[The author is a leftist with all the intellectual confusion and
dishonesty that brings. His basic error is to ignore the fact that in
Islam people are *not* sovereign but Allah is, which means Islamic
ideology, Jihad, Mullahs and Mosque.]
<http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/01/op.htm#1>
A lot at stake for Musharraf
By Kuldip Nayar
DEMOCRACY is the same all over the world. What it means is that people
rule through their representatives whom they elect freely and
periodically. Pakistan is no different.
Abraham Lincoln has defined democracy as a government of the people, by
the people and for the people. The words of the peopleı are the most
im****tant because they indicate that power resides with the people.
They are sovereign and everything flows from them.
[Comment: Of course, Pakistan is different. It is Islamic. Hence people
are *not* sovereign. Lincoln's ideas don't matter there.]
When President Pervez Musharraf tells Europe that their kind of
democracy is different and far more advanced than that in Pakistan, he
talks about a system where the military enjoys a pre-eminent position.
It is not that the Pakistanis are lesser people. It is that they have
been denied the right to rule themselves.
Europe has a long history of democracy except for the countries which
were satellites of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Successive
army chiefs in Pakistan nipped democracy in the bud. Why should
Musharraf say that Pakistan was not yet ready for full-fledged
democracy? He himself came through an army coup. The system was never
allowed to operate in Pakistan.
If one were to look back, one would find that both Congress and the
Muslim League, with their different planks, put their faith in
democracy and promised the rule of the people. It is a tragedy that
Pakistan did not make it because its founder Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali
Jinnah died early and his successor Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated.
Had they lived they would have seen to it that the foundations of
democracy were laid.
After them, the bureaucrats and the military were more interested in
wielding power than ensuring the peopleıs right to rule. Congress was
at that time full of freedom fighters who had gone through the
Independence struggle and who had come from the roots.
Still, the level of poverty and illiteracy was more or less the same in
both countries.
But India was less feudal and less dependent on the few landlords and
even fewer rich which constituted the ruling class in Pakistan. For a
long time only a handful of families had money and power. People never
got the chance.
I do not know how Musharraf came to infer that the people in Pakistan
are not yet ready for the type of democracy that Europe has or
next-door India. His observation may only deepen suspicions that polls
are not going to be free and fair. His assurance, however loudly
repeated, does not count for much since his own credibility is lacking.
It is difficult to imagine that he will quit once he knows he is not
wanted. Who would dare to tell him so? He is not going to hold a
referendum to *****s his popularity. He has admitted in the past that
the referendum held for his presidency got him few votes.
His re-election would not have been possible if the PPP had not
abstained. That was probably part of an understanding between him and
the late Benazir Bhutto. Apparently, she was led up the garden path.
Musharrafıs test of strength will come after fresh elections. If the
National Assembly were to endorse him as president by a two-thirds
vote, his stay in office would be justified. However, that may still
not be the test of his popularity because members in the new National
Assembly could come under pressure.
The impression in Pakistan that Musharraf is acceptable to India is not
correct. Its sympathy and sup****t is with the people of Pakistan. They
want them to get democracy as they themselves enjoy. They are reluctant
to raise their voice lest Musharraf should restart the propaganda that
India is trying to undo Pakistan.
The Manmohan Singh governmentıs stand is, however, different. It wants
to deal with the government in power in Islamabad as it has done in the
past. India was one of the few members at the Commonwealth meeting
favouring the removal of Pakistanıs suspension. The favourable noise
that national security advisor M.K. Narayanan has made for Musharraf is
because of terrorism.
Like President Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Narayanan too
believes that Musharraf is the best bet for the fight against radical
Islamists. Still the fact is that it was Musharraf who trained and
blessed them. They were acceptable as long as they sneaked into Kashmir
and fuelled insurgency there. Now that they have turned against the
armed forces, the terrorists need to be eliminated.
Manmohan Singh has offered Musharraf joint action to eliminate
terrorism in both countries. The Indian government has not yet spelled
out what such action would entail. But the very offer means India is
willing to give its full sup****t to Musharraf on this point, whatever
his deficiencies.
China, Pakistanıs best friend, is also worried about terrorism. It took
the initiative to discuss the subject when Manmohan Singh was in
Beijing last month. India did not reveal this for fear of being
misunderstood. It was China which mentioned it at a press conference.
Whether terrorism is specifically mentioned or not does in no way
minimise the menace Pakistan faces increasingly.
The swathe of territory occupied by the terrorists is less im****tant
than the pitched battles they are fighting against the Pakistani
forces. Benazir Bhutto was right when she said that she did not mind
working with the military because political forces can stop terrorism,
not the military.
Terrorism is an ideology of sorts that only an ideology can meet. The
ideology of modernity and liberalism can draw sup****t from the people
who can be mobilised by political parties. Unfortunately, her approach
to make up with the military for this purpose was mistaken for her
ambition to come to power.
The im****tant role of political parties makes it all the more necessary
that the forthcoming polls are free and fair. Although Musharraf has
given an undertaking to the West on this point, the impression is that
elections may be rigged. Musharraf has also much at stake. He has to
get a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly if he wants to stay on
as president.
If one were to go by the observations of the army chief General Ashfaq
Kayani, he will not interfere in the elections. Nor would he want his
officers to have contact with politicians. It looks as if he may turn a
new leaf in Pakistanıs history. The army, no doubt the only coherent
and disciplined force in the country, has cast a long shadow on the
peopleıs sovereignty. If it were to withdraw, as Kayani seems to be
doing, people would find the ethos of Pakistan returning and would be
getting back the authority to rule themselves. The world should do all
it can to help the country evolve.
===
The writer is a leading journalist based in New Delhi.
===
|
