This post is a response of sorts to Abhi’s thought-provoking comments on Musharraf’s State of Emergency, and what he sees as the possible benefits of dictatorship in certain limited conditions. Abhi’s post, as I read it, was a thought experiment, not necessarily a political program — and this is a somewhat speculative thought experiment as well (these ideas are not set in stone). There is some value in the general idea that democracy before stability is not always the best thing for a country, and in the particular claim that Pakistan’s democratic institutions have been severely weakened by years and years of misrule (going back to the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif days; Musharraf did not start this with his 1999 coup).
That said, I’m not ready to give up faith in liberal democracy, and I think it could still happen in Pakistan. As for how to get there, there are probably only two or three paths at this point, none of them easy. One is a popular uprising that would probably turn pretty ugly in the short run — think of the bloody riots in Karachi this past summer, only magnified. If successful (big “if”), mass protests/riots could be followed by a military coup and a provisional dictatorship, and then by open elections — again, if the coup was carried out by the right person. (There could also be more violence during the elections, and possibly more trouble/instability even after they occur.) The other is something accidental, which could be anything. Perhaps a new leadership emerges (Imran Khan, by the way, has managed to escape from house arrest — I wish him luck), or perhaps something unforeseen happens to/with Musharraf that leaves a power vacuum? Perhaps both? Who knows. Either way, in my view there is no question that if democracy is to have a chance in Pakistan, Musharraf has to go.
Another possibility to speculate on is what might happen if either the Bush administration or (more likely) its successor were to withold military and economic aid to pressure Musharraf to cancel this State of Emergency. Here I’m really not sure what the ramifications would be for Musharraf. It might be symbolically bad on the international stage, but would it really hurt him all that much domestically? Here I’m really not sure.
I should also say that I disagree with the calculus, which is widely prevalent amongst American TV pundits right now (and also implied in Abhi’s post), that Musharraf needs to stay because America needs him for its “War on Terror.” There may or may not be any truth in this (as has been pointed out, Musharraf’s net contribution to fighting terrorism is highly debatable), but what I keep thinking is that at this moment it’s not America’s interests that I’m concerned about, it’s the Pakistani people, who deserve good, transparent governance. It’s the Pakistani people who deserve a free press (not blackouts of private news channels), the right to peacefully dissent, and the right to organize politically — who deserve, in short, substantive democracy.Substantive democracy, as I understand it, is not just democratic elections; it requires a whole range of institutions that provide meaningful checks and balances on power. Executive authority (a president or a dictator) needs to be subject to legislative and judicial challenges. The prospect of a newly revitalized Pakistan Supreme Court was a really hopeful sign this past spring and summer, and I’m deeply disappointed that Musharraf decided he wouldn’t let Iftikar Chaudhry and co. determine his fate. (At least he hasn’t succeeded in stopping Chaudhry from talking to the Press, though that will probably happen soon.)
In the U.S. case, the best current example of checks and balances on executive authority are the Congressional investigations of numerous questionable actions by the Bush Administration. Another is the tradition of the “Special Prosecutor,” which was instrumental in bringing down Nixon (though it was abused, in my view, with Bill Clinton). What Nawaz Sharif’s corrupt regime needed was the equivalent of a special prosecutor; what it got instead was a takeover by General Musharraf.
India, the “world’s largest democracy” isn’t perfect on this score either, by the way. I was reminded of this most recently watching the Tehelka videos relating to Gujarat. As I said in my earlier (quickie) post, I don’t think the videos give enough evidence by themselves to take down Modi, but they quite definitely show that the entire system of state government in Gujarat — ministers, police, judges, lawyers — extensively colluded in allowing those bloody “three days of whatever you want” (as Modi allegedly said) to happen. The checks and balances were not there, and it took intervention from the Center to bring the violence to a halt. (Incidentally, I thought Raghu Karnad’s comments on Gujarat and the Tehelka exposé were pretty compelling: here and here.)
My point is this: elections are necessary for democracy to occur, but they aren’t sufficient for democracy to sustain itself. What Musharraf should have done, if he really cared about transitioning to democracy, was, first of all, let the Supreme Court rule on whether the recent Presidential election was valid. Secondly, he needed to give up his uniform (though admittedly, that should probably have happened first). Thirdly, Parliamentary elections.
But other things are necessary too: the opposition political parties have been weakened by years of dictatorship and a history of corrupt leadership. It will take time for new leaders to emerge, and for the party organizations to become strong and self-sustaining.
Sepoy at Chapati Mystery has a poem in Urdu by Habib Jalib that summarizes my feelings on a more emotional level:
Jackbooted State
If the Watchman had not helped the Dacoit
Today our feet wouldn’t be in chains, our victory not defeat
Wrap your turbans around your neck, crawl on your bellies
Once on top, it is hard to bring down, the jackbooted state. (link)
I will not comment on the Kashmir part to derail this further but I politely disagree with your assertions. As far as Infosys, Wipro opening branches, Pakistan corporate laws don’t allow Indian companies to invest in Pakistan. Tatas last year wanted to start something but was not allowed, daewoo on the other that is owned by tatas now could invest in a plant in India. I don’t think Pakistan’s intentions in the past have been as noble as they are made out to be and expecting India to continually extend the olive branch is shortsighted.
Perhaps Infosys, or better yet, Wipro, could open a branch in Karachi – if it hasn’t yet. This is what I mean by Pakistan and India being on the same side.
Chachaji,
I know you are a peacenik. Nothing wrong.
However,
About 1-2 years ago, ONGC bidded for a gas field across the Rajasthan border in Pakistan. Nothing happened.
About 1-2 years ago, when Pakistan foreign minister visited India, business leaders like Tata, and all asked him in a public forum they could buy companies in Pakistan. He publicly demurred.
Let me top this using an example of eastern neighbor:
A few years ago, Tata put forth a plan for Bangladesh that had amounts of investment ($3bn dollars) that no foreign investment has been able to match it (it exceeded the total fdi bangladesh has had since 1972). The political parties in Bangladesh mangled it, abused it, spinned it out of control, and now the deal is dead.
brown and Kush – thanks for the feedback, and I wasn’t aware of these specific deals, but I know Pakistan and Bangladesh do not trust India. But all that means is there is a trust deficit – the same kind of trust deficit that prevents India from accepting the nuclear deal with the US. Perhaps after India accepts that, and Indian leftists stop their knee-jerk opposition to market liberalization (and there are some signs that it is happening) – then things might change in Bangladesh and Pakistan as well. I had always seen the Indo-US deal in subcontinental peace terms – but the things you point out strengthen the case for seeing it in those terms even more. Pakistan and Bangladesh do have US companies investing there right now – right?
amardeep
good post.
just a quick update on imran khan.
pakistan is screwed right now.
musharraf is wanted by the rich to keep their lavish lifestyles in check the poor want bhutto because of her socialist ideals, but the rich are afraid of mr. 10% (her husband, zardari) comin back and knockin on their doors.
only logical choice is imran khan. the man understands and promotes transparency, and constitutional governments…
regardless, the country doesn’t need any elections–they just need a stable ass democracy.
i mean, shit, most pakistanis can’t even spell the word vote. there are more pressing problems than having elections.
zazzy
whoops
i can’t embed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6e5G8yJSes
Chachaji,
I also read Shaukat Aziz’s interview on CNN about the trust deficit issue, the issue is that Pakistan has laws in place that prohibit Indian investment which I am sure are because of their concerns for National integrity. BTW moody’s has just cut Pakistan’s credit rating which doesn’t encourage investors one bit, to repeat my point, the country has had 32 years of military rule, even though the economy has grown almost 8% this year, the political unrest make everyone uneasy and it has nothing to do with India. I believe in 2004 as per the state department website there were about 600 foreign companies in Pakistan.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not getting any pleasure from what is happening there, I strongly believe that a stabler Pakistan is in India’s best interest but I feel that the effort has to be made from both sides.
brown, I’m stunned to find myself using the same phraseology as Shaukat Aziz – maybe it’s only stating the obvious. But he’s been saying that it has been reducing, and he says Kashmir has to be addressed simultaneously with movement on other things; and has indicated that SAFTA presents some possibilities.
I find this encouraging, and frankly, the linking of SAFTA with Kashmir simply means India has to come up with an offer on Kashmir (linked to SAFTA) that simply cannot be refused. Seeing Kashmir in economic (not in territorial or ideological terms) actually makes it easier to contemplate a non-zero sum solution. What difference would it make whose flag flew in Srinagar if any South Asian could settle in Kashmir, any South Asian company could invest, and all could travel freely and without hindrance? It just means that the burden for maintaining the infrastructure (the cost, if you will) is transferred to a different government! In a globalizing world, nobody has absolute sovereignty, and hanging on to territory for ideological reasons makes no sense at all.
For the longer term, a South Asian Monetary Union has also been suggested, an Indo-US Free Trade Agreement is on the anvil, plus the hopefully-soon-to-be-approved Indo-US nuclear deal (Pakistan will also – eventually – get its own deal).
All this is movement in the right direction.
what could be more important than elections. I just dont understand the logic of folks who say that elections are to be held when everything is resolved. Elections are the building blocks of an enduring society. Does anyone doubt that India has stayed together due to regular elections? Yes, there is the Hindutva crazy crowd and rabble rousing mullahs but having no elections would be much worse than having any.
India is far more diverse than Pak and if democracy works in India then it will work in Pakistan.
I think “SAFTA” is a very bad idea for India. It seems to me that SAFTA will leave India even more vulnerable to the pathologies in Pakistan.
Pakistanis have to get used to the idea that India exists. I listen to Urdu radio sometimes and commentators make remarks such as “India was cleaved out of Pakistan” or Pakistan got cheated in partition and is entitled to parts of Kutch, Punjab, etc. I worry any concessions on Kashmir will simply lay the groundwork for a new set of demands and grievances by Pakistan.
Yeah, the issue is trust and I don’t have any of it. I don’t trust future governments of Pakistan will honor this Pakistani government’s agreements (with India). I don’t trust Pakistani’s dictators to refrain from creating conflict with India to bolster domestic support and distract the public from domestic problems. I don’t trust that a nation that has defined itself as anti-Indian for the last 60 years will change.
I’d rather see preliminary steps towards normalization and an agreement to respect the LOC in Kashmir for the time being.
Food, water, sanitation, security, electricity, employment. Ask the Iraqis.
Melbourne Desi wrote:
what could be more important than elections.
The rule of law. The thing Musharraf is trying to destroy by attacking judges and lawyers.
If he wins, Musharraf will probably hold parliamentary elections in a few months to a year. But he will never allow an independent court system again.
Which is why he has to go.
Yep, Sharia is right there waiting in the wings in many parts of Pakistan. Good point.
Elections are needed to have rule of law or else one has a dictatorship. The only acceptable Laws are the ones created / ratified by the elected representatives of the people. If that Law means Sharia – then so be it. People get the government they vote. Initially they may vote Sharia. In three elecion cycles, Sharia will be gone to be replaced by moderates. If democracy can work in India it will work in any part of the world. Either one believes in democracy or one does not. It is not a halfway house.
there is a tamil saying – better to die free hungry than to be a serf with a full stomach.
Yep, Sharia is right there waiting in the wings in many parts of Pakistan. Good point.
Besides thin-skinned attitude and smart-ass comments, to paraphrase a brilliant comment on another SM post, what else ya got? Don’t take the easy way out.
To get substantive — the Pakistani legal system already has elements of Islamic law, some better, most worse. The 1973 constitution requires laws to be compatible with Islam, and the Federal Sharia Court has authority over the matter.
None of this is at issue in the current conflct between Musharraf and the courts. And the likely alternatives to Musharraf — bhutto, Sharif, General Kiani, even Imran Khan, are not looking to change the legal system.
So, in an effort to encourage more substantive debate (a commentor asking the blogger to be more subtantive — a world turned upside down!), how do you see the people Musharraf is attacking s paving thr way for increased Islamization of the Pakistani legal system?
abhi you are getting good at mixing up a number of issues:
none of this is an issue in pakistan and has no relevance to this discussion.
As Ikram pointed out rightly, this isn’t about Musharraf trying to reform the pakistani legal system etc. Apart from being the henchman for the U.S interests, Musharraf’s interest does not align with the interests of pakistani people. – 8 years in power all he did was systematically eliminating threats to his position. With all its flaws, Pakistan did have democratic governments (however corrupt they were, let’s not have illusions about corruption in india either) and even a woman prime-minister, so let’s be a little bit more understanding of the pakistani people. What upsets me most is that once the democratic institutions are demolished, it is not an easy task to re-instate them.
Whoa whoa whoa… hold on a second there patnah
bro, i know you’re a good guy and you’re certainly smart, but i think you’re a tad off there. I’m not sure what Pakistan you’ve seen, but almost every time I go back I see the wrong developments benefiting the wrong people.
You’re telling me that this past Ramadan nearly every person in Pakistan had enough food to put on the table? The cost of flour, milk, rice and beef has risen substantially in Pakistan and subsequently, many people in the country were left suffering or having very little to put on the table for their family. click to see table of items here. Seems like most folks at the central bank of pakistan could care less for the inflationary movements of simple goods. you want to talk about why there’s so much support for Bhutto and her socialist ideals from the poor? there’s your answer.
next issue…
I’m from an area known as Punjab (sialkot to be exact), and as lush and as beautiful the countryside is, we’ve got some serious issues powering it. As you may know, the wonderful fertile region shared between india + pakistan has about 5 strong rivers that run through it. However in Pakistan, there has been a massive delay in deriving power from these various rivers + tributaries.
WAPDA, Pakistan’s water and power development authority has a history of commissioning projects only to delay their actual development at the end. Here’s an example of one:
While you may cite the effects of the earthquake as being a primary factor in the delay, it doesn’t make any sense to me that other areas that are quite far from the earthquake region are similarly being held up.
With Pakistan receiving over 10 billion dollars in “aid” since 2001, it makes you wonder why simple improvements such as water/hydroelectricity plants are not at the top of the list, creating new jobs and providing new life for economy.
Here’s a map of their projected projects and current status, if you’re curious: Map of Hydro Electric Power in Pakiland
I mean…. come on homey, you’re telling me McDonalds/KFC/Pizza Hut/Pizzeria Uno + Dunkin Donuts are picking up the slack in the Employment + Food departments? We don’t need fellow pakistanis any obese than they already are, and that’s certainly not the stimulating type of work that’ll lead future generations.
you want to talk brain drain? Sure, iraq is screwed, but pakistan? just as screwed, if not worse.
everything homeboy abhi dropped was completely relevant, and could be construed as the foundation to the current jacked up situation in pakistan. all of those are underlying factors being swept aside by busharraf (yup, i just made this word up, thanks!) to satisfy their pursuit of guns + glory in the ranges of the NWFP + Baloch.
Don’t believe me? peep my homeboy Suroosh’s funny ass video on Pak’s market o’ guns: VBS.TV – Watch this video! You’ll see some crazy shit you ain’t neva seen befo!
Yea. Pakistan is pretty much screwed. That’s about it.
aizazi
Also, I mostly travel to pakistan during the winter times. Reason being that the weather is much cooler therefore more pleasant, and there generally seems to be a surplus of energy, so sitting at home I can chill out and watch tv/movies all night without having to worry about the damn load-shedding.
Living in lahore during the summer or anywhere else for that matter must suck. The power grids are juiced b/c everyone’s on the A/C, so they routinely shut down the power at different times of the day to allow their powerplants to calm down, grab a breather and prevent catastrophic explosions. 100 degree weather in Punjab is not exactly my idea of fun… although lately I’ve been willing to risk it because damn, those punjabi babes… they’re somethin else yo
back to my pimping duties.
While I’m not opposed to the expression of sentiments that support the current militant rule in Pakistan, and in fact I also think it’s imperative to question the populace that’s being governed on their ideals, it’s far more important to consider how and why the current situation has evolved, and what the people can do about it. The “realpolitik” attitude undermines the gravity of the situation at hand as food, water, and shelter are diminishing in regions such as the Northwest Frontier Province, where governance is also suspended by a vivid Taliban-like structure. Rather than continue with my uneducated sentiments, I’d like to offer Rubin’s take on them:
http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/11/memo-to-media-supporting-musharraf-is.html
Having just returned from the scene of the crime, his analysis is insightful and sad. I’m afraid that the weather, for now, is not looking too good.
Oh, you mean substantive as in how you called me a “Gora” on the other thread for disagreeing with you. Besides a huffy-puffy chest and insults telling me (and now Vinod) that we don’t “understand” you got nothing Ikram. You are no different than the far right Republicans except you are on the far left. If someone disagrees with you then they shouldn’t write (I mean, we wouldn’t want to pass that “Radcliffe line” would we?). What a pompous…
If you started a blog I’d love to see your substantive take on it and I could be an anonymous commenter there.
Youch. Telling someone they don’t understand the situation is no an insult, Abhi, it’s opinion about the strength of your analysis. Saying you have an ugly hair cut is an insult (and by the way, you have great hair).
As for Gora, I certainly didn’t intend to call you a “race-traitor”, or something stupid like that. I’m just pointing you do not bring the same level of insider knowledge to this issue that you do to other Desi issues, which makes the post (not the delightfully handsome brown man) not very Sepia. But I can see that you’re upset, so I will try to be more polite in my disagreements and sensitive to your feelings. Sorry.
Anyway, back to substance — Chaudry Shujaat says the emergency won’t last more than 3 weeks. And no political party has led mass protests yet. They either support Musharraf (PML(Q), MQM and JUI) or are leaderless (PML(N) and Imran Khan’s party). Only the PPP is on the streets, and Bhutto benefits, just like Musharraf, from a weak judiciary. This “coup against the courts might” work.
Also, the Barnett Rubin post linked above is really good. For Americans, supporting an illiberal dictator who is unwilling to fight terrorism is not realism.
Please son. Calling me sensitive? I’ve been writing this blog for four years now and had another one before it. I’ve dealt with much worse (and more intelligent) than you. In the final analysis you are nothing but an anonymous commenter named “Ikram” using thinly-veiled personal attacks to assuage your anger about this issue. Peace out, and feel free to have the “last word,” it will empower you.
42 ptr_vivek
–> Because it didnt fit into what the post was trying to say. The author had mentioned checks and balances didnt work in the case of gujarat right after mentioning centre intervened in gujarat. If the author is trying to make a point, he can at least make sure it backs up his original assertions. Given commenters are assiduously encouraged not to distract from the main post, why should the author be treated any differently ?
–> The author carries ‘the south asian burden’ whenever he posts ? I didnt knew authors on this board carried that much conceit to take it upon themselves to balance the ‘south asian’ perspective irrespective of the ground realities. Good to learn about it though. Indian nationalists = Hindu nationalists ??? Given that the discussion is about whether modi fits into discussion about democracy. Was it Kalpana Sharma who said a while back(paraphrasing), ‘The opposition to hindu right mirrors the rigidity of the hindu right itself’ ?
Abhi wrote: … feel free to have the “last word,” it will empower you
Thank you. My last words on this tiff: I’m sorry. You’re a decent guy and I don’t like to make you so upset. Again, I’ll be more sensitive next time.
Anyway — Musharaff told the PML(Q) legislators that he will decide the “future” of the assembly, meaning the election date, on November 14. If he holds a snap election, it would benefit Benazir, who would stop protesting. As Chachaji said elsewhere, lawyers and judges are not enough. Maybe Musharraf can ride this out.
“Either way, in my view there is no question that if democracy is to have a chance in Pakistan, Musharraf has to go.” Yes, I totally agree but moving to democracy right this minute would not be benefical to Pakistan. Let me rephrase that, would not be benefical to people like me who want to see a liberal democracy in Pakistan. Its funny to me that some people (mostly idealist liberals) equate having ‘fair elections’ in Pakistan to planting the seed to a open/democratic society. This (sadly) is very far removed from reality. The reality is that there would no real democracy instead it will a democracy where braderi, nepotism, and self-indulgence are prime. Pakistani society is NOWHERE close to being able to hand democracy. “Elections” in Pakistan are more about tribes, clans, and families than they are about policies. Which leads to the poor and uneducated being treated even worse. And that is where militant Islam thrives. So my rather inarticulate and feeble mind thinks that ‘democracy’ right now would produce the complete opposite of what I believe idealist liberals actually want to see in Pakistan.