<
p align=left >I often see myself as sort of the David Brooks of Sepia Mutiny – a soft contrarian vs. the general political clime here. So, I was surprised to see Abhi’s take on Pakistan. There aren’t too many issues out there where Abhi & I tend to agree rather than disagree and it appears that Pakistan is one such situation. (On the other hand, I don’t think the ACLU does enough for the NRA 
)
In our politically-correct, post-modern world, criticism of government flows easily, criticism of the “governed”, not enough
My underlying reason for taking a “looks bad, but I’ll wait and see” attitude towards Mushie rather than condeming him outright was perhaps best spelled out in a seminal Foreign Affairs article by desi-pundit Fareed Zakaria. Well before he broke onto the public consciousness with a famous Newsweek cover piece, and before he was for the Iraq war, then against its execution, then for it again, Zakaria coined the phrase “Illiberal Democracy” to describe situations where serving the “will of the people” is’nt exactly a Good Thing –
THE AMERICAN diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. “Suppose the election was declared free and fair,” he said, and those elected are “racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma.” Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life — illiberal democracy.
It’s important to note that the “liberalism” that Zakaria speaks of here is more in the traditional sense of “classical liberalism” rather than “Democrat politics” or progressivism. Still, what Zakaria vividly illustrated & teased out was the role of one of the most important “invisible hands” underlying the historical development of Democracy; in short, for most of history, the productive, peaceful, tolerant culture & society came before the democracy.
Sans those precepts, the naked pursuit of Democracy – so the argument goes – becomes a sort of Cargo Cult pursued by well intentioned, often outside reformers with potentially tragic results. In an incorrigibly tribal or sectarian context, elections can merely result in one group gaining the bludgeon of state power to loot the assets and trample the rights of another.
Before Zakaria, the Founding Fathers famously used the aphorism “Tyranny of the Majority” and the diktat “People Get the Government They Deserve” to describe exactly such a breakdown. The implication is that in our politically-correct, post-modern world, while criticism of the government flows easily from our lips, perhaps criticism of the “governed” doesn’t flow quite enough. [Lets not get into Iraq for now…]
In the spirit that most of life’s choices aren’t between “Good and Bad” but rather between “Bad and Worse”, if you are at real risk of having an “illiberal democracy”, then often your alternative isn’t “substantive democracy” but instead a “liberal tyrant”. In fact, one could argue that most democracies in history have had at least one or 2 “benevolent dictators” responsible for leading a country into a modern liberalism before the populace was quite ready.
American liberalism was imported from Britain prior to democracy.The Brits had their Victorian mores well before full democracy. Japan had its Meiji. Singapore its Yew. Turkey its Ataturk. South Korea for most of its modern, 20th century life, was a quasi-military dictatorship with Taiwan following a nearly identical path. The path is rarely straight and narrow, of course, Russia had its Peter the Great and a several modernizing czars before Leninism and Stalinism. China, in its own way, is arguably in the midst of a long liberalism process initiated tragically by Mao. Napolean in France is inseparable from the horrors of the revolution; still, military exploits aside, he was also an unabashed social liberalizer and modernizer and actually welcomed by some of the conquered downtrodden as a liberator. And so on….
Against this backdrop, one of the many things that made the American Experiment so unique was that the cultural precepts of liberalism were wholesale imported from Britain practically on day one prior to creation of the state. In America, the cultural amnesia created by the long arc of history for other nations was reinforced here by a voyage across the seas. One of those great intellectual history “what if’s?” is to try and guess what would have happened had the US had been colonized in force 100 years before the UK had been infected by the Scottish Enlightenment or what if the 13 colonies had been dominated by the Spanish rather than the Brits. (Alternately, without the organization and scientific knowledge of the Scots / Brits – could it have been?)
So, is Musharraf potentially such a “liberalizing tyrant”? In a separate piece, Zakaria argues “yes” –
There is a simple story line: Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has abused his authority; he faces massive street protests and should be nudged out in favor of a civilian government. It’s a tempting view. Musharraf is a dictator, and his regime has not been wholly committed to fighting Islamic radicals. The Taliban has reconstituted itself in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and Al Qaeda’s top leaders appear to be ensconced along its border. If there is a central front in the war on terror, it is not in Iraq but in Pakistan.
Now, the complications. Musharraf has, on the whole, been a modernizing force in Pakistan. When he took power in 1999, the country was racing toward ruin with economic stagnation, corruption, religious extremism and political chaos. It had become a rogue state, allied to the Taliban and addicted to a large-scale terror operation against neighboring India. Musharraf restored order, broke with the Islamists and put in place the most modern and secular regime in three decades. Under him the economy has boomed, with growth last year at 8 percent.
<
p>Just like the (bulk of) the Saudi government is considered more liberal than the population as a whole (the urbane latte-shops of Riyadh perhaps excluded); so too is the (bulk of) Musharaff’s regime probably more liberal than the population as a whole (similarly, with urbane quarters of Karachi and Lahore excepted). Every modern democracy at one point seemed like Lord of the Flies writ large
Does that mean that Pakistan is doomed to an autocratic state? No. Although Bush usually gets quoted here in derision, he is correct that in every society that is now a successful democracy, there was a point where it too appeared incorrigibly backward, sectarian and more like Lord of the Flies writ large than adult civil society. In Ceasar’s time, for example, the Brits were barbarians and Gregory Clark’s Farewell to Alms expends much effort trying to figure out how they later”crossed the chasm” into an industrially productive culture.
So where and how do the ‘adults’ emerge in Pakistan? I don’t know. It is worth noting, however, that you can’t become one without at least a few growing pains and heartbreaks along the way. Suicide bombing (and the entire conceptual baggage train from idealogues to bomb maker) will only stop once the Pakistani’s themselves master the internal processes to channel man’s need to make a statement into alternate, more productive economic and political pursuits. “Yeh Hum Naheen” shows Pakistani’s telling each other, in their own words what isn’t the way; part II is the message about what the alternate way is.
The process, of course is critically important to Americans and the world at large. We can (sometimes) help by opening a door, not blocking one by accident, and so on but they ultimately must walk through it. How a nation deals with the ajudication of power between political rivals intra-state (concession speeches post elections vs. suicide bombs) is perhaps the single best predictor of how it deals with differences inter-state.
KXB, there is no doubt that the military in Pakistan has to be progressively weakened, and political and civic society groups strengthened – and inclusive economic development ensured. The question is one of time frames. To illustrate, let’s just play a hypothetical scenario.
Nothing happened last weekend in Pakistan – and next Monday 11/12/2007 – the Pakistan Supreme Court invalidates Musharraf’s election from last month – how do you see things playing out? Does Justice Wajihuddin – a well meaning but inarticulate and particularly uninspiring man – become President? Can you see this going anywhere – specifics?
On the other hand, the way things are now – with Musharraf weakened, but still in charge – with leverage in terms of the aid packages being re-evaluated – by the EU, the US, the UK – he can be goaded into doing certain things. For example: Emergency is made to last just a week or two, elections go ahead on the previous schedule, everybody arrested is released, Sharif comes back in, no rigging of votes, fractious assemblies emerge, a weak coalition with a weakened army (in politics) in 2008. Civic society and judiciary reassert themselves, economic stimulus is reinstated, India is encouraged to play a positive role, etc etc. The Pakistan Army plus ISI restore the peace in NWFP/Waziristan/Swat. Eventually a normal Pakistan emerges, progress on Kashmir, SAFTA, SAMU, etc. Musharraf retires in mid-late 2008, enters the speaking circuit, draws rave crowds in India, becomes a consultant to Wipro looking to get into Karachi. Etc.
Chachaji,
You suggest that now “[Musharraf] can be goaded into doing certain things”. But all these levers were available before-hand. There is no difference in the kind of influence the US and the EU, etc., can exert now compared to a week ago. The only difference is that now they have the will, because Musharraf’s foppery has exposed him to a dangerous situation. And this is a preferable situation, because of its instability?
Al Beruni – “But what about the foreign powers themselves? Especially those that consider themselves paragons of freedom and liberty?”
If you truly believe that poppy crock, I would like to sell you a bridge I own. Nation-States, my dear Al Beruni, conduct foreign policy only out of self interest. This may come as a surprise to some, yes, even the Democrats. And, I am sure the rulers of Pakistan have always been aware of the little truism, “there are no permanent friends, only permanent self interestsâ€. After all they claim to be the descendants of Ghazni and Ghori. And purportedly tread the path blazed by that ultimate pragmatist, Prophet Muhammad.
The original, Abu Rayhan Al Beruni, whose name you borrow, would have known how tribes, nations and empires behave, and how even the so called idealists and intellectuals quietly benefit from their rulers’ exploits. How do you think the hallowed halls of academy, where even Chomsky peddles his wares, are funded? Your name sake must have learnt all this on his travels east, when he [repeatedly] accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni on his India “campaigns”. Where, while his master was busy relieving India of her material riches, Beruni was eagerly “learning” about the riches of her mind from the learned Hindoos of yore, before they were dispatched to receive judgment at the hands of the one true god.
In my opinion, the Americans have always been more pro-Pakistani than pro-Indian. It seems that the American Republicans were very receptive of everything that the Pakistanis did. Perhaps it was because of the Pakistanis ability to lobby and wine/dine American defense contractors and lawyers.
In ’71, the Americans almost waged war with the indians in the Bay of Bengal. The Soviets threatened the Americans, and therefore, the war with the USA didn’t occur.
Two years later or so, Nixon referred to Indira Gandhi as a b****. He and Henry Kissinger had very nasty things to say about Indians. As if the Indians didn’t have anything bad to say about Kissinger’s tight-fisted people 😉
Under Reagan, we sent, covertly, billions in aid to the Afghanis via Peshawar. We gave a lot of money to the Pakistanis, and this is fine. We were fighting a good war against the Soviet Invasion of ’79.
However, I remember reading magazine articles and watching the American’s view of the Kashmir situation. It seemed that, especially prior to ’01 (and probably before ’00), the Americans and Westerners were more pro-Pakistani! Could this have been a skin-color issue? After all, Pakistanis are more light in color than Indians, and they are more spirited and ‘western’ acting. Maybe the Pakis are more skilled and fun lobbyists.
All I know is that most media reports tend to blame the Indians on the Kashmiri issue, and this has been perpetuated by the Republicans. I have this book called “War on Top of the World” by Eric Margolis (Toronto Sun journalist). The whole book is a rant against India, and it’s very pro Pakistani and pro-Islam. I have no problems with pro-Islam, but I think that this book was a rant.
Over the past few decades, Pakistan has done better than India economically, up until ’98. India, neglected by the USA, has always did our own thing. Meanwhile, Kashmiris are getting killed by the 10,000s, and the Pakis are supporting Indian seperatist groups, and disrupting Afghanistan, and others. In ’98, India’s per capita and PPP exceeded Pakistan.
And on 9-11, the whole world realizes that India was the neglected saint through all this. Even when many powerful nations tried to work antagonistically against the Indians, the Indians still did their own morally correct thing. Now, we realize which country is the natural ally of the USA and which culture is the mortal enemy of Western Civilization.
A week ago, Musharraf and the Judiciary were on a collision course. It is at least possible that some of the Judiciary’s zeal arose from the personal tiff between Chaudhry Iftikhar and Musharraf back in March – but even if not, what the collision course illustrates is that preferentially strengthening one set of liberal-and-democratic actors in the polity can be profoundly destablizing – even the Judiciary needs checks and balances! A democratic revival led by the higher judiciary and kept alive solely by civic society (lawyers, journalists) is not mass-based, not sustainable, and has its own inherent instabilities.
But a more mass-based political movement – a reconciled polity – a coalition government – a power sharing alliance even – together with a strong Judiciary – could potentially work – as I see it. Let’s hope Pakistan moves toward something like that.
My response to this post is almost the same as the one to the last post about Musharraf.
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.
I actually agree that we must consider how democracy in Pakistan might actually come about and what it would mean. I’m not criticizing anyone who ponders those questions (especially since, hey, I wonder too), and I’m not defending anyone who criticize those who ponder these questions, but I sensed a lot condescension in this post/thread, e.g. comments about a ‘witch hunt’ and especially this quote:
Ahh, yes. Political correctness. The perfect way to deflate the other side’s argument before the debate has even begun. I really don’t think it’s ‘political correctness’ so much as that most of us are American. Most Americans aren’t as nuanced in their thinking as Fareed Zakaria, and if you ask them if they think a military dictatorship or a representative democracy is better for a country, they will most likely choose the latter. Because we’re American and that’s what we’re familiar with (imperfections and all) and what we’ve been taught from day one and generally believe is the ideal form of government–and the one worth striving towards. So it’s not ‘political correctness’ that makes us recoil at the idea that a military dictatorship is better for Pakistan, it’s our genuine belief.
I realize that this is awkward phrasing, but I can’t think of a better way to say it. I guess my general point is that I don’t think people who would ideally advocate representative democracy are doing so because they are some sort of thought police, but because they genuinely believe it is for the common good.
This is exactly same arguments British used to give for not liberating India and Pakistan.
Before the era of democracy there were kingship or dictatorship all around the world. So, In each and every democratic country you will find a phase of week or benevolent dictatorship. This is not a valid argument to support any dictatorship.
If one believes in the equality of man then democracy is the only form of government. If one does not – then monarchy or dictatorship is perfectly fine. The irony of folks living in a democracy telling others around the world that they dont need a democracy and actively supporting a dictator.
Have you seen what Pakistan’s literacy rate is? Around 45%! How can the populace of country even begin to make intelligent decisions about who they are voting for if less than half can’t read?
I think you meant to say: “How can the populace of a country even begin to make intelligent decisions about who they are voting for if more than half can’t read?”
Perhaps we should include mathematics into voting requirements as well.
*include mathematics in (not into)
(Grammar shouldn’t be part of voting requirements).
Yes Lord Faraz, only those who are educated should be allowed to vote. In fact only those who are wealthy should vote. Yes Sir, let us go back to the 18th century. While we are at it, women should not be given a vote.
certainly, maybe i should kept out of voting too. but my point is that the people of pakistan just end up voting for the leader of their braderi. there is no real discussion of policies. of course you are right, everybody should be able to vote. and i respect your zeal for wanting that for everyone. i just wish that it was that simple.
ARR, the lyfe of man in a state of nature (a perpetual state of WARRE) is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short! They must all enter into a social contract to surrender their liberties to a LEVIATHAN who will secure their lives and maybe their property, but not necessarily their liberties…
Try Australia – everyone must vote – even in council elections. Else you get fined. Not sure how many folks have seen the power of a vote. Elections are the only time that a politician will kiss your ass. Most pollies will literally kiss your ass for a vote – try it if you get a chance.
Just awful
Read More here.
Faraz, that is how it may start: people will vote for their clan leaders. But over time, as the exercise is repeated again and again, people will start voting for issues as all clan leaders will start to look the same. This is what’s happening in India. The idea is to keep at it, simply because the alternatives are worse, though China’s system is also somewhat admirable: they have a single party and voting within the party. Anyone can join the party. The benefit of the one-party system is taht change is always gradual, as opposed to the multi-party system where there’s an abrupt change every 5 years or so. The negative is that you can’t criticize the party; you have to work within it.
Either way, randomly lurching from one megalomaniac dictatorial leader to the next like Pakistan does, seems like the worst system.
Add to that dictators backed by an army with a strong interest in fomenting terrorism, and which knows it can only be relevant so long as Pakistanis feel under threat.
Allah, Army, and America – are three pillars in Pakistan, be it civilian or military government.
Army in Pakistan is a huge business enterprise – they even own detergent companies.
Here on Army Inc. More here.
@ Melbourne Desi
That has its own problems. Many seats get locked in as “Safe seats” and one has to wait for the demographics of the constituency to change, through boundry changes or immigration into that suburb, for getting rid of the MP. Also you are wrong that every one must vote. Everyone has to turn up at the polling booth. Attendance is compulsory voting isn’t.
BTW you are forgetting we live in a Constitutional Monarchy, where the head of state is decided by an ovarian lottery.
Especially after 2005 (ADB)Pakistan (if I’m correct) experienced relatively good economic years. Not because of foreign aid but because of the post 9/11 pakistan/US negotitions which included debt relief.So yes Mush got help but they can actually work instead of rely solely on foreign aid as assumed.
From what I know is that under Musharraf the poverty rate as messured by the CIA has dropped with 10 percent. Not drastically but still it dropped. It’s a messy country on any level but it’s a fact that for the last years the economy in Pakistan growing steadily but just not as fast as the rest of the Asian tigers/chaebols.(Eventhough they had a constant for the past years growth of 6,5 procent which is pretty high)
Musharraf did provide a better economic climate/the macroeconomic stabilty that a country (with an eye on the increasing globaliztion) needs to attract foreign investors who are now all eyeing Pakistani market and the benefits such as low production cost that come with it. Buisness is buisness and buisness is always good in a more stable environment illeberal or not. After the quake and with the problems that were there from the beginning my hope is that the current stabilty maintains.
But to say that Musharraf did it the easy way by accepting aid (here’s what they actually ‘got’ from the US) most of the money? GDP is not only measured by the government spending but also takes the consumption(people in paksitan also leave their home everday for work in order to get an income) and the investments in account.
samir – you are quite right
True. god save the queen – damn!!
all citizens of pakistan, i bring you great tidings. your surge towards modernity and self-determination has just been hastened since your beloved leader has put bhutto under house arrest, in order to protect you from making the bad choices that you have a predilection for. rejoice.
If Mush and the Pak army lose power, India is in grave danger from the Taliban. The Taliban are making major gains into Pak territory, which is a crucial buffer zone for India. If the Taliban gain nukes, you can bet it’s going to be pretty rough going for India.
Check this article out from the Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2527177.cms
ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: Pakistan is fast losing chunks of its territory to pro-Taliban rebels. On Wednesday, it lost yet another town in the picturesque valley of Swat to the rebels with which, say officials privately, as much as 70% of the valley’s 94-km stretch is under the control of Mullah Fazlullah’s band of automatic-toting militants.
Reports said that the militants have taken control of key towns like Matta, Khazakhela, Madyan and Charbagh.
According to one agency report, the town of Kalam, too, has fallen to the militants after dozens of paramilitary troops and policemen surrendered their weapons. Before capturing Kalam, the militants captured Bahrain, a strategic town poised over the raging Swat river.
At a number of government offices in these towns, the Pakistani flag was brought down and replaced by black-and-white flags, reminiscent of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. By Wednesday evening, Fazlullah’s private FM radio station (because of which the cleric is known as “Mullah Radio”) was proclaiming the territorial gains.
The significance of Pakistan losing territory in Swat lies in the fact that this is not the country’s tribal fringes; rather it has been a settled area of Pakistan, just a few hours drive northwest of Islamabad.
The seemingly relentless march in Swat of Fazlullah’s Tehreek Nafaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (the Movement for Enforcement of Islamic Laws), one of a clutch of pro-Taliban groups in Pakistan, represents the real challenge faced by Pervez Musharraf. Radical groups have spread out into the heart of Pakistan from the troubled tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, and are threatening to throw the country into Taliban-style autarky.
In Swat, for instance, Fazlullah’s band, backed by fighters from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Waziristan, has not only driven out government officials, but has also shut down almost all girls schools, set fire to shops selling Indian and western music, beaten up barbers shaving beards, and recently, blown up a 1,300-year-old carving of a seated Buddha cut into a 45-metre-high rock face — one of Swat’s top tourist attractions. Ironically, Swat is an ancient seat of enlightenment, marked with planned towns and spiritual renaissance.
I’m hoping those philistines conveniently ignore the Archaeological Museum in Swat, which houses a footprint of Buddha dating back to at least the 3rd century..
Verrry hard to believe that the same people in Afghanistan and those areas in Pak used to ever be Buddhists.
The problem is, there is no evidence that Musharraf is in any position to do anything about it. He cut a deal with Taliban leaders in South Waziristan a year ago, which many people saw as a sellout to their demands. The way things are going around Swat, I won’t be surprised if he cut a similar deal there too. Of course there’d be some face-saving, and the deal will be made to look better for the army and US than it actually may be. But I don’t think the US has a choice: it has tied itself too close to Musharraf.
The vibe in Pakistan right now seems to be the Musharraf is killing Pakistanis to support US interests, which weakens the amount of force he can use on the fundamentalists. Also he cannot afford to alienate the Islamic parties too much, for fear of strengthening Benazir. The best thing for Pakistan would be a new leader who is able to distance himself/herself from the US and project the struggle in Pakistan as a struggle for the security and future of the Pakistani people. He/she can then make a strong go at the fundamentalists. But the leader would have to sacrifice American interests in the short term: the militants that are pushed out of Pakistan might move their activities to Afghanistan.
Just to be clear, India is not in grave danger if Mush and the army loses power in Pakistan. It all depends on who they lose power to. If it is by democratic vote, there is no problem. However, if there is a revolt of some sort against Musharraf and the Islamists come to power (the only way they can come to power is by revolution and the ensuing chaos: its unlikely they will win an election), then that would be grave danger, not only for India, but the world.
That is why it is important the US does not prop up Musharraf so long that a pressure-cooker like situation builds up. Ali Etaraz has an interesting article on the possibilty of an Iranian type revolution in Pakistan.
Let me make it a little easier to believe:
[link]
Oh for the love of…
sigh We’re perfectly fine over here, thank you very much. I suppose some of us might actually give a shit about this if it impacted our lives in any sort of meaningful way, but this is just standard. As a dedicated fan of the 80s, I’m rather enjoying reliving my youth, what with suspended constitutions and the like…