|
So our worst fears have come true finally! The uniform is not coming
off. Let us admit it, there is a morbid sort of peace of mind that
this has brought in all of us, more so in the opposition - I am implying
here that the opposition is not us, the people, as much as the ruling
parties are not either. The society has almost crystallised in a division
between an oppressive state and frustrated masses. The peace of mind
is the culmination of suspicions that this might happen, just like
when the suspecting spouse of a perfidious person eventually discovers
the betrayal.
It never required the diplomatic vision of Henry Kissinger to know
that the uniform was here to stay with the office of the President,
at least until the two major political forces (or personalities shall
we say) are totally marginalized and an alternative leadership has
emerged to fill the vacuum. The lack of finesse in putting the uniform
issue to rest, once and for all, is not new to our society. It is
always best to impose compromises on people piece meal, rather than
with a hatchet. It is less painful that way.
However, two statements made to validate the decision are extremely
hurtful to our sensibilities. One by General Musharraf that 96 percent
of people want him in uniform, and the other by Mr. Aziz that there
is no need for constitutional amendment to retain the uniform after
31st December, 2004. There is no empirical or conjectural evidence
to substantiate the claim of an 'overwhelming approval rating' of
the President. Going by din of street voices, the military establishment,
as a whole, would be hard pushed to get a 50 percent approval rating
from the public today, let alone a single personality that has become
an icon of the military. Making such an unsubstantiated and sweeping
claim does not help the eroding credibility of the President.
As for Mr. Aziz's comment, one would have expected him to browse through
the relevant clauses of constitutional provisions on the matter. Article
42(7) provides for the Chief Executive of Pakistan to become the President
after receiving a mandate through referendum for a period of 5 years
on a date in accordance the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
of 12th May, 2000. Through the 17th Amendment the following proviso
has been added at the end of the new Article 42(7): "Provided
paragraph (d) of Clause (1) of Article 63 shall become operative on
and from 31st day of December, 2004. Article 63 deals with dis-qualifications
for membership of Parliament and its clause (1)(d) disqualifies anyone
who, "He holds an office of profit in the Service of Pakistan
other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder."
Under these provisions, the minimum basic requirement would be for
the Assembly and the Senate to provide the President an exemption
from this disqualifying proviso. So to say that nothing needs to be
done, and retention of the uniform is perfectly in accordance with
existing constitutional provisions is technically incorrect. Mr. Aziz
would do well to issue a rectification of his statement, if he is
to retain his impeccable image of a competent professional.
Anyhow, on a broader canvass where historians etch their visions for
posterity, these are small matters and would be forgotten in times
to come. What really matters is the prospects ahead for the country.
No one can deny that the consistency and continuity of policies would
have salutary effect on economic environment in the country. As for
advancement or obstruction of democracy, there are many other factors
that I wish to recite here.
In words of Farid Zakaria, "What is called democracy in the West
is really liberal democracy, a political system marked not only by
free elections but also the rule of law, the separation of powers
and basic human rights, including private property, free speech and
religious tolerance. In the West, this tradition of liberty and law
developed over centuries, long before democracy took hold. It was
produced by a series of forces--the separation of church and state,
the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, capitalism and
the development of an independent middle class. England and the United
States were considered free societies 200 years ago - when under 5
percent of their populations voted. More recently, Hong Kong, for
decades ruled as a crown colony by Britain, was one of the most economically
and politically free societies in the world." Democracy cannot
take strong roots where these enabling factors are absent. We seem
to assume that these factors are a product of democracy whereas they
are in fact predecessors.
Wealth is another critical ingredient for democracy's health. Adam
Przeworski and Fernando Limongi produced some credible statistical
evidence to prove a correlation between wealth and democratic stability
of nations. Their findings are that 1) Average life of a democratic
regime with per capita income below $1,500 is eight years. 2) Average
life of a democracy with per capita income between $1,500 and $3,000
is about fourteen years.3) For countries with a per capita income
of over $6,000 the death rate is 1in 500. One can surmise that wealth
confers immortality to democracies. There are exceptions, of course,
India being one and Indian democracy failed to solve economic problems
for 50 years and is now on the path to a growth that promises democratic
delivery.
In the third world, to quote Farid Zakaria again, "Over the last
decade those countries that moved farthest toward liberal democracy
followed a version of the Western pattern: first capitalism and the
rule of law, then democracy. In much of East Asia--South Korea, Taiwan,
Thailand, and Malaysia--a dominant ruling elite liberalized the economy
and the legal system. Capitalism created a middle class that then
pressured the government to open up the political system. It nurtured
an independent civil society that has helped consolidate democracy.
In Latin America, the most successful liberal democracy today is Chile,
which followed a similar path under Gen. Augusto Pinochet. These dictators
were not trying to create democracy. But in modernizing their countries
they ended up doing so anyway."
Pakistan stands at a cross roads today where some of above mentioned
countries stood a couple of decades ago. If General Musharraf's rule
can emulate the success stories of East Asian and Latin American developments,
then historians will absolve him for constitutional infractions and
people will eulogise him for his leadership tenacity. If not, the
road to 'Somaliasation' being trod upon for the past fifty six years
will get bumpier as we fade into a dusty sunset of history. In all
pragmatism, I think it is need of the hour to look beyond the uniform
issue now.
Iqbal Mustafa
1110 words
18 September 2004
|
