PAKISTAN is about to witness once again the ‘dawn of democracy’ just as it had in the past at intervals of ten years or so only to make way for longer dictatorships. Sixty years of independence thus stand divided, almost equally, between the two.Which of the two periods — elective or authoritarian — was more caring or less troublesome? On this point, in the historical perspective, people’s opinion remains divided just as was the loyalty of their leaders at the relevant time.
It is however there for all to see and muse that some of the latter-day vocal and virulent democrats made their debuts in dictatorships or were groomed by military rulers. Among them is Nawaz Sharif, today’s most unforgiving opponent of the army’s presence in politics, and also Raja Zafarul Haq, the Islamic ideologue of his party who was also the ‘opening batsman’ in Gen Ziaul Haq’s excruciatingly long innings. Now both of them would not be content with anything less than the impeachment of President Musharraf who by general reckoning is much less wily or wicked — at least he did not hang Nawaz as Zia did Bhutto.
This is not to detract from the contribution these two gentlemen from the PML-N have now made to public awakening. The point is that while the military rulers were hailed on advent by some and reviled by others, they all left a deep imprint on national politics and some of their protégés are now national leaders.
But when it comes to choosing a form of government it is hard to disagree with Winston Churchill that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. And Pakistan has tried quite a few. The military author of each brand harangued the people that his was the real and best democracy for them.
The story of changing regimes and constitutions is too familiar to be recounted here but let it be said that every government whether it was headed by a military commander or an elected politician was, in essence, autocratic. Only the degree and values varied. And every military commander was not necessarily more autocratic than the civilian he dislodged. Surely, Musharraf even in his heyday was not as imperious as was Nawaz Sharif.
Whether it was a chief martial law administrator or a prime minister, in exercising his authority or in dispensing patronage he relied more on his friends, cronies, selected bureaucrats or commanders — in that order — and less on the institutions of the state.
Again, whether it was important legislation or the routine appointment of an official, the intention mostly was to demonstrate personal authority or favour someone rather than to benefit the people within the safeguards the system provided.
It was such an urge that impelled Nawaz Sharif to appoint a columnist with no knowledge of diplomacy or language as ambassador to a Scandinavian country and also persuaded Musharraf to appoint an oil company official working in the UAE as Pakistan’s ambassador in that very country.
Such instances can be recounted ad infinitum but imagine Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, by Musharraf’s indulgence, holding the office once held by Liaquat Ali Khan and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy — and Pervaiz Elahi standing next in line till fate intervened.Every transition from civilian to military rule and back diminished the institutions of the state and left a trail of bitterness but never as fateful as is being experienced now. Yahya Khan’s follies broke the country yet he was allowed to wither away in his penury for, all said and done, he was an honest man and bequeathed no heir to the halved country.
After all the indignity that was heaped on him, Ayub Khan leisurely walked the streets of Islamabad assuredly drawing satisfaction from the tribute that wagon drivers paid to him by displaying his portrait on the rear of their vehicles — teri yaad aayi teray janay ke baad — in essence meaning ‘we miss you’.
Ziaul Haq imprisoned, tortured and then hanged Bhutto after what is widely believed to be a manipulated trial. Benazir became prime minister riding the crest of an unprecedented popular wave but sought no revenge nor interfered with the enormous wealth that Zia left behind in which his progeny revels. Army and caste connections have enabled his son Ejazul Haq to carve out for himself a place both in national politics and the clerical order.
Pursuing his whims and to entrench himself in power, Musharraf has destroyed centuries-old administrative structures; concentrated all power at the centre, i.e. in his person in the name of empowering the people at the grassroots; obtained an order from the Supreme Court to rule by amending the constitution as he liked; and had Nawaz Sharif sentenced and then bargained to send him into exile. The litany is agonisingly long.
Starting on a high note of making Pakistan a secular society, he ended up by transforming it into a modern theocracy only to placate the fanatics whose goodwill he needed to keep the mainstream leaders on the run. He got away with it all until the public humiliation of the chief justice aroused the anger of the lawyers and sympathy of the masses. What has become the central issue now is not the fight to reduce poverty and end terror but independence of the judiciary. At stake however is the integrity of the country.
Is the campaign being carried too far? Indeed it is. Going back in time, not a mouse stirred in the Margalla mountains when Bhutto was hanged — a “judicial murder”, as Prime Minister Gilani described it in his maiden speech to parliament. (A judge on the bench whose vote made a difference between Bhutto’s life and death later confessed that he indeed had surrendered to Ziaul Haq’s blackmail.) And there was not a whimper of protest when a courageous dissenting judge, Safdar Shah, had to flee the country to escape the regime’s wrath.
Today’s deposed judges and irked lawyers have carried the day. Now they should stop when they stand at the threshold of politics. Justice Chaudhry condoling with Asif Zardari can also be seen as beseeching for his reinstatement.
The year-long struggle for greater independence of the judiciary must not, tragically, end in less of it.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn, 30/3/2008
Loading ...
Recent Comments