|
Staying for Democracy? by Abid Ullah Jan “Musharraf not to quit” read the headlines in Pakistan. The self-appointed President makes it amply clear he has no intentions to stand down because he thinks he has “a role to play in bringing democracy to Pakistan”. One wonders, is it really only democracy for which the General wants to stay? If it is indeed democracy, we have the right to ask at the approach of yet another “Independence Day”: Shall we have it at the cost of our independence and raison d’etre of Pakistan? Who can look at the extraordinary sacrifices our forefathers have made for an independent Pakistan and still believe that counting foreign reserves in exchange for our sovereignty and independence is the meaning of life in a “democratic” Pakistan? Democracy was not the objective. We could have enjoyed democracy anywhere in the world, including under British rule or with Hindus in an undivided India. Terms like raison d’etre of Pakistan do not affect those with ambition and love of power. They forget that democracy is not an end in itself. It is merely a means to a greater end, which is good self-governance without selling our sovereignty and diluting our identity. Words and deeds of Western governments since 1999 coup d’etat have clearly shown their least concern with democracy. Their real concern has been to have a pro-western government, irrespective of its garb. They know that there is no need for the General to stay indefinitely if the system he proposes for “sustainable democracy” is sound and the imposed constitutional changes would ensure its continuity. The General and his western supporters ignore the question as to how long would he live if he is so indispensable for democracy in Pakistan? These questions lead one to the conclusion that the General has to stay for something other than democracy. The General has to serve a purpose other than democracy. The story started way back in 1999. Many image-building stories appeared on the pattern of an Associated Press headline, "Coup Leader – Iron Will, Sharp Mind." Just 16 days into the coup, Bill Clinton publicly called for a "restoration of democracy" while privately rushed to make use of Brownback-2, the presidential waiver authority attached to the new defense bill, to ease US sanctions on Pakistan. Clinton lifted all restrictions that he could considering that Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act supercedes Brownback and expressly forbids aid to countries where elected governments have been replaced by military coups. The well-informed persons at Capitol Hill knew in 1999 what’s in store for Pakistan. They knew that a few years down the road Pakistan would be gone from being the world's leading independent Muslim state to a client of the United States. They knew that Pakistan's best military and intelligence officers would be purged on orders from Washington; its soldiers would be serving as auxiliaries or loyal native troops to US forces in the region, and its nuclear arsenal would be under constant US monitoring. In return, the General has been transformed from a third world dictator into international celebrity, meeting in the White House with the world's most important man, delivering speeches to Congress, gala state banquets and intimate dinners with Barbara Walters and Henry Kissinger. For surrendering Pakistan’s objective, he got glowing stories in the media about progress in human rights, modernization, and women's rights. Showering of tens of millions in American aid is still awaited for undermining religious institutions, permanently inducting military in politics and watering down our identity related clauses in the constitution. In the name of democracy, the once used to be independent Pakistan is now going the way of Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan – thinly disguised military dictatorships whose armed forces, intelligence agencies, media, police, national bank and very economic survival are controlled by the US government. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of American priorities will understand that the Bush Administration believes that a substantive role for the Army in Pakistan's national life suits its interests in the war on Islamic movements. But as far as Pakistanis are concerned, they are dealing with a General who traded Pakistan’s sovereignty, staged a sham referendum, and surrendered all that he could to safeguard US interests. He promised civilian rule and then flatly refused to leave power. With the West interested primarily in Musharraf's campaign for reducing any chances of Islamic revival, the restoration of democracy has clearly become a non-issue. Democracy has ceased to be a reality. Establishments in London and Washington hold the real power. The public is not informed about the major decisions they reached with leaders like Musharraf and Mubarak. The room for maneuvering of the Muslim states is getting more and more restricted by agreements about which people have never been consulted or informed. We would still be voting in the coming elections, but our votes have been deprived of all meaning. We would vote for leaders, who, like the president on top, would be in charge of practically nothing. We have no choice in selecting the dish, but we are free to choose the sauce. The dish is remote control colonialism, with democratic dictatorship or democracy under a dictator as sauce. Musharraf tells us that he wants to stay for democracy at a time when democracy is under siege throughout the globe. Elections may be occurring more widely and even more consistently than in the past, but they only serve the dominant interests of the anti-Islam global elite. The strengthening of forces for social, political and economic domination on global scale is weakening democracy. These have damaged the institutional basis of democracy and made elections and traditional political pressures incapable of meeting the demands of ordinary citizens. Global military alliances, such as for enforcing war and sanctions on Iraq or invading Afghanistan, have drastically altered patterns of international relations and increased leverage over governments which do not necessarily share philosophy of the strong. Whether it is Musharraf in Pakistan or Bush and his company in the US, people have tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it has become stronger than that of the state itself. This ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power, in essence, is fascism. Any country where most citizens have no way to influence public policy directly or effectively is not a democracy. The externally weak Muslim governments have become more powerful internally, more intrusive and more repressive. This does not please many, but it does not matter. In “the End of History,” Francis Fukuyama considered the threat of “radical Islam” but pointed out that, unlike communism, it has no ideological appeal beyond the borders of the Muslim world. “Radical Islam,” in other words, posed no threat to the West. But the West now poses a threat to anything associated with Islam and such undemocratic governments are good tools for checkmating Islam. So leaders like Musharraf are not needed for democracy. The US needs them to cooperate, share information, close down “safe houses,” confiscate assets and make arrests. According to Newsweek (September 24, 2001): “The long twilight struggle we face, like that against communism, is both military and political…Our task now is to make sure that radical Islam is not seen as an attractive option around the Muslim world. We can do this is various ways but most significantly by supporting Muslim moderates and secularists.” Who will serve this purpose if the General is not there to maintain democracy? May God bless a nation whose hope for democracy rest with a coup leader. Concluded Abid Ullah Jan is a columnist for The Statesman, The Nation, and the Pakistan Observer (Pakistan). He is also sub-editor for the Tribune International (Sydney, Australia), and is the Executive Director of the Integrated Regional Support Programme (IRSP). He can be reached at abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk
|