Democracy in Pakistan is like a cordless screwdriver, it takes two days to charge and you get about an hour of use out of it. The recent democratic elections in Pakistan are the result of nearly 20 years of political turmoil, and yet, there is no indicator that democracy won't sputter out within the year. In the country’s 60 some odd years of independence it has spent about three-fourths of them under some sort of corrupt dictatorship and half the time it was the military running the show. Indeed, it would seem that it takes decades for the people of Pakistan to get politically charged enough to demand a democratic or transparent government and only a few years to revert back to an authoritarian dictatorship. Plainly put, Pakistan's corrupt history has a bad habit of repeating itself.
Why? Simple, those in power aren’t going away because an election they allowed decided to vote their party out. Their networks, power and wealth are too dense and deep-rooted for democratic governments to reform them. This ultimately yields a lack of results and a disillusioned populace with a nostalgia for a less democratic, albeit, stable time. Recent elections in Pakistan were fair and they were able to dislodge the military’s extremist party from parliament, but this is not what constitutes a democracy. PPP supporters quick to herald in a new democratic era forget that Mursharraf is still president, the military is still economically in control and parliament is no more powerful now than it was last month. It takes more than one ingredient to bake a cake.
A small Pakistani history lesson will remind observers what happened the last time Pakistan thought they had “democracy” in 1988. Benazir Bhutto, the female prime minister, was elected and dismissed from office twice on charges of “corruption.” Her successor was jailed on charges of “treason.” Surely, this was a transparent democracy fighting corruption at every turn, right? There’s an old joke about Pakistan, the only reason they avoided being the number one corrupted government in the world in a “1996 global corruption index” was by bribing Nigeria to take its place. We end this history lesson with current President Mursharraf’s military coup in 1999. This led to yet another dictatorial constitution granting him the following powers: right to dismiss parliament and the judiciary at his pleasure, appoint military chiefs and declare a state of emergency thus granting him dictatorial “emergency powers.” To date, despite a new civilian government, this constitution remains unchanged.
Granted, revamping a constitution is a serious political feat for any government, even those with popular support. However, parliament’s clamoring for a reinstated judiciary, a new constitution and the president’s resignation – shortly followed by Mursharraf’s veto is only a foreshadowing of what’s to come. In the past, Mursharraf has manipulated elections, circumvented the constitution to allow himself to maintain the dual posts of president and army chief of staff and struck unholy alliances with hard-line Islamists in Parliament while assuring his U.S. backers that he was cracking down on them. There is little reason to believe that he is quietly relinquishing his power when both the military and the Bush administration are behind him. Even if he is unable to openly wield the influence he once did, Mursharraf still has a never ending supply of roadblocks to throw in front of the new fledgling government’s objectives.
The new coalition parliament might have the backing of the people but Mursharraf and the army have something better: the backing of the world’s super power and a no-strings-attached-fat-check in which to command the economy. Parliament has virtually no authority to dictate policy for the army and the generous $10 billion foreign aid provided by the US is given in the form of direct military funding. In other words, another piece of the power-pie parliament has no authority over.
Pakistan would do well to take a page out of Turkey’s book if it wishes to antiquate military rule. The new EU member was in a situation similar to Pakistan's not too long ago. The incumbent government was able to maintain power for two reasons. First, they made sure to protect Turkey’s domestic and international interests and thus, made sure there was no excuse for the military to get involved in government affairs. Second, and most important for Pakistan’s case, Turkey’s parliament made the public’s wellbeing their highest priority and enacted successful economic reform in the country.
Parliament’s mission to crucify Mursharraf and the military will be an uphill battle and the victory short lived. As soon as the military ceases to be a problem then the economy will be the next big issue. The PPP will be called upon to answer for their shortcomings and this will be the “excuse” the military needs to justify its rise to power again. Pakistan’s new government should focus more on the well being of the people rather than waging a costly and, altogether, pointless, campaign against the military. When the general populace begins to benefit from reform then they will cease to harbor nostalgia for military rule. At present, parliament seems to be acting out the same cycle of autocratic tradition that has plagued Pakistan since its birth. The only cure is a shift in focus from a securing of power to a promotion of public wellbeing.
Why? Simple, those in power aren’t going away because an election they allowed decided to vote their party out. Their networks, power and wealth are too dense and deep-rooted for democratic governments to reform them. This ultimately yields a lack of results and a disillusioned populace with a nostalgia for a less democratic, albeit, stable time. Recent elections in Pakistan were fair and they were able to dislodge the military’s extremist party from parliament, but this is not what constitutes a democracy. PPP supporters quick to herald in a new democratic era forget that Mursharraf is still president, the military is still economically in control and parliament is no more powerful now than it was last month. It takes more than one ingredient to bake a cake.
A small Pakistani history lesson will remind observers what happened the last time Pakistan thought they had “democracy” in 1988. Benazir Bhutto, the female prime minister, was elected and dismissed from office twice on charges of “corruption.” Her successor was jailed on charges of “treason.” Surely, this was a transparent democracy fighting corruption at every turn, right? There’s an old joke about Pakistan, the only reason they avoided being the number one corrupted government in the world in a “1996 global corruption index” was by bribing Nigeria to take its place. We end this history lesson with current President Mursharraf’s military coup in 1999. This led to yet another dictatorial constitution granting him the following powers: right to dismiss parliament and the judiciary at his pleasure, appoint military chiefs and declare a state of emergency thus granting him dictatorial “emergency powers.” To date, despite a new civilian government, this constitution remains unchanged.
Granted, revamping a constitution is a serious political feat for any government, even those with popular support. However, parliament’s clamoring for a reinstated judiciary, a new constitution and the president’s resignation – shortly followed by Mursharraf’s veto is only a foreshadowing of what’s to come. In the past, Mursharraf has manipulated elections, circumvented the constitution to allow himself to maintain the dual posts of president and army chief of staff and struck unholy alliances with hard-line Islamists in Parliament while assuring his U.S. backers that he was cracking down on them. There is little reason to believe that he is quietly relinquishing his power when both the military and the Bush administration are behind him. Even if he is unable to openly wield the influence he once did, Mursharraf still has a never ending supply of roadblocks to throw in front of the new fledgling government’s objectives.
The new coalition parliament might have the backing of the people but Mursharraf and the army have something better: the backing of the world’s super power and a no-strings-attached-fat-check in which to command the economy. Parliament has virtually no authority to dictate policy for the army and the generous $10 billion foreign aid provided by the US is given in the form of direct military funding. In other words, another piece of the power-pie parliament has no authority over.
Pakistan would do well to take a page out of Turkey’s book if it wishes to antiquate military rule. The new EU member was in a situation similar to Pakistan's not too long ago. The incumbent government was able to maintain power for two reasons. First, they made sure to protect Turkey’s domestic and international interests and thus, made sure there was no excuse for the military to get involved in government affairs. Second, and most important for Pakistan’s case, Turkey’s parliament made the public’s wellbeing their highest priority and enacted successful economic reform in the country.
Parliament’s mission to crucify Mursharraf and the military will be an uphill battle and the victory short lived. As soon as the military ceases to be a problem then the economy will be the next big issue. The PPP will be called upon to answer for their shortcomings and this will be the “excuse” the military needs to justify its rise to power again. Pakistan’s new government should focus more on the well being of the people rather than waging a costly and, altogether, pointless, campaign against the military. When the general populace begins to benefit from reform then they will cease to harbor nostalgia for military rule. At present, parliament seems to be acting out the same cycle of autocratic tradition that has plagued Pakistan since its birth. The only cure is a shift in focus from a securing of power to a promotion of public wellbeing.
No comments:
Post a Comment