Little By Little

Amir Zia

May 12, 2014

The News

We see confusion, polarisation and conflict escalating in the society, but the state appears unable to resolve these contradictions... Perhaps for the ruling elite of Pakistan, the party is not yet over

Slowly but surely the violent non-state actors are pushing Pakistan towards the brink. Little by little we are witnessing the state’s writ being eroded. Gradually Pakistani society’s descend into lawlessness is gaining momentum. And step by step Pakistan’s status as an internationally pariah state is being paved and cemented.

Our rulers may not agree with this cheerless account of today’s Pakistan. They may still think that they hold all the cards. They may still believe that they remain firmly in control. But living in self-denial and a make-believe world – no matter how grand – can’t stop Pakistan’s one-way backward march.

The reality is grim and the signs of the times ominous, underlining the weakening of the state authority. Yet, our lords and masters do not seem to see the writing on the wall.

The latest drag for the state has come in the form of the spurt in cases of the polio virus – thanks to our so-called holy warriors who declare the vaccination drive against this crippling disease a ‘western conspiracy’ to make our future generations infertile.

As a result, the goal of a polio-free Pakistan – which once appeared within reach in 1999-00 – now seems unattainable. Fourteen years down the road, as Sharif completes the first year of his third term in power, Pakistan is one of the only three countries – along with Syria and Cameroon – that threaten the world by exporting this virus to other countries.

UN efforts to eradicate polio globally by 2018 are being torpedoed mainly because of our Islamic republic’s inability to carry out effective vaccination drives in many parts of its territory – especially in the troubled tribal region. The outcome of this failure is manifested through 59 new polio cases so far this year in Pakistan out of the total 74 in all the 10 polio-affected countries. 

Out of the 59 local polio cases, 46 have been reported in the tribal belt where despite frequent appeals by both government and non-government quarters, the militants do not allow health workers to administer polio drops to children age five years and below. The Afghan Taliban militants are better in a sense as they facilitate the anti-polio campaign by holding temporary ceasefires. 

No wonder the WHO has now recommended polio vaccination a must for all Pakistanis travelling abroad. What does that mean for the country? It is not just simply a new obstacle for Pakistani travellers, but another triumph for the pro-Al-Qaeda local militants against the backdrop of the civil and military leadership’s near policy-paralysis on how to deal with the twin scourge of terrorism and extremism. It is another symbolic blow to this struggling state, which faces the greatest internal threat in its recent history.

The best our rulers have offered so far against this internal challenge remains half-hearted, incomplete reactive operations against militants and the self-defeating exercise of holding talks with them. There appears to be no roadmap for victory despite the immense sacrifices of Pakistani soldiers. There seems to be no urgency to end the prolonged conflict, which should have been the top item on the government’s agenda.

For all the different shades and colours of extremists, including the Al-Qaeda inspired militants, the triumph on the poliovirus front is not the first one against the Pakistani state. They have been expanding their influence and stifling the state called Pakistan in a gradual manner. For any country, this endless state of conflict is the worst case scenario as it results in fatigue and draining out of its resources. Our rulers seem oblivious to this age-old code of war and peace in politics.

The extremists, who have kept the initiative in this protracted conflict, have scored one symbolic psychological victory after the other as successive governments continued to debate and discuss whether to fight or not to fight.

The militants successfully banished international sports from Pakistan with the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team as our decision-makers tried to make a distinction between the ‘good and bad’ militants. The precarious state of security forced many western diplomatic missions to scale down operations and declare Pakistan a hardship posting but our successive rulers gloated over their ‘success’ of bringing in foreign aid, grants and loans – as they are doing now. 

Security concerns forced most foreign investors and businesspeople to stop visiting Pakistan, but our decision-makers claimed they had been reviving the economy. Footprints of almost every major incident of global terrorism led to Pakistan, but our politicians and decision-makers saw ‘a foreign hand’ behind many of our ills. Pakistan’s worst era of lawlessness and bloodletting at the hands of terrorists and extremists consumed thousands of lives, but our political parties kept arguing over whose war Pakistan has been fighting.

After sacrificing more than 4,000 soldiers in the northern tribal belt alone, Pakistani leaders still do not know the real enemy and remain undecided whether to fight or to talk.

While a segment of violent non-state actors and their foreign militant allies have taken on the state, creating their terrorist safe havens on Pakistani soil, many other extremists groups are waging their unholy wars against members of ‘rival’ sects or dissident voices within society.

The state and its institutions seem powerless as extremists commit one atrocity after another. It is the terrorists who are on the charge, while the ones who should be upholding the law remain on the defensive. 

Killing anyone by exploiting the sacred name of Islam is now easy. The government is surely to turn a blind eye towards the organised gangs of militants rather than provide justice to the victims and their families. It is an abject surrender by the state and its institutions.

The recent assassination of human rights activist Rashid Rehman in Multan is one more addition to the ever-growing list of victims killed because of their views. He was apparently killed for pleading the case of a man accused of blasphemy. His murder failed to create ripples in the society, barring a small vocal section of civil society members – many of whom themselves remain in the line of fire.

In the same long list of victims, we also have governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, who was killed by his own police guard because he too spoke about a controversial blasphemy case. The Pakistani state remains unable to prosecute his assassin in what is an open-and-shut case because of the fear of an organised minority. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We see confusion, polarisation and conflict escalating in the society, but the state appears unable to resolve these contradictions, which is vital for its own survival.

Perhaps for the ruling elite of Pakistan, the party is not yet over. There is still some opportunity to perpetuate rule and make money, but the state called Pakistan is being hollowed out bit by bit, little by little. 

There appears to be no political force in the ring that can turn the tide as gangs and bands of militants, terrorists and criminals hold sway. Tough times never seem to be over in the land called Pakistan.

 

Democracy on Trial

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.