By Amir Zia
April 21, 2014
The News
Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits...and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise.
What’s the best way to protect and strengthen Pakistan’s fragile democratic system? This perhaps remains the mother of all questions for many of the movers and shakers of Pakistani politics who have stakes in the current order.
This question becomes all the more pertinent now as civil-military ties have again slid into the choppy waters – thanks to the recent politics of brinkmanship by some stalwarts of the ruling party. Although these strained relations have not yet crossed the red line where the entire system can be seen under threat, the belligerent posturing by some of the key players exposes the vulnerability and inherent weaknesses of our democratic institutions, which remain overwhelmingly dominated by feudals, tribal chiefs and leading businesspeople-cum-land owners.
Nevertheless, despite the undemocratic mindset of Pakistan’s elected ruling elite, these tensions could have been avoided in the first place if sane and mature minds ran the show in our corridors of power – those politicians who could set their priorities in the right order by differentiating between the important and the unimportant at this crucial juncture of history. But alas, this is too much to expect from the majority of our parliamentarians.
What we are witnessing instead are crude symbolic statements and thoughtless actions by many of the elected representatives and their cronies, which seem to focus more on the secondary rather than the primary issues. And that too at the cost of triggering unneeded controversies, causing friction within institutions and increasing polarisation in an already polarised and divided society. This should not come as a surprise because our parliament has bags full of politicians to offer but hardly any leader or statesman.
Let’s ask our self-proclaimed champions of democracy whether they are strengthening the system and ensuring its continuity by their brash, irresponsible statements. Does a huddle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and a very tainted former president, Asif Ali Zardari, guarantee continuation of the civilian rule and make it impregnable? Are our civilian lords and masters serving democracy by trying to appease the Al-Qaeda inspired violent extremists and accepting them as ‘legitimate stakeholders’ by holding direct talks with their representatives?
Is the administration of selective justice the only way to establish the supremacy of the constitution? Will the conviction of a former military ruler – retired general Pervez Musharraf – on the controversial treason charges for imposing emergency in November 2007 close the door on any future military coup? And lastly, is this the right time for any overt or covert effort to change the civil-military balance of power and stir up tensions which could have easily been avoided?
Going by the mere symbolic fallout of pursuing all or any of these goals, one can easily say that they are not the shortest, safest and surest path to bolster democracy. The more Pakistan’s civilian political bosses assert that they won’t allow the system to get derailed and stand as one to safeguard democracy, the more they intensify speculations and uncertainty about its future.
The civilian Sharif and Zardari first need to explain against whom they have joined hands to protect democracy. Of course ‘enemies of democracy’ will be their answer. But these politicians need to spell it out for innocent people like this scribe what they mean by these enemies rather than talking about them in vague terms. Shouldn’t they name and identify these enemies? Remember the old cliché: ‘the devil is in the detail.’
Are the elected ones pointing fingers at their civilian rivals and fear that they could lead a move to overthrow the system? But civilians, no matter how villainous they are, hardly have any such power or clout. They can only play second fiddle, as once Sharif and many of his top aides did during the inglorious days of General Ziaul Haq. On their own they were nought at that time.
Let’s guess again. Does the Sharif-Zardari duo mean that the enemies of democracy are the retired army personnel? But they should know better that oldies too can’t make this happen. Once they are out of the mighty institution, they don’t wield any make-or-break power and influence.
In this guessing game, even the Al-Qaeda linked local militants cannot be tipped as the enemies because this government is holding talks with them under the ambit of the constitution – ceasefire or no ceasefire. Any foreign power conspiring against democracy is also hard to fathom as our friends and foes all want at least democracy to flourish – even if not the country.
Then, who is the enemy of democracy?
Are Sharif and Zardari pointing fingers at the armed forces, which helped the country’s first democratic transition in 2013 and continued to support the system since the country’s return to full-fledged democracy in 2008?
Who then is this enemy that is toying with the idea of taking ‘illegal and unconstitutional steps’? What these two politicians and their associates say in whispers, behind closed-doors and off-the-record sessions, can they please spell it out openly in the larger national interest?
Let’s hope that these champions of democracy are not chasing shadows or imagining conspiracies because of some hidden guilt. But one should rule out that experienced Sharif and wily Zardari can fall to such follies. If they are putting on a united front against an unnamed force and issuing warnings in metaphors, they must have crossed a line or seen someone doing it.
But as per informed ones, it’s the elected government that backtracked on some of the commitments and upped the ante too high and too soon in its desire to dominate Pakistan’s political chessboard, which led to the mistrust and tensions in civil-military relations.
This is the same error Sharif and his team committed in their second stint in power. The desire to dominate every other institution, the confrontationist style of politics and sticking to the mantra of having ‘my way or the highway’ brought the two-thirds majority government of Sharif down. And that too not with a bang, but a small whimper.
Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits to the masses by going beyond holding the mere exercise of elections and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise to achieve bigger and grander goals.
Musharraf, the former military ruler, can rightly or wrongly be on trial for his 2007 actions. It is now up to the court to acquit or pronounce him guilty.
But the far bigger trial taking place in the court of history remains of this democratic order. Will the elected government be able to make a difference in the lives of the ordinary Pakistanis? Will it be able to give them peace, rule of law and good governance? From fighting corruption, boosting economic growth, ensuring prosperity and political stability to getting rid of the scourge of religious extremism and terrorism – the elected government’s performance will be judged on these vital issues and not secondary ones that hold no value for the present or the future of this country.
The state institutions should work in tandem and not be seen as competing against one another. The very narrative that this or that institution needs to be dominant is a flawed one. The adventurist souls among the civilian setup must abandon their dream of transforming and treating the armed forces as the Sindh or the Punjab Police.
The best bet to safeguard democracy is the civilian setup’s ability to raise the bar of its performance. This it can do by providing clean and efficient governance and tackling some pressing issues, including fighting terrorism and extremism, that make Pakistan one of the most dangerous and lawless countries of the world. The Sharif government must redo its list of priorities.
April 21, 2014
The News
Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits...and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise.
What’s the best way to protect and strengthen Pakistan’s fragile democratic system? This perhaps remains the mother of all questions for many of the movers and shakers of Pakistani politics who have stakes in the current order.
This question becomes all the more pertinent now as civil-military ties have again slid into the choppy waters – thanks to the recent politics of brinkmanship by some stalwarts of the ruling party. Although these strained relations have not yet crossed the red line where the entire system can be seen under threat, the belligerent posturing by some of the key players exposes the vulnerability and inherent weaknesses of our democratic institutions, which remain overwhelmingly dominated by feudals, tribal chiefs and leading businesspeople-cum-land owners.
Nevertheless, despite the undemocratic mindset of Pakistan’s elected ruling elite, these tensions could have been avoided in the first place if sane and mature minds ran the show in our corridors of power – those politicians who could set their priorities in the right order by differentiating between the important and the unimportant at this crucial juncture of history. But alas, this is too much to expect from the majority of our parliamentarians.
What we are witnessing instead are crude symbolic statements and thoughtless actions by many of the elected representatives and their cronies, which seem to focus more on the secondary rather than the primary issues. And that too at the cost of triggering unneeded controversies, causing friction within institutions and increasing polarisation in an already polarised and divided society. This should not come as a surprise because our parliament has bags full of politicians to offer but hardly any leader or statesman.
Let’s ask our self-proclaimed champions of democracy whether they are strengthening the system and ensuring its continuity by their brash, irresponsible statements. Does a huddle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and a very tainted former president, Asif Ali Zardari, guarantee continuation of the civilian rule and make it impregnable? Are our civilian lords and masters serving democracy by trying to appease the Al-Qaeda inspired violent extremists and accepting them as ‘legitimate stakeholders’ by holding direct talks with their representatives?
Is the administration of selective justice the only way to establish the supremacy of the constitution? Will the conviction of a former military ruler – retired general Pervez Musharraf – on the controversial treason charges for imposing emergency in November 2007 close the door on any future military coup? And lastly, is this the right time for any overt or covert effort to change the civil-military balance of power and stir up tensions which could have easily been avoided?
Going by the mere symbolic fallout of pursuing all or any of these goals, one can easily say that they are not the shortest, safest and surest path to bolster democracy. The more Pakistan’s civilian political bosses assert that they won’t allow the system to get derailed and stand as one to safeguard democracy, the more they intensify speculations and uncertainty about its future.
The civilian Sharif and Zardari first need to explain against whom they have joined hands to protect democracy. Of course ‘enemies of democracy’ will be their answer. But these politicians need to spell it out for innocent people like this scribe what they mean by these enemies rather than talking about them in vague terms. Shouldn’t they name and identify these enemies? Remember the old cliché: ‘the devil is in the detail.’
Are the elected ones pointing fingers at their civilian rivals and fear that they could lead a move to overthrow the system? But civilians, no matter how villainous they are, hardly have any such power or clout. They can only play second fiddle, as once Sharif and many of his top aides did during the inglorious days of General Ziaul Haq. On their own they were nought at that time.
Let’s guess again. Does the Sharif-Zardari duo mean that the enemies of democracy are the retired army personnel? But they should know better that oldies too can’t make this happen. Once they are out of the mighty institution, they don’t wield any make-or-break power and influence.
In this guessing game, even the Al-Qaeda linked local militants cannot be tipped as the enemies because this government is holding talks with them under the ambit of the constitution – ceasefire or no ceasefire. Any foreign power conspiring against democracy is also hard to fathom as our friends and foes all want at least democracy to flourish – even if not the country.
Then, who is the enemy of democracy?
Are Sharif and Zardari pointing fingers at the armed forces, which helped the country’s first democratic transition in 2013 and continued to support the system since the country’s return to full-fledged democracy in 2008?
Who then is this enemy that is toying with the idea of taking ‘illegal and unconstitutional steps’? What these two politicians and their associates say in whispers, behind closed-doors and off-the-record sessions, can they please spell it out openly in the larger national interest?
Let’s hope that these champions of democracy are not chasing shadows or imagining conspiracies because of some hidden guilt. But one should rule out that experienced Sharif and wily Zardari can fall to such follies. If they are putting on a united front against an unnamed force and issuing warnings in metaphors, they must have crossed a line or seen someone doing it.
But as per informed ones, it’s the elected government that backtracked on some of the commitments and upped the ante too high and too soon in its desire to dominate Pakistan’s political chessboard, which led to the mistrust and tensions in civil-military relations.
This is the same error Sharif and his team committed in their second stint in power. The desire to dominate every other institution, the confrontationist style of politics and sticking to the mantra of having ‘my way or the highway’ brought the two-thirds majority government of Sharif down. And that too not with a bang, but a small whimper.
Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits to the masses by going beyond holding the mere exercise of elections and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise to achieve bigger and grander goals.
Musharraf, the former military ruler, can rightly or wrongly be on trial for his 2007 actions. It is now up to the court to acquit or pronounce him guilty.
But the far bigger trial taking place in the court of history remains of this democratic order. Will the elected government be able to make a difference in the lives of the ordinary Pakistanis? Will it be able to give them peace, rule of law and good governance? From fighting corruption, boosting economic growth, ensuring prosperity and political stability to getting rid of the scourge of religious extremism and terrorism – the elected government’s performance will be judged on these vital issues and not secondary ones that hold no value for the present or the future of this country.
The state institutions should work in tandem and not be seen as competing against one another. The very narrative that this or that institution needs to be dominant is a flawed one. The adventurist souls among the civilian setup must abandon their dream of transforming and treating the armed forces as the Sindh or the Punjab Police.
The best bet to safeguard democracy is the civilian setup’s ability to raise the bar of its performance. This it can do by providing clean and efficient governance and tackling some pressing issues, including fighting terrorism and extremism, that make Pakistan one of the most dangerous and lawless countries of the world. The Sharif government must redo its list of priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment