SPEAKING
FREELY Defending democracy in
Pakistan By Syed S Hussain
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
It may
seem paradoxical to state that now the military in
Pakistan will defend democracy. But that is exactly what
is happening. The maxim that "war is too important to be
left to the generals" appears to have been redefined in
Pakistan to read "politics is too important to be left
to the politicians".
The much talked-about
National Security Council (NSC) bill, after receiving
assent from both houses in Pakistan, has been signed
into law by President General Pervez Musharraf, making
the council a legal entity. That the bill was rushed
through without any debate in parliament is hardly of
much significance in the context of the political
dynamics of Pakistan. The bill was destined to be passed
in any case.
The formation of NSC means that the
military now has the legal mandate to be involved in
running the affairs of the country; in anything
considered of national significance. It will act as a
forum for consultation by the president and the
government. The NSC will also, when it deems fit, make
necessary "recommendations for appropriate actions" to
the president, the government and the parliament.
On the face of it, the NSC does not appear to be
overtly military dominated. Out of 13 members, only four
(three services chiefs and the joint chiefs of staff)
wear the uniform. Added to this are the assurances by
all supporting the new set up that the NSC is just a
recommendatory body, and cannot take action on its own.
However, to all those who know the political
culture of Pakistan better, the writing is quite clear.
Not only that the present president happens to be the
army chief, but even without a military president, the
presence of services chiefs in any forum, recommendatory
or otherwise, is bound to tip the scales in favor of the
military. Their recommendations for all practical
purposes would be tantamount to executive decisions.
Many would argue, what is new or surprising
about this arrangement? After all, the military has
always played the lead role in Pakistani politics,
whether in power or not. The NSC just formalizes this
role. In fact, many even welcome the new setup. Anything
that could ward off the periodical political crises in
the country is considered by them to be a welcome step.
There is just one problem. Even if one were to
ignore the unsavory mix of military and politics and its
long-term consequences, the trouble is that the new
arrangement is hardly sustainable. Pakistan's political
history is quite educative on this score at least: the
political efforts of all will now follow the familiar
pattern of either defending or agitating this issue -
political agitation and uncertainty will continue.
That is how politics work in Pakistan. There is
always some controversy to occupy the political leader's
time and effort. They find it more rewarding to indulge
in this exercise, rather than the more painstaking task
of nation-building. The NSC issue will surely follow
this route and remain the focal point of all political
activity, to the exclusion of other important issues.
Since the elections of October 2002, politics in
Pakistan have followed this polemical path. Musharraf
ensured this by liberally amending the constitution and
providing politicians with bait to challenge them. The
bait was accepted, and has become the political agenda
since the resumption of democracy.
Musharraf
very early gave his vision of "sustainable democracy" in
Pakistan. He was not looking for a powerful prime
minister or parliament. He was also very clear about the
active involvement of the army to safeguard democracy.
Through the Legal Framework Order (LFO) he
substantially reduced the power of the prime minister
and increased that of the president, including the power
to dismiss the government. More importantly, it created
a controversy that has remained in place since than in
various forms. This has shielded the government from
scrutiny on its performance in resolving the serious
issues facing the country.
The LFO controversy
not only divided the government and the opposition, but
also ensured divisions within the opposition. The
Mutahidda Majlis-i-Amal broke ranks with other
opposition members and joined the government in getting
the LFO passed in parliament as a seventeenth amendment.
Once this was done, setting up of the NSC was only a
matter of time.
So should politicians in
Pakistan be sympathetic to this encroachment of the
military in the civil affairs? It seems hardly
warranted. There are many among them who are not
satisfied even with this attack on the civilian
authority. They want the president to retain the post of
army chief, even after December 31, 2004; a date agreed
to by the president himself. Amazingly, they are even
contemplating to agitate for this issue.
So far
Musharraf appears to have prevailed almost totally in
the agenda he set for himself. Domestically he has the
politicians generally where he wants them to be.
Internationally, as long as he is in the forefront of
the "war on terror", he can do no wrong. But how does
all this translate into the progress and well-being of
the country?
One has to acknowledge that these
are not easy times for Pakistan, and Musharraf has to
work under serious constraints. Given such constraints,
Musharraf has shown reasonable deftness in handling some
grim situations, especially concerning foreign affairs.
He can also be credited for the early resumption of the
democratic process in the country.
The long-term
consequences of Musharraf's efforts towards achieving
"sustainable democracy", however, have some serious
concerns. The situation of political stability in the
country is no better than before, the NSC and other
amendments notwithstanding. Political expediencies
continue to be given preference over sustained
development of political culture and traditions.
Musharraf has tended to disregard the fact that
no amount of external safeguards can work if the system
is not stable internally. Democratic progress and
stability grow from within. The present political system
in Pakistan has only superficial moorings, and that does
not augur well for its longevity. In case of serious
challenges, the country could go back to square one, and
Musharraf, for all his short-term success, may end up at
the wrong side of history.
Syed S
Hussain was born in India, received early education
in Bangladesh, served in Pakistan in the military and
civil service, and now lives in New York, US, where he
works as a freelance writer. He holds a Bachelor's
degree in law and Master's degrees in political science,
international relations and Islamic history.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
