Looking ahead

Contributing Editor Vice Admiral (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir looks at the perils of democracy as it is now constituted.

The elections being over in October 2002, the transition towards a yet to be defined form of democratic set up is in progress. At the centre, the Prime Minister has been elected, a Cabinet of Ministers formed and the vote of confidence obtained. At the provincial level too, a similar process has been carried out and first of Assemblies’ working sessions called. The Senate would hopefully also come to life soon, which would allow the completion of the formation of an elected government at the centre. The task of getting down to real business by the National and Provincial Assemblies, however, remains to be attended to. The priorities at present appear to be to strengthen pro-Establishment groups by playing on opposition member’s newly induced conscience and attracting them by displaying places of responsibility in the government for those who get induced to follow their post-election sense of right and wrong. At the Federal level, running after government housing and transport has received top priority. Understandably, only after their personal needs and wishes have been attended to fully, would they be able to devote time towards looking at the problems confronting the state and thereafter the vast array of difficulties that face the people in their daily lives but, which remain unknown to their elected representatives for want of time or interest or because they are just too many to be remembered. Meanwhile, more by actions than by words the Establishment has now clearly laid down the future rules of business and of good governance. Such measures continue to multiply unchecked, as on constitutional matters the Bar Councils have decided not to approach the higher judicial set up that owes allegiance to extra-constitutional orders, and the page of suo-moto is missing from Pakistani dictionaries.
The government of the United States seems fully satisfied that propelled by the Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan has been put on the path of democracy. What further, the leaders of that truly mighty country have in mind for democracy to successfully flourish in our land of four big rivers will surely unfold in due course of time. It would seem though that the country is destined to be gently guided more in the direction of the Egyptian system than the Turkish model that itself is under transformation for her need of entry into European Union where democracy was an essential pre-requirement or, the more people friendly Malaysian type. It would also seem that despite the majority of the electors having voted the other way, the bulk of our graduate elected leaders at the centre and in the two larger provinces have chosen to work under the safe umbrella of the Chief of Army Staff than suffer the unfair burden of responsibility that democracy devolves on the shoulders of those elected to represent the people. Meanwhile, with policies of state already laid down by the new permanent structure at the top all that the elected democratic set up is required to do is simply remain calm and not jump off the track. This seems to be to the liking of majority of those in whom we placed our trust to run the country on our behalf. Such being the case or our fait, the situation reminds me of an article written a decade ago but never printed by any newspaper. The gist was that though Pakistan and India grew out of the same British planted social and political tree, the sturdy Muslim preferred to make merry under the umbrella of a strong man whilst he lasted replacing him with another when he wore out, the weak Bannia accepted the challenge of independent statehood and took the responsibility of running the affairs of his country on his shoulders.
The tragedy for Pakistan however remains that even after so many strong leaders that have been our favoured luck and who now bedeck Pakistan’s history books from the time when Ghulam Mohammad half a century ago in 1953 decided Pakistan needed a man of grit, the nation is still as far away from finding an administrative structure for running the affairs of the country and the federating units that is acceptable to all the differing power brokers and institutions, which have a say in running the affairs of the country; as it was at the time of independence. In fact, the way the 1956 and 1973 Constitutions of the country have been continuously trampled upon by the strong under the aegis of the ‘Law of Necessity’, a law that has yet to find a place in law books of the world; the only thing, which holds the country together today is neither the will of the people nor the writ of the constitution but the power that lies behind the barrel of the gun. It is ironical though that at a time when our all weathier friend across the Himalayas who once eulogized the power of the state through the gun, now for the sake of progress and development of the country and its people has moved away from that belief to the concept of power of the people in domestic field, while Pakistan that came into existence because of the power of the people has over the same half century moved into the opposite direction with predictably disappointing economic, social and political results. In fact, the existing system of governance in Pakistan could be variously described as federal parliamentarian, presidential or dictatorial as one preferred or even a melange without being wrong. However, outsiders generally term this internal situation as highly volatile and unstable.
Further, being nuclear armed and carrying an important territorial dispute with another nuclear-armed neighbour; the whole situation has become a challenge for international community particularly the Americans to manage. For these and other reasons the latter country is being surely though slowly drawn into greater engagement in the domestic affairs of the country. One fears that this engagement in our domestic affairs is likely to become even stronger as USA finds Pakistan unable to stick to understandings and undertakings it has impliedly or implicitly given at different times to US leaders and to international financial institutions.
Pakistan’s domestic political situation, as it stands today, there could only be two solutions to our predicament. Either, the Establishment accepts and implements in toto the 1973 Constitution as it was in force in October 1999, or it decides to work closely, meaningfully and quickly with elected leaders, past and present, who are not mere yes men, to discuss threadbare the prevalent domestic and international situation with a view to reaching a consensus on how this country needs to be administered and what should be the country’s domestic and foreign national aims and policies. In the latter case, non-government organizations must also be encouraged to have serious discussions on these subjects and at least provide their in-puts if they cannot be associated with deliberations that must follow. This exercise and its practical follow up is a must if the country led by its present Establishment is to avoid the looming confrontations, domestic as well as foreign, that cannot be wished away, and repeat the pitfalls of the previous eras. The Establishment must also appreciate and accept that the perceived needs and interests of the military alone might not be in wider or true needs and interests of the country and that the former must be a fall out of the latter. It must not be overlooked either that unlike Egypt and Turkey, who are liable to one external pressure only; Pakistan, particularly in its moments of domestic weakness or disunity is open to a variety of external pressures from an array of external sources that have an additional possibility of converging together giving those pressures a multiplier effect. These could have as telling a consequence on the country as did interference by one country alone (materially assisted by another) not very long ago. Past experiences and travails, Pakistan’s and of other countries, must not be overlooked or lightly brushed aside merely because we are a nuclear weapon state. For one thing, U-turns in the interest of the country or the people have been in our genes ever since Alexander of Macedonia camped on the West Bank of Indus over two millenniums ago and have been refreshed almost half a dozen times since our independence in 1947. Secondly, during the last quarter century a superpower, which still has a few important outstanding differences with Pakistan, to achieve its objectives has by various means been able to encourage or induce other countries to attack their neighbours. Others have suffered engineered destabilization through discontented domestic elements for the same purpose. To avoid any of these or similar possible but undesirable and unwanted eventualities in not too distant a future and for a brighter hope for the country, the Establishment and the nation must quickly find a solution the system of administration of the country that is acceptable to everyone and not be one party’s considered best solution alone. While doing so it would be useful to keep in mind that in the world village of which all countries are becoming a part, true democracy is becoming the accepted norm. Would Pakistan, be it nuclear armed, like to remain sticking-out as a sore thumb and be accepted by the world community as such, particularly in any leadership role that evolves on the country? Would such a situation be in any way beneficial to the country or its people? Let us all look ahead and work for Pakistan’s bright future without personal or group interests sacrificing the interests of the country and the welfare of its people.