Pakistan: A silver lining?

Mir Adnan Aziz

General Omar Bradley known in World War II as 'The Soldier's General' because of his care and compassion for those under his command said: Leadership is intangible and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it. He also went on to say: I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his uniform and to mothball his opinions.

People across the country will have heaved a collective sigh of immense relief on Gen. Kiayany's directive to all Army officers. A thorough professional and a man of few words, the message is terse, loud and clear. He wants all officers to stay away from politics in line with the established rules, the Army having no role in the country's politics. He has further told the officers that they should not indulge in any profit-making venture other than their salary and perks as per their ranks. It has also been reported that all officers deployed in civil departments were being recalled to their units. All in all a sillver lining to what was otherwise an ominus black cloud.

Unfortunately, we have accepted as fate accompli military interventionse against unpopular rulers as a fate accompli. That fate though is always at the option of the security forces. The post intervention military ruler too, as we have seen, tends to lose popular support. When unrest and protests occur, it's up to the military whether to side with a uniformed president or the protesters. In the absence of a tradition of civilian control, there's nothing to prevent them from doing the latter. It is, understandably, a tricky game to allow the military the power of intervention.

On the other hand, as it is known and expected about the military acting as final arbiter, there are eventually politicians and beaurucrats who realize that their real constituency is the Army. At that point, the de facto check created by public protest is likely to fail.

Frequent military interventions, by default, have restrained rather than facilitate popular government. These interventions bestow us with fragile propped up 'democracies'. These 'democracies' help create an institutionalized 'one man state'. In his type of rule unelected oversight agencies and selected politicians hold the balance of power and the army is the final arbiter of political acceptability. The object of such a state is to enable these ultimate power players to function as such with shows of actual force. The courts, political elite and senior bureaucrats are their shadows. Some of the ostensibly populist features of this charter, such as the much-touted local government system, is in fact designed to strengthen this parallel state.

Democratic governments have always awakened heady expectations only to be bitterly thwarted. They too are to blame for doing away with the promised pre-election manifestos and shamelessly indulging in palace intrigues, nepotism, and corruption.

The post September 11 period provided some with a convoluted logic of rule-of-law being too abstract a concept. Under the guise of domestic security and stability, unaccountable measures were and are being taken by a 'democratic' West. In their quest for security they handed out Carte blanches to rulers like President Musharraf to ensure the same. As a result, citing concerns about stability, we may well retreat from the pursuit of democratization yet again.

These rulers have opted to deal harshly with political dissent, ethnic conflicts, and religious extremism in a chaotic geopolitical environment. However, the stability of these regimes is fragile precisely because it is based on suppression. President Musharraf has been unable to grasp that we could better ensure lasting stability by encouraging democratization and sustainable economic growth.

Some of our politicians rationalize their role by claiming that a period of authoritarian rule is a necessary stage in the transition from totalitarianism to democracy. They also suggest that an abundance of democracy can lead to anarchy in times that have befallen us.

There is an implicit presumption in this theory: to assume that over time, the 'individual' or political elite with a 'tight grip' on power, will somehow let societal economic or social benefits trickle down to the people. This again presumably, out of altruism or benevolence, until the people are ready for democracy. This, in fact, makes it sound like a 'caretaker autocracy'. This is a fallacy. Power without checks and balances fosters arrogance and megalomania. Un-accountable rulers tend not to encourage a free media or an independent judiciary as both are totally incompatible with one-man rule.

In these power games the politicians allied with the ruler are nothing more than empty suits. What we really have is a charade, an appearance of democratic rule; in fact, it is a government of moral and physical coercion. People are afraid to talk openly. There is reconciliation by diktat.

Economic prosperity is measured on the barometer of cell phones sold. This is a mindset that the state has helped create among the masses. Progress is reduced to the 'balance' one has in his cell phone. The state washes its hand off the people by encouraging them to download jazzy tunes and catchy melodies. This, they hope, will prove as an opiate to help forget the absence of the basic of all commodities, flour and the basic of all utilities, electricity.

What does one say to the media being pressurized not to do what they are supposed to do? What do you say when judges and lawyers are under 'house arrest'? What do you say if someone brands judges and the media as chaos creators just because they defied a 'state-mandated regressive policy'? These policies may be temporary heady props but it is just a matter of time when these crafted political fiefdoms and conglomerates collapse, doomed to oblivion.

Today we live in an era of the 'imperative'. We must either reform our system of governance or watch it fall. We have to build a movement of reform not around the unlimited failings and infinite limitations of an individual but around the basic hope and premise that our country was found on.

Every person has the right to liberty hence ensuring and shouldering the burdens and responsibilities of self-governance. Only a mass involvement of the people will restore the health of our politics and initiate the necessary rebuilding and reform of our non-existent institutions.

(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)