|
The
old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" seems
to be hanging perpetually over Pakistan like a ghost's shadow. Looking
at the country's historical timeline not a year goes past without
some extraordinary development or twist of events. The frequency of
'reversal of fortunes' has increased over the past years. Last year
was a record clincher, ending in the grand finale of the constitutional
accommodation between the MMA and the government.
General Musharraf had three new leases of life: Two from failed assassination
attempts and one from the turn of political events - resolution of
the LFO crisis for the moment and vote of confidence by 56 percent
of the Electoral College. A cat has nine lives; I suppose a lion that
he is must share the same attribute of the species. Let's hope so
because the fate of the country hangs by his solitary skin. A democracy
is supposed to ensure that nations do not pin their existence on individuals!
In spite of smoothening the rough edges of our new constitutional
settlement this goal still eludes us. So where do we stand after the
dust of the past two weeks settles down?
In an article, Barry Bearak of New York Times wrote on 7th December,
2003, "Pakistan is a great hub of duplicity, and the maulana
was just one of the many chameleon characters who seemed able to operate
at both its centre and fringe, something like the nation itself, which
is one of America's essential allies in the war against terrorism
and also one of terrorism's essential incubators in its war against
the West. Each time I visit the country, I hope for some blossom of
understanding but return with the wilt of confusion. This is a nation
of confounding murkiness, where every kind of deception, collusion
and outright sham are recurring motifs in the political theatre. Rumors
and conspiracy theories are as commonly exchanged as rupee notes,
the information -- some of it even true -- then twisted, inflated
and endlessly rearranged. Much of the trickery is institutionalised.
The I.S.I. -- the shorthand name for the military intelligence agencies
-- is widely presumed to be an expert puppet master, the great Oz
of a manipulated society." (He was referring to the deceased
Maulana Azam Tariq).
We could, and many would I am sure, pass it off as purely malicious
propaganda of the western media against our land of the pure. Never
the less, it is a serious indictment of our state by the free press
of western media which holds considerable sway on global perceptions.
At least, it indicates a failure of projection on our part. If we
were to understand that this does not reflect the official sentiments
of US or Europe who embrace us as their partners in war on terrorism,
it would merely be a cosseting illusion with little reality. Diplomacy
has diction of its own, and meanings cannot be sought in words alone;
actions speak louder than words. Pakistan is kept on a short leash
when it comes to economic cooperation and assistance. We are paid
'on cash basis' for specific services rendered. Aid and assistance
is circumscribed with heavy agendas focused to specific areas of irritation.
The whole tenor of assistance is patronising, like a parent taking
a kid out for shopping. There is little evidence of open, trusting
handshake on economic and trade issues.
I am not speaking of debt-write offs - that would be patronising again.
I speak of giving Pakistan an open access to western markets for economic
growth. Textiles constitute 70 percent of exports out of which the
bulk goes to EU, US and Canada. Only if the quotas and tariffs were
to be eased off this could double within a year and quadruple within
three years. With a trade surplus of three to four billion dollars
per year, Pakistan would be in a position to start servicing it debt.
Let's not forget that it is not the quantum of debt but our inability
to service it that suffocates. US debt is over three trillion dollars
and it is healthy since the economy can service it. Similarly withdrawal
of agriculture subsidies in EU and US could open up phenomenal markets
for countries like Pakistan triggering a spiral of growth to alleviate
the poverty that the world laments with crocodile tears. When so inclined,
US can provide windows of trade opportunity to its 'true' allies -
Vietnam and Mexico are riding an exponential curve of trade growth
with the US. Mexico's textile exports are touching 10 billion dollars
in a short period. Let's not fool ourselves with diplomatic rhetoric;
we have been a subcontractor of services, never an ally. Barry Bearak's
article in New York Times is a true indicator of western perceptions
about us.
Returning to domestic situation that breeds international perception,
let us analyse the fundamentals - the means and the ends. In trying
to join the global comity of democratic nations, both are important,
the means and the ends. Beginning with a claim to be an apolitical
and independent arbitrator of political chaos in the country, General
Musharraf has succeeded in staking a claim for the top political office
in the country with powers far enhanced from the given constitutional
provisions that he inherited. Whether it is in the larger interest
of the country is beside the point: the means by which he has consolidated
his position with a narrow margin casts deep shadows over the means
by which he has arrived to become the self-appointed saviour of the
country in troubled times. Over 40 percent of the representatives
are bitterly opposed to the means he has adopted. This is too large
a number for such a controversial position. Mere mechanics do not
absolve question of legitimacy.
As for the ends is concerned, three constitutional conundrums have
plagued politics since independence. First, how to incorporate theological
ideals with democratic polity - whether to take broad principles as
moral guidelines or whether to enshrine dictates of Shar'ia in letter
and spirit? And Shar'ia of which sect? The second issue has been the
balance of power between the federal government and the federating
units. Early contentions with East Pakistan terminated in dismemberment
and subsequently provincial autonomy has been a chronic and malignant
issue all along through various regimes and governments. The third
is the polemic over the balance of power between the president and
the prime minister (especially under the 1973 constitution). All three
issues are as alive and contentious today as they have been in the
past.
A democracy is desired for four basic objectives, not in any order
of priority - Stability of governments, accountability of rulers,
smooth succession of power and an equitable order in the country for
economic growth on a level playing field. Are we any closer to these
four blessings that democracy is expected to bestow? I doubt if there
is a consensus on the four objectives I have listed from global experience.
The MMA for certain will not agree and add a theological objective
that General Musharraf has not been endorsing in his speeches. Adversity
can make strange bedfellows. If a reader genuinely believes that we
are on the way to achieving democratic objectives, he or she is reading
the wrong column, I am afraid. They should be applauding political
speeches.
Machiavellian thinking endorses using the wrong means for the right
ends, and sometimes there are grounds to support it but what about
wrong means for wrong ends? And finally, the foreboding external factors
are so nonchalantly brushed aside when we talk of internal politics,
as if there is a status quo in the world which would permit us infinitely
to play 'democracy games' in peace and keep ignoring the fallout of
our internal strife. How long can we continue to live in interesting
times?
Iqbal Mustafa
03 January 2004
1300 words
|
