Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth

WHY the discussion and reaction on the articles on chowk lose their seriousness some 15-20 reactions down the road? :( I was wondering if people could be nice to eachother other even in mud-slinging and as they say ``polite but firm.`` Trust me friends, coming down to the level of someone who`s not been nice, makes you what the other person is. And even ignoring bad comments strengthens one`s personality from within.

Just a thought thou!

Now my reactions to few comments...:


# 5 Ikonoclast:

I agree with you when you hold the political class equally responsible for the state of limbo this country is in but then again, who makes them behave that way? Secondly, this vicious circle of atrocities against democracy needs to be ended now and frankly, the worst of the democracies even tend to take care of the nations unlike dictators and army rules. People in Pakistan usually refer to the great De Gualle and Mahatir Muhammad and try to prove their case that onemanship is the best mode of development. BUT which they tend to forget is that although it was onemanship but a majority of the state institutions were free to work their way. We also must not forget what the great De Gualle said when his cronies pushed him against Sartre: “How can I arrest France for Sartre is France.” And here we have dictators meddling in everything from family planning to policy planning!

# 6 Rozaiba:

Thanks for the comments. They were really encouraging!

# 11 nikki7777

I am Mubashir Akram for my father’s name is Akram J No other reason. Trust me, I can even quote my address and phone number and it’s not that I wish to remain concealed. I would only live once…better in grace than in disgrace!

# 13 kkkandk

Very good comments Mr. Tripple K but honestly, none can live in the past. We live in the present to have a better future and that’s all we could do about it. Our political history is one of the most shameful ones in the South Asian countries but the point is: where do we go from here? My pangs of pain for the civilian rule and supremacy were for a better future, freedom and civil liberties…

HP 33 I understand when you say that there is no money in that debate.
I will ask one more question,why do most Pakistani posters here perceive NS as a free loader and there is a definite polarisation among people who favor the army and people who favor him?
Furthermore,is this the biggest hurdle to democracy,that a significant number of people do not share the vision of people like Feroz -``Democracy at all costs``?

re: HP & Rahul _Capri (various posts)

Sorry to abut into your discussions, but I just wanted to clarify a few points.

HP, your observations are correct that I favor a federation, but not with strong central powers. I favor the present federated structure but only as first step towards moving to the idea of the federation in the Constitution of 1973, with its concurrant list of powers between the center and the provinces. Over a period of time, I would really like to see a devolution of power to the provinces and even to the districts.

Given Pakistan`s historic experience, one option is to create a dyarchy and to share power, but how we get there or even get to decentralized power is the critical question. There has to be a evolution towards what you seem to favor; decentralized power.

Ciao

#33 HP:

I also prefer decentralization over federalism because I feel that democracy suits more to Pakistan than highly centralized federation. I haven`t followed your vision in detail but I have presented my thoughts here many times during the discussion of division of power and division of existing provinces.

I do not support strong center but I do not support strong provinces either. I wish to see equal amount of power transfered from center to provinces and from provinces to districts. Given the diversity of Pakistan, I wish to see district governments most important from public point of view with full control over education and cultural matters. Dividing Punjab or Sindh is nto the solution to multiethnic Pakistan. Pakistan is in fact much more multiethnic than 4, 7 or 8 units. Additionally unlike isolation in mountaneous areas (for example kafirs of Chitral, Balti of northern areas etc), various ethnic groups of Pakistan live in mixed environment. Strong district government is the key to create harmony in Pakistan.

Its downside is small compared to upside. Downside is the bickering among districts over water distribution etc but upside is not putting all your eggs in one basket. Strong district governments to the level of current provincial governments make army taking over more problematic. Army garrisons can not move to every district to take over the government in few hours. With media outlets from districts, army takeover of Islamanad, Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar can be resisted much longer. Secondly a poor central or provincial government would have less effect on the governance of all districts. Possibly many district governments could perform well despite crooks running central government.


All of Pakistan should not suffer due to poor quality of democratic government in the center and provincial capitals. Historically united Punjab`s fate was decided in one battle in Panipat or Lahore and often lost. Before that invaders have to fight their way from Bhalwal to Shahpur to Lahore, fighting with Gakkhars and then with Jats and others. People have more affiliation at local level than provincial or national level and that attachment to local level can be used towards better governance, development, prosperity, justice and peace.

HP

Take it easy pal - my intention was not to upset your blood pressure. For an outsider - I know as much as anybody else - about paki history and various twists and turns in its politics. My knowledge may not be as exhaustive as yours ( of course ) but I think I know enough to put up a counter argument to your assertion that ``Pakistan people have fought battles against Mushy .... blah ....blah``.

Since his 1999 coup - I haven`t really observed any ``battles`` that has been fought against Mushy`s military regime. If you think otherwise - then enlighten us.

If you don`t want to answer - that`s fine too. Just don`t boil over!!!

HP
//...Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics...//

Thanks for imparting the secret wisdom. Now - let`s take War of 99. Mushy planned that war ... Mushy fought the war ... mushy lost the war .. mushy took over the country ... mushy is ruling it for 5 years now, un-hindered, un-challenged ... he is the undisputed king.

So in this sitcom, which episode shows us the ``battle for democracy`` ?

Rahul,

While Feroz and I both feel that democracy is the way to go for Pakistan, we differ in the system itself. Feroz appears to favor federalism and more centralized system and I favor maximum decentralization of powers in Pakistan. In other words, I feel that less powers the center has, there are more chances for democracy to survive in Pakistan. There is no money in it that debate now. We both agree that somehow Pakistan has to get to democracy first or at least the civilian rule for starter and even that would take some doing.

NS did not take paid vacation. He is not a feudal. He did make a compromise and I think it was okay for him do that at that time.

#30 by mohar11

Mohar,

one can be a cynical bast-rd or a gullible fool. You can’t be both.

It would be better to find and read history before writing something only a gullible fool can write. Once you gain more knowledge about struggle for democracy in Pakistan, you will know what people of Pakistan have done for democracy. Or take a cue from Rahul. He wanted to know something and he showed sincerity and purposefulness.

With your current style, you will always get this answer or no answer.
Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics.

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

HP
//....Nobody should underestimate people of Pakistan though. They have fought battles with the army and at least ensured that Pakistan army is forced to create a façade of civilian structure and the army despite dozens of amendments is unable to rescind the constitution fully. ..//

The civilian facade is for international consumption. I don`t think people of pakistan really give a sh!t about that. They have danced in the street when mush took over and his approval rating is still high. So I don`t know what ``battles`` people of pakistan have fought against the army.

The constitution in pakistan is another facade - nobody in pakistan really considers it anything but a joke. If and when army feels that mere amendments won`t do the trick - mush is going rescind it. Except for some little storms in the elite tea cups - nobody in pakistan will give a damn.

In fact - Faujis have literally got away with murder, many times - nobody in pakistan has held them to anything. Constitution is no big deal.

HP
//...The Kargil was designed to bring army’s prestige back and make it reassert itslef in Pakistan’s politics again. ...//

I have never understood this one. Kargil ended up as a miserable defeat for Paki Army - both in military and political terms. And yet - it somehow ``brought Army`s prestige back`` and made them even more powerful. Mushy, the architect of that fiasco, actually claimed the throne, based on that mis-adventure.

I mean - what are we missing here? Even banana republics will hang their head in shame.

HP,that was an insightful post.I surmise that whatever it was regards to NS, the desire for more power or doing service to wishes of Pakistani people ,he did try to take on the army by dismissing COAS.Though it is another matter,that after being dismissed himself,he chose to take a paid vacation somewhere and not go to jail.After all,feudal habits die hard.
Feroz, I agree with you that Pakistan should have its own version of democracy.
I am going by an assumption that some sort of currency from the people is required and it is also obvious from some interactors that they dont wholly buy any alternatives to the army.Also, I assume that NS though a stooge of the army and USA would ultimately have worked against the army and the US interests if he had more curremcy from the people.
But in that case question is would that have resulted in a theocratic government more aligned with the Middle East than with America?
Observing the hatred of America among Pakistanis in this forum I think that position would be bought by the Pakistani people.Also would such a state be better for the development of the country?
I would think that the ideal position would be a non radical or a neutral position,in which the demcratic head(probably of a theocratic democracy) gives US enough sops like Al Qaeda ,so that it keeps from mobilising the army .The only problem in a theocratic state is that it might not be possible to keep away from the Arab fundoo politics and that might result in more deterioration with relationship with India and may result in even more Kargils.The rise of fundoo forces on both sides of the border is bad for both countries because it takes us away from the real problems that face us. So, assuming that a theocratic feudal govt is the only alternative to go from here,can such a government take a non radical position on issues like Kashmir and Middle East?

Daily Times editorial

EDITORIAL: Tongues that wag with reason

General Pervez Musharraf wants to know why “pseudo-intellectuals” are inclined to criticise the defence housing societies that are an ubiquitous feature of the urban landscape in Pakistan. He reasons that these societies constitute top residential areas in Pakistan, are very well kept and run efficiently. Speaking at the Karachi DHA, he said that he was pressing this point because the detractors kept questioning the military’s involvement in everything. The military is not involved in running these housing estates. These societies, he said, are run by retired army officers and civilians. Warming to his sophistry, General Musharraf then went on to argue that there was no need for anyone to feel ‘jealous’ if the land was acquired cheap, then developed and sold at higher prices. Taking this logic further he also mentioned the Army Welfare Trust and Fauji Foundation — organisations involved in banking, real estate development and industry — and said that while retired army officers were the bosses in these organisations, they were generating employment “which is essential because military officers here are retired at a very young age”.

We understand General Musharraf’s unease at attempts by “pseudo intellectuals” to point to the military’s “corporate” interests. But while the military can argue its political role on the basis of peoples’ disenchantment with political parties and leaders and is not particularly bothered about “pseudo-analyses” that criticise it, its “corporate” interests seem to be a different ballgame altogether. The pinch comes when people begin to talk about money matters and how the military has been able to protect and enhance its financial affairs by virtue of being the most powerfully entrenched institution in the country. But the fact is that too many stories exist about how the military is wont to conduct its financial affairs by manipulating the system in its favour. These take away the sheen the military has put on itself. Hence General Musharraf’s unease and his urge to use pejorative terms like “pseudo intellectuals” for those that are not swayed by the outward polish.

But things need to be put in the proper perspective. Why should the military be the only institution that can get cheap land for development through official means and then sell it off at exorbitant prices? The argument that the military defends the country and therefore should be treated with deference is fine, but it shouldn’t be stretched too far. After all, our military is still an all-volunteer army, isn’t it? This means that no one in Pakistan can be forced into military service. This also means that those who choose of their own volition to join the military should not expect to be treated royally or more favourably than other segments of society. Of course, if Pakistan had a people’s army and lands and other perks were awarded to people at large for rendering high services, that would be OK. But that is not the case here, is it?

The military is also the major political power in Pakistan. It has advanced its corporate interests by using its political clout, including getting businesses for its organisation, sometimes having undue access to sources of public money with which to keep them afloat and making laws to legalise this activity. How is this different from a political party getting into power and then using its position to advance party interests? Yet political leaders are tainted when accountability bureau slap references on them for ‘misusing’ official positions. In other words, when chief ministers or prime ministers allot plots to party favourites or civil servants, they are deemed to be corrupt by indulging in cronyism or patronage. But when army officers get plots from GHQ for services rendered, that is perfectly in order. When the land acquisition act is used by governments to buy land below market prices from its civilian owners and then sell or lease it out to the military for a song for its housing societies — which go on to make huge profits — that is in order. But when civilian governments do the same thing for their voters or party workers, it is out of order definitely. Come, come, sir, the tongues are not wagging without reason.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-8-2004_pg3_1

re: Fuzair # 17

I will try to answer your questions.

First of all, in my opinion there is no substitute to a democratic form of government. I have this bias in favor of a democratic form of government, because past experience of having lived under a military rule has convinced that it offers no viable solutions for the long term. Military rule, by its nature, is illegitimate and when military rulers try to legitimize their rule, they invaribly make bargains, which end up harming the national interests. Zia`s process of Islamization of Pakistani society was one such example and it had everything to do with prolonging his rule and had nothing to do with instituting Islam. The end result was the radicalization of politics and the civil society in Pakistan and the unchartered increases in the levels of social, political and cultural intolerances that marred the Pakistani society. The rising guise of terrorism and the governmental support for terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan created a situation, which systematically whittled away Pakistan`s sovereign writ.

Ayub Khan`s martial law did not fare any better in its long term implications on the Pakistani society either. The process of industrialization undertaken by Ayub, and touted by many as his crowning achievement, mutated an emergent capitalism into open mechanism and excuse for national robbery. The riggings of the 1964 elections destroyed the last remaining vestiges of electoral democracy in Pakistan. The experiments with the Basic Democracy started a process of tinkering with Pakistan`s Westminister style of government and ushered the nation onto a path of presidential politics, whose lack of resolution still makes it impossible to arrive at consensus on the form of national goverance best suited for Pakistani needs.

Granted that the martial laws are better over a democracy, theoretically, but they can not answer the question of how to sustain the long term developments of the nation. Martial laws hinder the evolution of normal politics, because nations are run on the wits of politics and not on the whims of military fiats. Politics, if allowed to run their own evolutionary course, will chart their own maxims of political institutionalism and over a period of time, this natural growth of political institutionalism is a better option to a more tolerant politics.

The fact remains; under a military rule, a nation is not free and no matter how enlightened the military despot might be, he still remains a despot foisted upon the people against their will. Fuzair, lets say hypothetically speaking that you are jailed and over a period of time, the jailer becomes your best friend. Despite all the laughs and the good times you will share with him, nothing will erase the fact that he will still be your jailer and you will still be inside a jail and he will be still be guarding you. You can deny the apprent reality of your limitations, but denial does alter the limitations of your situation.

Please do not confuse my support for democracy in Pakistan with the international grund norms of democracy. Democracy in Pakistan will have to find its own rationale given our checkered historic experience of gaining and losing democratic governments. The democracy in India, for example, might offer a more realistic model for democracy in Pakistan, but will not offer the solution for a real, long lasting democractic government in Pakistan. Pakistan will have to create its own version of a democracy, which addresses the basic questions of its citizenery and those questions are about an access to social justice, economic empowerment and a lack of societal discrimination.

In this sense, I am in favor of a presidential form of government and not because I am against the Westminister style of politics, but because since our early days, Pakistani politics is heading towards a presidential style of politics. Whether we like it or not, our politics has assumed a presidential format and now we must simply balance out the powers between the executive and legislative and make this system work. The system may be bad and it may be worse than awful, but it has to be allowed to finish one complete political incarnation before it is aborted by a military coup d` état. The system must be allowed to iron out its own wrinkles naturally without any forced political engineerings.

In this sense, I favor the present national assembly to finish its present term and then have new elections in 2006 or even 2007 but not before 2006. Pakistani politicans and politics must disabuse itself of the idea that elections every 18 months is good for democracy. Democracy and democratic governments are not about elections; they are about the peaceful transfer of power from one political group to another.

I do not support the argument that a remedy to bad democracy should be more democracy. I support the argument that the remedy to bad democracy is not to lose hope in the democractic process itself. We can debate the values of democracy and what version of democracy is best suited for Pakistan, but we not should never question its overall effacy in Pakistan`s political evolution as a muture political state capable of identifying and asnwering the needs of its population.

I do not think there was any democracy under Nawaz Sharif and do not think that the next elections under Sharif would have been fair and free. Despite the systematic flaws, the polity must be given the chance to correct its own mistakes and over a period of time, the problems of this particular nature would have resolved itself. Democracy is not a perfect system of governance and it is flawed and prone to mishaps, but it does require faith in the judgement of the electorate to decide for itself what is best and what is wrong. It took nearly 200 years for democracy to establish itself in England and the English were as corrupt and inclined to abuse power as the Pakistani politicans, but they trusted the good judgement of the people and did not make new laws; but better implemented good laws already existing to make an even better goverance for the people.

Give democracy a chance and I promise you, it will not disappoint you!

Ciao

sameer JB
Romair
You raise some interesting and vital points, I would like to comment on them as soon as I get my feet on terra cotta:) But for the interim, suffice it to say, like I said earlier elsewhere on this forum, that Mush didnnt takeover due to any altruistic reasons. It was a classic case of saving ass-his. Regarding your reference about the army supporting NS against GIK and later Legari, it was just an internal turf fight among the power elites; afterall the so-called establishment is made-up of the military, the bureaucrats (although with an eroding power-base) and the feudal/politicos. And never forget that heavy mandate or no, NS was a stooge of the establishment, who got too big for his shoes and had started having delusions of grandeurs.

Romair, you are right that in the absence of Mush`s coup, we could have been a theorocratic state, but thats a different arguement altogather. Mush didnt topple NS to avert the shariah per se !
So Long

Rahul, Sameer, Romair-

Rahul,
your post gave me the opening that I was looking for. The saga of democracy or non democracy cannot be fully understood w/o accurately following the make up of the Pak army.
Pak army is an out of control institution and it really does not matter who the commander is, this institution would always work for its benefits like any other business corporations. With a difference, those business corporations don’t have killing machine in their hands. They have to work within the system to make the profit. The Pak army also works for its interests and sometime it uses mere diplomacy and sometimes brute force to get to what it wants.
To know the army, the first thing we need to realize that this army was made potent by CIA and the US military intelligence when Pakistan signed up with the US in anti-communist alliances. Before that this was a ragtag outfit that relied on second hand ammo from the former brit army.
The Cento and Seato were not mere military alliances, they were complete political alliances and the army was trained to infiltrate and sabotage initially communist outfits in Pakistan and later all shades of politicians in Pakistan. The Army is still following that script. The ISI and the MI wings of Pakistan army are set up on the US model and they still get training in the US. (With a few years of exception).
The US army and intelligence services are the biggest lobbyist for the Pak army and as long as the US has interests in that area, the Pak army would remain the most important ally for them.
CIA with the help of this army launched an effective campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan and probably would use it again to destabilize Iran in near future.

(BTW, I think the army bases in Balochistan are part of the US plans and the Army is just doing what it needs to do and most of the Baloch Sardars would eventually go with the army lots of smoke screens there.)

In the last 50 years, the army has penetrated all walks of Pakistani life. From the educational institutions to the Judiciary, Media, Newspaper and politics, the army in Pakistan has claws and teeth everywhere. Sameer named a few politicians and I can also name many more that have active alliance with the army. In fact, my assessment of the current Pakistan is that one will not find a single top or second tier politician that is beyond the army approach. That includes NS and BB both.

So when this army can penetrate and effectively create the afghan resistance, it can penetrate and hijack legitimate Kashmir opposition and even make inroads in India, how hard it would be for the army to penetrate Pakistani politicians and business leaders who have to rely on favors from the army to survive?
Nobody should underestimate people of Pakistan though. They have fought battles with the army and at least ensured that Pakistan army is forced to create a façade of civilian structure and the army despite dozens of amendments is unable to rescind the constitution fully.
Please read Sameer’s reference to Kargil carefully. For the first time in Pakistan’s history the army was on the receiving end. A civilian PM nurtured and created by the Army was able to dismiss a COAS, a huge slap on the face of the arrogant army.
The reason for all that: The US had lost interests in Pakistan temporarily and the army was unsure of itself. NS figured that out or somebody prompted him, he dismissed one and almost dismissed the second COAS within two years.

The Kargil was designed to bring army’s prestige back and make it reassert itslef in Pakistan’s politics again.

The army generals and leaders like Zia, Mush, Yahya and Ayub were of mediocre intelligence but an all powerfull institution helped them lead Pakistan for decades.