Whither Pakistan?

It seems to be a recurring theme in the subcontinent. To wake up and read about a tragic assassination. It does not happen that often, but it does happen every decade or so. In the 1970's it was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in the 80's it was Indira Gandhi, in the 90's Rajiv Gandhi, and now in the first decade of this new millennium it is Benazir Bhutto. A Mother and her son, a father and his daughter. Four tragic deaths and thirty years of political violence in the subcontinent, not counting the shambles that is Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal.

Zulfiqar Bhutto's death at the hands of General Zia Ul-Haq was a defacto assassination. And it had worse ramifications for Pakistan than did Indira's for India. The military coup by General Zia in 1977 marked the slide towards fundamentalism, and the frequent halting, stumbling, and often retrograde move, towards full democracy. If Indian democracy is viewed as a miracle, then democracy in Pakistan is a miracle waiting to happen. But is everything lost for Pakistan? I do not think so.

When I read about Benazir's return to Pakistan in October, there was a feeling of foreboding. The assassination of other South Asian leaders came as a surprise and a shock. But with Benazir it comes only as a shock. There is no surprise. And perhaps more than anything, this marks the great tragedy that is Pakistan. We see this inexorable spread of political, religious and sectarian violence. Assassination no longer comes as a surprise. Death, tragic death, even un-mourned death of the many thousands, is no longer surprising. She knew she was very likely going to be killed, just as we all did. The fundamentalists hated her not just because she was a woman, but largely also because she was seen as too Western. Thus, to return to Pakistan required courage. Despite her flaws, this courage, this willingness to fight, is worthy of admiration.

Will her death be in vain? Sometimes people die for a cause. Perhaps in Benazir's case her death will give rise to a cause – the cause for full democracy. For too many years have the people been denied their right to full participation in the running of their country. For roughly half the life of independent Pakistan the military has intervened with the belief that it alone knows what is best for the people. But as time has shown, in Pakistan and elsewhere, the military does not know what is best for the people. Even the people sometimes do not know what is best for the people. All you can do is let people try. Better that they make a participatory mess than be denied the right to participate.

But there is yet another more immediate issue. What is the way forward to this end-point, this point where democracy flourishes without props and scaffolding? This is not clear, but Benazir gave indications to the way forward. There were many who spoke with contempt about Benazir cozying up to General Musharraf prior to her return in October. News articles were written about her willingness to compromise so quickly. And certainly, after her return, and after the failed assassination attempt in October, the possibility of a collaboration evaporated. But it makes me think. What was so wrong with it? After all she was being pragmatic. If she had to lean on Musharraf for support in forming a government, then so what? A half-democracy is better than none. It certainly opens the way forward. And who knows what the future holds? Perhaps this is one aspect of Benazir that will sorely be missed. She had the willingness to form an unpopular alliance, if it guaranteed a stable civilian government and a stable premiership.

I do not think it worthy of contempt. I think it was a sign of great flexibility keeping in mind an eventual goal. As they say, politics is the art of the possible. Such art is messy and ugly, and smacks of compromise, but as we all know, democracy in the subcontinent is all about alliances. And some of them are truly quirky – just look across the Eastern border. So, why not military support? Readers will no doubt say that she had a more cynical view of things, and was willing to do anything to grab power. Perhaps! So what? Is there a politician who does not want to climb to the top of the greasy pole? There is a strong likelihood of the PPP coming to power anyway. So what if she had to enlist Musharraf's help to cement the process? This is a General who swore she would never be allowed to return. He too realized that the way forward was to strike an alliance. How can Pakistan suffer when an outright military rule is replaced by some semblance of democratic rule, albeit backed by the military? Is it not likely to be the case anyway, for the foreseeable future? Benazir was pragmatic and did not let her ideals get in the way of her march to power. This was not a bad thing. In the long-term what Pakistan needs are coalitions that unite disparate groups, including leftists, conservatives, religious factions, and even former generals. It needs to have a government run a full-term successfully by forming an alliance. A start with the military would not have been a bad thing, particularly given that Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani are in favor of reinstating democracy.

A political figure, and arguably one of the most important of her generation, has died a tragic death. She possessed courage and pragmatism. If nothing else, she should be remembered for these qualities. I do not think that these have died with her because there are politicians and people of stature who possess these too. But it is true that these twin qualities are urgently needed, in ample measure, in the coming months.

So, whither Pakistan? I think it will be messy for a long time, but it will get better. Pakistan has a vibrant and argumentative civil society that is often fractious, but is very possessive of its freedom. The best possible thing has happened: Musharraf gave up power. People may find it hard to understand how positive this move is. But the worst has also happened: Pakistan has lost a charismatic and popular leader. Perhaps the most important thing is to give people the confidence that the democratic process is in place. People need to be assured. Among the things that could possibly assure people are to keep to the election date (January 8, 2008) and not postpone it, and perhaps even allow Nawaz Sharif to participate. Other factors that would help are to release the former supreme court judges, especially Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the former Chief Justice, and key activists like Mr Aitzaz Hasan the head of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Also allow the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (which in my opinion embodies the best and finest in Pakistan) to speak and move freely, and strengthen the election commission by endowing it with non-political people of unimpeachable integrity. Finally, Musharraf should act to keep the process moving. And need we say? The military should remain in the barracks. The answer to fundamentalism is not force. It is to give people the confidence that they rule their lives and that they have equal access to opportunities. None of Pakistan's problems will be solved in a year or even two. But despite assassinations and sectarian violence and fundamentalism, there is everything to be gained by taking the first steps in the direction of democracy, and to stay with the process.