Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth

#15 Sameer,

That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!

Sameer and Feroz:

But seriously, what do you do with a ``bad`` democracy? A civilian who is determined to turn himself into ``President for Life,`` as was the case with Nkrumah of Ghana and is the case with Mugabe of Zimbabwe? And don`t forget, that is exactly what Nawaz Sharif wanted: to be PM for life (or at least 20 years or so, and then his son would have taken over)?

It is very well for Clinton and people like you to say that the only remedy for bad democracy is more democracy but where is this ``more`` democracy going to come from? How are you going to get rid of a ``bad`` civilian ruler? Notice it hasn`t exactly been easy to get rid of Mugabe.

OR do you seriously think that, if NS had remained as PM, the next general elections would have been ``free and fair`` and the people would have been allowed to throw NS out given the pathetic state the Pakistani economy would have been in then?

NS is a prime example of Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument. As Zakaria says, there is nothing good about democracy per se, it is only a liberal democracy that is desirable. And how liberal was Nawaz Sharif and Co?

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

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

#17 by fuzair
#15 Sameer,

”That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!”

Which part of Sameer’s post is conspiracy Theory? I am little short of time right now but would also like to add my 2 cents to what Sameer has put down.

The comparison with NS or BB is not accurate as they never got into power without army’s blessings. More on this later but please read my posts on Feroz’s “The Barrack” (#145 by HP and more) board where I have argued that both NS and BB are not democrats and would be happy to share power with the army. Their aspirations to be PM for life or the Chairperson for life are ridiculous but their roles in Pakistan have not been as destructive as the army role has been for the last 50 years.
Thanks.

kkkandk#20
fuzair #17,

Before thanking you must realize that Mush did nt topple NS to save the country; it was a desperate act ofself-preservation. Because after the Kargil debale it was either Mush`s ass or NS`; they both instituted measures to checkmate each other. In the event the boot had the upper hand.
Secondly NS was not the product of a democratic milieu, he was the creature of the military establishment, particularly Zia and Jilani. So no tears there. One should also examine the shennanigans of NS: he sundered and compromised the high judiciary; screwed a president; made an army chief resign; passed a constitutional amendment regarding floor-crossing to muzzle political debate and dissent and was trying to ram in the 16 th amendment to impose the so-called sharia law. So how could expect democracy coming from the womb of such a dictatorship? Politicians elevated to high office are compromised due to their associaytion with the military. Therefore such a system is inherently incapable to promote democracy.
A genuine democracy is only possible if fair and open elections are held. But under the present dispensation, thats a chimera.
The pathetic apathy of our nation only help feed authoritariansm. We are even too far in point in time even from the illiberal democracy of Zakaria.

#17 fuzair

Whatever I wrote in my post has been mentioned in the print and electronic media of Pakistan over the years. Even without mentioning any of it and following HP`s general assertion leads to the same conclusion that military is a contributor in not letting the situation improve. The best argument, though not related to democracy is military spending. Somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 billion dollars from a total of 12.6 billion dollars government revenues per year are spent on military leaving much less for education, infrastructure and other developmental programs. How can then military not be resposible for creating the bad situation? Is this also a conspiracy theory that military`s industrial complex involves in unfair business practices and undermines competition? Is this also a conspiracy that billions of rupees collected from the selling of sick industrial unit by privatization commission were siphoned off to fauji foundation and other sick military institutions? Why dont they sell fauji foundation to the highest bidder like other sick industrial units?

Wouldn`t Pakistan have been a theocratic state by now, had the coup not occured? I would have to say the answer is 100% yes. The Shariah Bill had passed through the Assembly. And due to the PML`s overwhelming majority, it would have easily passed through the Senate. After that Pakistan, for the first time in its history, would officially be run under an Islamic Shariah. Following are some interesting points of the Shariah Bill:

``The Federal Government shall be under an obligation to take steps to enforce the Shariah, to establish salat, to administer zakat, to promote......``

`` Bill to amend the Constitution providing for the removal of any impediment in the enforcement of any matter relating to Shariah and the implementation of the Injunctions of Islam may originate in either House and shall, if it is passed by a majority of the members voting in the House in which it originated, be transmitted to the other House; and if the Bill is passed without amendment by the majority of the members voting in the other House also, it shall be presented to the President for assent.``

So, the govt. could pass Shariah laws, based on simple majorty. And any law could be kicked out, if it did not fall under Shariah interpretation by an unelected body of maulvis, to interpret the, ``Shariah``-ness of a bill. To make a long story short, NS would have been the amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan, and anything he did not like could be declared un-Shariah. He could, for all practical purposes, declare elections to be un-Shariah also.

This is where Pakistan would have been today. A bankrupt, isolated Shariah-based country, being ruled by the interpretations of unelected maulvis. The govt. had stormed the Supreme Court, fired a Chief Justice, appointed the PM`s best friend and maulvi judge (who helped in getting the Chief Justice fired) as the President. And appointed the PM`s personal accoutant as the finance minister. However, the Prime Minister, running this whole show, would have been elected through an election, thereby satisfying the traditional democracy argument.

People cannot have it both ways. If they want to support NS and, ``elections at all costs`` argument, then they must support the Shariah Bill, because it was perfectly legal, being carried out by an elected govt. Pakistan`s natural evolution would thus have resulted in a theocratic country, under such an arrangement.

Yet one never hears this side. If one is going to support NS`s elections, one has to support, in principle, Pakistan becoming a Shariah country (even if one dislikes Shariah personally). The 15th amendment was, infact, the biggest change that the NS was to bring in Pakistan.

I can respect those who argue that Pakistan should have been allowed to become a theocratic country, as long as an elected govt. was doing it. The people I cannot respect are the ones who on the one hand keep arguing against theocracy and maulvis, and on the other hand keep supporting elections at all costs............

Romair:

You are comparing apples with oranges here. Musharraf on the throne is not at all due to the bad actions of Nawaz Sharif you outlined. You should have added the refusal of senate to debate, let alone pass, a bill condeming honor killing, hadood ordinance, creation of Shariah courts and council of Islamic ideology which predate nawaz Sharif government.

Musharraf has not even once publically spoken against Shariah or Shariah bill because he knows that it is political suicide to go against Islam in Pakistan.

The storming of Supreme court predates elevation of Musharraf to the COAS position and previous COAS chose not to take action on this bais. Before that military establishment actually supported Nawaz Sharif against both Ghulam Ishaq Khan and later Farooq Leghari. If he was so corrupt, then why did military supported him instead of getting rid of him with the help of Presidents? Most of the people who wer going to vote for Shariah bill are now in QML and sitting in the Assembly.

The shariah Bill, if I am not mistaken also predates Musharraf. Anyway, when Shariah bill was moving through the National Assembly, Musharraf was actually buddy-buddy with Nawaz Sharif. Nobody can deny it.

If NS committed blunder by letting his supporters storm the supreme court, Musharrad did worse humiliation by making it rubber stamp Supreme court through excecutive orders to retake oath. The people who participated in storming the supreme court, except Khawaja Asif, are in QML and some even ministers under Musharraf.

Talk about honor killing. Why blame NS only when Musharraf had two chances, one as CE and other now, to condemn it by law and set the punishment? He did not do it. He did not even change qasas law, eliminating Shahriah courts, Hudood ordinance or Blasphemy law, when he had free and easy authority under Supreme court for 3 years as CE and now with hand-picked civilian set-up to overturn draconian laws.

He made 40-50 changes in the constitution through constitutional amendment but none of them deal with the above mentioned issues you are so fond of presenting over and over. He does not have the balls to do it and bascally interested in prolonging his hold on power. Tying cat around camel`s neck is common practice world over in politics. All the draconian laws could have been attached to the package of LFO easily.

So, please quit presenting bad apples as the reason for bad oranges. Musharraf did not come to power because of them. He came due to power hunger and paved the way in that direction by creating wedge between civilian and military establishments starting with Kargil operation.

I guess according to your logic, India would have avoided Gujrat riots, if military had taken over, overthrowing hindutva BJP government. With such a forsight, you ought to be a consultant for some Indian think tank.

sameer,HP-
Reading the article and the interacts,I have some questions.
What keeps the army so united? Such rallying behind a person is striking,at the cost of the welfare of the nation.Even if it is believed that the army men are too selfish and do not care abt the average Pakistani,still it is amazing that one man is allowed his free will. Considerations of hunger for power,ethinicity etc. may have come into play,I would have assumed.
Secondly,it appears that army has been destabilising democracy.Why would they need covert tactics? Why do they need to make a case for coup?Do they need the moral support of Pakistani people and or international community?
Thirdly, Why is it the case of feudals vs army?Cant they have a cozy little pact and run a sham democracy? why does one of them get over ambitious?
Romair
If militiary is better than the feudals,do you think the change required is more social than political,on lines of the russian revolution ?

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.

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

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

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

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?

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
//....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.