and that is - the process is more important than the LFO.

The next step is to decide what Pakistan wants: a parliamentary form of government or a presidential form of government and then, only then, we should think about our political institutions. In many ways, our present political institutions are of a parliamentary nature supporting a presidential based form of governance. Unless, we know what kind of a government we want, there is no sense in solidifying the political institutions. Till we reach that level of maturity, we should use the existing infrastructure in Pakistan as a stepping stone to where we want to go; the journey`s end which should be a democratic government and in my opinion, it should be a presidential form of government. It is at this stage of developement that we arrive at Mantolives` suggestions of writting a new consititution describing the new powers of the state and their seperations. We Pakistanis need to know what we want before we strenghten our political institutions, because we do not have the luxury of making more mistakes and ignoring the consequences of our follies.

The present government and the MMA are discussing a constitutional package and the paradigms of LFO, This is a healthy sign and the discussions should be allowed even if they end in failure, because we, Pakistanis, have to reject the notions of a zero-sum political ideal. Insitutions and the process will only be strenghtened in Pakistan if we follow the ``due process`` and do not seek extra-constitutional detours, whose logical ends are political cul-de-sacs. At the risk of being called a traitor to the cause, I support the post 1999 system in Pakistan, because it offers a sense of stablity and even though it may be far removed from the picture perfect vision of a democracy, it is better than continuely pushing the clock back and reinventing the political wheel in Pakistan. I support the illiberal democracy of Musharraf, because to me, personally, it is more important to forge ahead than to relive the past and in hopes that the past can be changed for the better. The past 56 years in Pakistan have been a political failure and instead of spending time placing blame, we should realize ways to look ahead and understand our mistakes. Unfortunately, we repeat by our mistakes by perpetually existing in a cycle of trying to recreate the past. We have to realize and understand that the past cannot be recreated, but the future can be influenced by a bitter pragmatism based on a realistic sense of skeptism.

I am willing to take this malfunctioning system and its ideas of a flawed demcoracy as a better coin than that, which seeks to replace this process with a process, which has been a disappointment. Again, how many times are we going to reinvent the wheel? I have an American friend and he is an engineer by profession and he always says, ``work the problem``. Lets work the problem and if we seek to replace the present ``system`` with another one, what will happen in the mean time as we actualize process of moving from one system to another? This system maybe bad and the new one maybe good, but over all else, we have to avoid the vacuum that will exist while we are in the process of changing systems. Institutions in Pakistan have not devloped, because we have existed in a political vacuum and as nature abors a vacuum, the political vacuum will sooner or later be filled. In our case, it has been filled by the presence of the army. Lets avoid creating another vacuum, shall we?

re:Yogiraj # 35

You are welcome and yes, we are similar though we like to pretend that we are different! :)

re: Mantolives # 34

I will look forward to your article. The Government of India Act, 1935 and its amended version, which governed Pakistan from 1947-1956 needs to be understood and reviewed. The cow webs of confusion need to be clarified, because we need to study the past holistically, as you once said, in order to understand the future.

The first step is to create an awareness of the problem. The second step is to allow and encourage a debate on the choice of whether Pakistan wishes to be a parliamentary or a presidental form of government. The third step, is what you are presently thinking, and that is the process of implementing this choice formally in a constitution.

Mantolives, please contact me at ferozk@brain.net.pk if you want a sound board to fine tune your agruments, because I really feel that this debate has been neglected too long in Pakistan. I am interested in this debate and would welcome any input from any Chowkie!

Ciao

FerozK:

One fall morning I woke up to find on Dawn`s website that Nawaz Sharif had replaced Musharaf with a `lifafa` General. As much as I disliked NS, it was extremely gratifying to see a Fauji being screwed by a civilian. However, the happiness was short lived. After taking a shower, Dawn revealed that the tables had turned.

But still, yes, I really thought Musharaf was the real deal- a person who could make amends for all that went wrong. Like others I had great expectations. Even a couple of years down the road, I was excited at seeing friends (factory workers) run for elections as part of the devolution plan.

I realized however- particularly after the joke of the referendum, that I was being extremely stupid. Nothing is more shameful than looking for saviors in people who sneak in through the back doors.

Pakistan does not need any saviors. It just needs free and independent institutions. These things take time to develop. One only needs to look at the example of Bangladesh. Now that that country has had over a decade of uninterrupted democracy, do you think the Fauji freaks will EVER dare to fu-k with the people? And when there are no Faujiz available to stab the embryo of democracy, no matter how dissatisfied the opposition, it has to depend on the people to bring about change- just as the government has to engage people to establish trust in policies. In one form or another, the relationship with the people remains the supreme factor. BB and NS screwed up in many ways, but their governments were always forced to feel insecure by a meddlesome establishment lead by the Army.

My point is, Pakistani Army is a parasite who will use any opportunity it has to secure its own interests over those of the country. Thus, it is the primary enemy of the country. Has Pakistan EVER witnessed the massive country wide shutdowns that Bangladesh had to face during the never ending government opposition rows? Did the Bangladeshi army step in to `help` dispel such polarized atmospheres? It didn`t. However, Pakistan army needs only a small pretext- any pretext and it will step in as otherwise its role will evaporate once a government fulfills its elected mandate.

Anyhow, since both of us agree that institutions are what need to be developed, I would like to ask a few questions: HOW can institutions be developed when you have the Army`s role entrenched in politics? Over the past four years, has ANY institution been strengthened? Name one please. How many have been weakened? ALL OF THEM! The fauji fu-ks have screwed their OWN babies- like the local bodies system- from the very first day serving Brigadiers were going around kidnapping (maybe not at gun point) council members who they feared would not vote for their chamcha Mian Amir.

You seem to have expectations that with the role of the army, institutions will be strengthened whereas this has never happened before. The interests of the army and the people have always been at odds. One has to give and it’s hard to see how there could be a long-term reconciliation. We will continue to face ‘more of the same’ in power struggles as long as the army remains in power in any manner.

Sure politicians need to change their habits as you say. Stop the rule of `dynasties`, stop being `corrupt`, feudal suck etc. I agree. But aren`t these expectations also extremely idealistic? They are.

And I would say that it is FAR MORE likely that in time (say ten or fifteen years) the people in their demographic, economic and social shifts, will CHANGE those they elect or the way they act than seeing the FAUJI freaks even consider changing their parasitic behavior. There is NO chance of institutional development when their independence is held to the mercy of the gun. Thus the reasoning by many that we’ll keep going in circles if the Army is allotted a role- something that is a sad reality right now.

Anyhow, my last post was about true leaders. It insults the intelligence to put Pakistani faujiz in the same bracket as Ataturk or Castro or Mao or Mandela.

ps) I gave the example of Bangladesh. You probably know more about how it`s politics work. But Pakistan has never had such a polarized atmosphere during the short periods of democracy that Bangladesh had. Yet that country has managed to progress. So I do not agree that Pakistan is not fit for democracy.

F. R. Khan,

Thanks for the clarifications. Gives me a better perspective.

``India took some time, but India seems to outgrown the family dynastics of politics, but Pakistan is still caught up in the politics of family dynasties``

Will you please.. please instill this wisdom in our current Amma`s (Soniyaji`s) head. We are so apart... but so much same... aren`t we :)

Presidential system is fine. Provided, you give Ali and Ameenas say in local and state level. Even local level will do to start with.

Yogiraj Patil

Inspired by your article... I have submitted an article on what Pakistan`s constitution should embody... wrt the Executive vs Legislature vs Judiciary element...

re: Mantolives # 31

Yes; in that sense I agree to what Jinnah`s role was in the post 1947 Pakistan and that is why, a presidentially centralized power structure in Pakistan, which marginalizes the feudal power is the best hope.

Another point, it was the lack of the political constitutencies of the Muslim political emigres, which allowed the feudal barons to use their fiefdoms as a contitutency and hence, the reason why they supported a parliamentary form of government.

Ciao

re:faisaluno #23

Yes, I did! In defense of Zardari, I have to say that atleast he did not have sex with his horse!

re: Mantolives #24

That, sir, was a very sensible suggestion and I hope that it implemented.

Mantolives, the issue is not democracy in Pakistan, but the question is how to get there! In my opinion, the presidential system is the best option and another person might suggest to continue with the parliamentary system. Disagreement on this issue is worth while if it generates a serious debate on the nature of goverance in Pakistan.

As Rozabia said, it is about the vision of the future, which is acceptable to all and the only way to settle this issue is to determine, who has the vision by an open debate.

re: Rozabia # 29

To answer your question, which seems to be seething with frustration, you have to ask what did you expect from Musharraf?

Your own reasons, will be a better answer to your question. You seem to be in the same boat as Yasser and both of you are disappointed in Musharraf`s performance. You and Yasser are not alone; a lot of Pakistanis are dismayed.

Musharraf will be loyal to his insitution and he will serve the interests of that institution barring all else. To have thought that he would recuse Pakistan and that Musharraf will follow policies of altruism, is nothing more than an utopian fallacy. There are certain things one can wish for in Pakistan as long as one is realistic enough to admit that they will never be fulfilled. The problem is that Pakistanis are perpetually looking for a savior and they pin all their hopes on one person and when they realize that the person has flaws, they blame the person and not themelves for being so gulliable. Insitutional loyality in Pakistan is very strong and it will never be transcended by a esprit d` corps of nationalism.

``Musharraf lovers`` are those, who have accepted this fact; that nothing will change and the more things change, the more they will remain the same. These people are apolitical and apathetic towards politics and to them it does not matter, whether Musharraf is in power or Fazl-ur-Rehman. Their political constitutency is money and they will buy their rights and interests when the need arises, just as they buy politicans. As to the masses of Pakistanis, you can sell them sand as water and they will drink the sand thinking it is water, but make sure you label that sand as ``two nation theory`` in a nice colorful bottle! LOL

You are not missing anything! You simply have lofty expectations from Musharraf, which it pains me to suggest were totally unrealistic from the begining. Remember, on October 12, 1999, it was the liberal intelligentisia of Pakistan, which cheered Musharraf`s coup d`etat. Liberals, who now fret over Musharraf`s performance once hailed him as the savior from Nawaz Sharif`s misgoverance. You did not consider him to be so bad, when you rejoiced at his photos with his pets dogs and called him a liberal, who had saved you from Nawaz Sharif`s Fifteenth Amendment. Did you not or have you forgotten it?

Now that Musharraf has shown his true colors and has sided with the religious parties in Pakistan to shore up his political power, you are dismayed and are crying - but my friend the horses have already bolted! What did you expect? Did you expect that Musharraf will bring democracy to Pakistan and in doing so, limit the political interests of his own institution?

Rozaiba, the army wants to institutionalize its role in the Pakistani politics and whether you and I disagree with it, makes no difference to the reality that the military, in Pakistan, is here to stay. We cannot get rid of the military, but we can limit its role in Pakistani politics. What I am referering to is not crisis prevention, but rather crisis management. We cannot prevent the military from influencing politics, but we can influence its intentions and to do that we need democratically strong and viable political institutions and political parties, which practice what they preach and have elections to elect their leaders; whose leaders are not chairpersons of their political parties for life. We need a democratic tradition in Pakistan, which institutionalizes a trouble free transfer of power and we need, what Mantolives suggested, politicans to solve their own problems and not to create artifical crisis, which they have no idea/wish to solve; not to create crisis that only benefit their own rasion d` etre for practicing politics.

Do you honestly think that anyone in their sane mind, would welcome an illiberal democratic tradition knowing fully well the consequences of such an action?

Again, as to your idea of taking the vision to the people, it is a good idea in theory, but in reality it does not work. The English parliamentarian Edmund Burke once said that sometimes it becomes necessary for the statemen to ignore the wishes of his constituency, when he thinks them to be wrong and to do what he thinks is right, no matter how unpopular the decision. This very statement was quoted by John Witherspoon, who was a delegate to the convention in 1776, seeking to declare American colonies independence from Great Britain. On the night of July 3rd, 1776, one vote was needed to approve the Declaration of Indpendence and it seemed that the whole enterprise was a failure. John Adams was sitting in the convention room, when Witherspoon walked in and quoted Edmund Burke and then he walked over to the board and moved the sign from ``nay`` to ``yea``; and July 4th became the American day of independence. Had Witherspoon followed the wishes of his state and its people, there would be no declaration of independence.

Politics is the art of the compromise and it has no room for idealism. Pakistanis are continuely disappointed, because we have idealistc hopes from our politicans. All politicans make compromises to stay in power, because some of them think that a little evil is worth in order to do the good deeds. Those who wish to recreate heaven on earth only end up creating hell and too much idealism in politics only creates a disaster.

What were your expectations from Musharraf?

Ciao

The dilemma facing Pakistan is perhaps best expressed in this paragraph ... no longer the Muslim intelligentsia which migrated from India, but now the struggle is between the Urbanite class and the feudal class:

``The Muslim intelligentsia, which came to Pakistan, from India, tended to settle in the cities and as they took on the responsibility of governing Pakistan, the feudal landlords saw them as a threat to their traditional power. The feudal landlords of Pakistan had wanted nothing to do with the idea of Pakistan and to them, the creation of Pakistan was a threat to their own power and they resisted the idea of Pakistan. Jinnah was aware of this acutely and the reason he opted to control all the reins of power in himself. One reason was that politicians, who formed the constituent government in West Pakistan, had no political constituencies of their own in the new nation, as most of them were newly arrived immigrants. The second reason was that Jinnah had to create a political constituency and to do this; he had to personally dominate the feudal landlords of West Pakistan into submission. There was no politician of the stature of Jinnah in Pakistan and Jinnah realized that only he was capable of dealing with the two-pronged threat, which challenged the establishment of a federal government in Pakistan, with centralized powers. Jinnah could not leave this task to Liaquat Ali Khan, because Liaquat had no political constituency in the new nation and was thus politically handicapped. ``

Taking this into consideration, I can see how a presidential democracy with a strong Executive, and a legislature which is only concerned with legislation should be an ideal system... at the very least, a list system of political representation can be annouced... hence the constituencies should be abolished, and the people of Pakistan should be asked to vote for a party instead of a candidate... Any party getting more than 15% of the vote should be asked to come in the house... the party can then appoint the best suited candidates to from amongst party ranks...

-Manto

Rozaiba

Well put..

Indeed that a difference between Jinnah and Ayub... while Ayub was a military dictator... Jinnah was a popular political leader of a 100 million people... like K B Sayeed says in his book the `formative phase`

``However Jinnah`s position as the founder of the nation is unique. He was the first and only Governor General who derived his ultimate authority neither from the power of the army nor the support of the bureaucracy, nor from any constitutional prerogratives, but from the political support that his people gave him in an abundant measure.``

ON GREAT LEADERS AND PUS-SY CATS:

It`s really remarkable. How Pakistanis put Musharaf on a pedestal. Perhaps it`s just my exaggerated expectations and idealism of what REAL leaders are. But NO. I`ve seen real leaders. They exist this very day. They have pride, a vision, an attachment to their people!! They were and are men of action capable of tearing their own roots so their people can survive. Yes, often that vision is misguided and blatantly ridiculous. But the point is, they are willing to stake their lives and place it at the feet of the masses- the stupid, gullible, blind, uncivilized, good-for-nothing masses! A true leader`s vision is NOT a product of manipulating the `blindness` of the common person who may not be aware of the larger picture. It`s a product of FIRST getting the vision APPROVED by the people (be they blind) and THEN leading them to toward it.

From Mao, Che Guera, Khomeini, Ataturk to Castro, Chavez, Guitteraz, Mandela.

Mao with his 6000 thousand miles of journey. Che and Castro- initiated a revolution with a total of fifteen men without a single weapon! Ataturk took on the Arabs, Greeks, Brits, and Russians at one time and then turned his own country upside down! Chavez and Guitterez both lead coups, were thrown out of the army and into jail cells, came out and won an election! Mandela suffered for three decades and healed SA rather then unleashing forces of revenge. They ALL took their vision for approval to the people.

What the FU-K has Musharaf the pus-sy cat done? Managed to land a plane in Karachi rather than Dubai? Humor me. Please. I must be missing something. Because I KNOW Musharaf lovers CAN`T be serious!! Oh yeah. He likes Ataturk. I like Einstien. SO what? Dammit, a duck-billed platypus has better chances of being a scientist than me!!

Anaji,

Glad we agree on something though.... I would`ve thought we agreed on secularism, democracy, women`s rights, the fact that Pakistan was NOT conceived an ideological state by its founders atleast Jinnah.. But then you responded with a simple `I don`t agree with a lot he says` without explaining what that lot is... since the lot I have been saying was exactly the above mentioned...

But glad we agree that army should be kept out of politics.

PS History should be learnt first hand through credible historians and researchers... not through official textbooks, or by articles that have an axe to grind. May I suggest Ayesha Jalal`s `State of Martial rule`? and K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the Formative Phase` ... on this issue?

While agreeing on the situation, both these books differ in final conclusions from this article.

Ana,

Just wondering, your eyes opened about what? That Jinnah was forced as Ferozek says to concentrate on the power in his own hands given the quality of his successors? Nobody has denied that part of the analysis, nor that Jinnah had no choice. My contention, having actually read the salient features of the amended Government of India Act 1935 , is that Jinnah was right in so far as his assertion that executive powers flow from the Governor General. In that respect our colonial constitution was presidential. Perhaps we must adopt a Presidential system since the precedent has already been set. Presidential form is as democratic as any.

I hope however that somewhere down the road, either feroze or you will realize one day history needs to be viewed holistically, even Jinnah. And his choice of office which defacto vested the exec. authority in the Governor General, is no justification for the Army Rule.

-Manto

i cannot claim to know much about pakistani history, especially its political history because in the nine years that i lived there and went to school, i don`t believe a single thing i learned was true. . .in history that is. so reading this was somewhat of an eye-opener for me. thank you feroz.

and i agree with what yasser said in #19

and we don`t need to just convince the army of that wisdom, the people need to wake up to that as well. . .and how do they go about doing that???

~ana

Yes I think Presidential form of Democracy would be better suited ... A new constituent Assembly should sit, and a new constitution should be chalked out.. a constitution which is workable, secular, modern and progressive...

A new constitution for the new century.

-Manto

feroze:

excellent article in terms of analysis. you should try to get this published in a broader forum to do it full justice. that said, i do have differences with you on your recommendations (made more directly on other boards). first, i would argue that it is leadership rather than system that makes a country. for example, china under deng was a different country from china under mao. yet both ruled under a communist form of govt. closer to home, presidential system is not going to make benazir change her spots, i.e. her rule under a presidential form of govt is going to be as much of a disaster as her rule under a west minister style democracy. ditto for n.s. and with him, we actually get to see first hand , the dangers of living in a political system where you have unchecked powers residing in the hands of an out-and-out fruitcake. important to remember that within the local context, n.s. in his second stint --due to 2/3 majority-- had more powers than the president of u.s. the result was creation of khidmat committees, complete destruction of economy, and the near certain adoption of 15th amendment if his reign had continued.

the other issue i have with presidential system is that is going to be a certain disaster for economy. i say this because paki leaders cant run the neighborhood paan shop much less an economy that puts food on the table for 140 mn people. giving politicians unfettered access to levers of the state will have horrible and unpredictable consequences. and i dont think trial and error method will work because it so much more easier to create sudan and zimbabwe than s.korea and taiwan.

off course problems of pak are going to persist under any govt because problems of pak arise out of cultural rather political reasons. that is why i think the system that evolved in the nineties i.e. the troika system is the best system for pak. this is because checks and balances inherent in this system reduces the damage inflicting capability of army as well as politicians. as a result, sum becomes better than its parts.

p.s. remember reading at another board that you were interested in roman history. did you read about discovery of caligula`s palace? and interesting comaprison dont you think between zardari’s storing of horses in p.m. house and Caligula`s appointment of his horse as a senator?