A Contrary Opinion

Sometimes it is quite amusing to read the starry-eyed, academic arguments one comes across regarding Pakistan. Why is Musharraf deifying himself? Why doesn't he just step down? If he was so confident about his support base and vision, why not just step down and contest elections? Why not allow Benazir to contest the elections openly?

These seem to be very academic and impractical solutions which give very little deference to the actual ground realities. The culture, level of socio-economic development, externalities,etc. dictate that, at least in the initial stages, a simple democratic model as envisioned by our commentators would not apply. Giving free reign to democracy without the necessary institutions required to support such a structure would be a lethal weapon in the hands of opportunist politicians (as we have sadly seen in the past). What must take place is a reinvention of a model which will apply to Pakistan. In our societies (as was the case in the western world during their earlier stages of democratic development), given the lack of respect of decaying institutions, an iron hand is necessary to providethe fundamental rights to the populace and place them on an even keel.

It is doleful to say, but we need a benevolent dictator to set a clear path. It is equally presumptuous to put the fate of an entire people on an individual rather than an institution and assume it will work. The army has not done a fair job in the past when given the reins of power so why should there be any difference this time around? The answer lies in the realization that as the only national institution in Pakistan that is able to dictate its policies, this is the only chance Pakistan might have.

Then why does Musharraf have to go through the farce of this referendum? One thing that seems to elevate him above former rulers is his candor. He has categorically stated that it is for the stamp of democracy. In this changed world of 'right and wrong', 'good and evil', 'with us or against us' - dictatorship is bad. Pakistan does not need the stigma that is attached to "military dictatorship" with all its other appendages of "failed state", "fundamentalist Islam", "muslim nuclear power", etc. This undertaking is purely for window dressing purposes and nothing else. It does not require an overabundance of common sense to realize this. There should be a realization that for the interim, this will be a dictatorship with a veil of democratic change for our external donor audience.

Then there are those that support allowing the democratic process to move along in an unfettered manner. One has only to see what has happened in the past to discount that statement. True, if we were given upwards of three generations to perfect our democratic institutions/processes, we could probably end up with a workable model. However, we lack the luxury of allowing insidious elements from running amok in the interim as the din of such a democracy (which in established structures is more of a stabilizing factor) could reverberate to the level of a cataclysm in our case. Why not any of the previous rulers? They have proven to be incompetent, corrupt and lacking in the nationalism that is necessary to give the common man that pride that we have lost - the Pakistan first concept. I have been hearing the examples of India and especially Bangladesh of late as successful democratic systems. Firstly, our external situation is unlike Bangladesh's. We are actually a potent adversary/competitor of our juggernaut neighbor. If we were to relinquish our pride and lie down in a pool of subservience, that is another story. However, inherently we have been averse to such unilaterally self-deprecating acts with the exception of one (where leadership was more at fault than anything).

Secondly, if you delve a bit deeper in the democratic elections and results that have taken place in Bangladesh you might see something very similar to what happened in Pakistan during our democratic experiment (barring the military intervention part). Khalida Zia was first voted out mainly on charges

of corruption and misrule to usher in Sheikha Hassina (whose claim to fame was of being the daughter of Mujib-ur-Rehman) who was in turn voted out on the same charges. Her replacement was her predecessor who is now under pressure from her predecessor. If one was allowed to bet on who would be the next head of state, you wouldn't have to think too hard.

My point in highlighting this is not to lambaste one country or the other but to highlight the fact that the mindset of the general populace is very different in this region as compared to western societies whence all these liberal democratic models come. The socio-economic, literacy and political conditions dictate much more rudimentary needs than in other places with the result that, force, coercion and rhetoric are understood and respected to an inordinate degree (be western standards).

The masses have short term memory and a melancholic, romantic view of past rulers, no matter how destructive these despots were in their own era. This is partly to do with the apotheosis of rulers in our society in general and a nostalgia of better past times in particular. A very interesting story I heard from a Bangladeshi friend of mine regarding the Ayub Khan era is worthy of mention. Dhaka was, during that time, a very dirty city with most residents just dumping their refuse on street sides in front of their homes or shops (sound familiar?). Past governments had prohibited this practice and promulgated severe penalties for any infraction.



However, due to the lack of implementation of such policies, these were considered hollow restrictions. With the arrival of the army and subsequent strict implementation of these rules, within a week, no one dared to throw trash anywhere but specified locations. Sad to say, but we are at a stage where the majority of our populace will respect and accept force if it is viewed in a moralistic light with clear benefit in mind. Our culture is a very passionate and emotional one which puts much stress on familial and communal ties. These are aspects which we should truly be proud of, as against the individualistic and bland societies elsewhere. However, there are pros and cons to every structure of society and ours is that we are, due to our economically and socially depraved state, at a rudimentary level with our major concern being putting food on the table for our children for the coming evening. Until that basic premise is changed, the universal laws that apply elsewhere will not have a leg to stand on in Pakistan (as expressed by Jamal Arif's commentary as well).

It is heart wrenching but one must accept that we have only two choices. One is the model of East Asia - strong central government, massive primary education, limited political freedom, stress on stability, stability and more stability. The other is a continuing journey into the abyss.

We have little choice but to see Musharraf through this course. In the history of every nation there has been an individual, be it Mustafa Kamal, Lee Kwan Yue, or George Washington, that has changed the course of their respective nation. Sincerity, staunch nationalism, moderation, candor, power and luck have been their hallmarks. The general has yet to meet his destiny as to whether he will be the founder of modern day Pakistan or its undoer. These might seem like emotional rants but if one looks at all the variables and picks them apart, we are left with this one choice - to support him. His quest for a constituency is underway and is necessary for him to put forward real and substantively revolutionary policies. It will also be important to note that he will not have any more power than the democratically elected politicians that we have had in the past who sabotaged any possible independence in governmental institutions and centralized all power in their own hands. The only difference is that he wears a uniform.

I am not a supporter of military rule, nor do I espouse the role of the army in our checkered history. However, if we are giving such people as Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (who will undoubtedly be voted in by the masses) the benefit of the doubt when they have done nothing but betray us, why not give the goodwill to someone who, for any faults one can mention, has only been brutally honest with us.