Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Democracy in Pakistan and us

The world famous anchorman is in town. A Union Cabinet Minister throws a cosy lunch. Within minutes, it becomes clear that the famous anchorman has an agenda: Pervez Musharraf simply cannot be relied upon to ensure a free and fair election in Pakistan. The anchorman is willing to pass on tidbits of disparaging gossip peddled by Western diplomats about President Musharraf. Most of the Indian guests are only too eager to reinforce the visitor’s prejudice and resent a contrarian question whether there is a globally acceptable, one-size-fits-all model of “free and fair” election that can be demanded to be followed in Pakistan.

On any given day, we in India prefer to feel superior vis-À-vis Pakistan in the matter of “democracy.” Perhaps there are very good reasons — including the clinching evidence of ruling parties being voted out in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1998 and 2004 — for us to feel patronising towards Pakistan and its botched-up experiments with democracy. But is it necessary for us in India to concede to Washington the role of the match referee in the democratic electoral game the world over? Why do we seem so willing to overlook all the problems and aggravations caused not long ago by American quibbling about “democracy” and “human rights” in Jammu and Kashmir?

There can be only two outcomes of the next week’s election in Pakistan. Either the pro-Musharraf forces win or the Pakistan People’s Party-led opposition gains. In either scenario, the Americans would want to enlarge their military presence in Pakistan. After all, it does not require any great diplomatic expertise to understand that the American carping over the “free and fair” election in Pakistan is part of Washington’s strategic design: the Musharraf regime must be kept on its toes, it should be continuously badgered into feeling that its legitimacy ultimately depends on American certificates of good conduct, and, having been rendered so vulnerable, it should be pressured into letting the American/NATO forces have the run of the Pakistan-Afghan border in pursuit of the Taliban militants. Hence, the recent spate of news stories as to how the Pakistani security forces are not zealous enough in cooperating with the Western troops against the Osama bin laden legions, presumably sheltering in the vast inhospitable terrain.

The American-led discourse has already ordained that the only outcome that would meet the standards of “free and fair” election is the one in which the PPP-led opposition “wins.” In such a post-Musharraf scenario, the “winner” would naturally feel to be under an obligation to work closely with Washington to get rid of the “militants.” The so-called democratic forces in Pakistan have unquestioningly accepted the Western refrain that Islamabad could do more to help the good Americans in their crusade against the designated enemies.

We in India, too, have unthinkingly given in to the current American notion that only a “democratic” Pakistan could help the West win the “war on terror.” In absolute terms, it is a sound proposition that a democratic regime is better equipped in mobilising the populace against the militant/terrorist; also, in absolute terms, it is a fair and reasonable stipulation that an army general cannot be and ought not to be a preferred alternative to democratic organisations and civil society. However, it is somewhat naïve for us to put an extraordinary trust in the transformative power of the so-called democratic forces in Pakistan.

To begin with, as a matter of historical record there is not much to choose between “civilian governments” and “military regimes” in Pakistan when it comes to an amicable relationship with India. The generals have been as hostile to India as have been the “democratic” rulers. It was during Benzir Bhutto’s premiership that Pakistan openly took it upon itself to give “moral” support to the “independence” struggle in Kashmir, with all-round bloody consequences. And, it was during Nawaz Sharif’s innings that the Kargil misadventure was initiated. It must also be noted that it was the unbridled invocation of a hostile (Islamic) nationalism by the presumably civilian regimes that fostered and then legitimised the Hindutva Right in India.

Of course, it is entirely natural that we in India should prefer a “democratic” Pakistan to a military-ruled one; yet is it necessary for us to be so totally blind to the realities in Pakistan as to ignore the complete absence of any political party system and still hope for a genuine, free and fair election-based democracy? No serious scholar of the party system in Pakistan has been able to feel sanguine about democratic dividend from these existing parties, which are nothing more than feudal outfits of authoritarian political personalities. As we know from the Bangladesh experience, mere replacement of a military regime by a civilian government does not mean that Islamabad or Dhaka will start playing according to the civilised rules of international behaviour.

As of now, the Americans have their own agenda of “democracy” in Pakistan; this agenda may be drastically revised or totally chucked once a new President takes office in Washington in January 2009. For the United States, the requirement is that whosoever rules in Islamabad ought to see, respect and fall in line with the American priorities in the region. Americans are looking for a pliable regime in Pakistan. Hence, all this talk of a “failing” Pakistan, manufacturing perceptions of chaos and disorder and collapse. The subtext of this Western narrative is disdain for Pakistani nationalism and pride; the battle against the terrorist cannot be won by those who are seen to be willing to barter away a piece of Pakistan national pride in exchange for acceptability from a foreign power.

We in India too fall for the American strategic analysis. Most of our experts rely on the Western data and evidence to raise the spectre of radicalisation in Pakistan. We carelessly subscribe to the American yardsticks of control and agree with the Western analysts that President Musharraf is “losing control.” That may well be the ground reality; but it would be sober to remember that these very yardsticks of control and order can be invoked, say, in our case. Our Union Home Ministry keeps on periodically reminding us that about one-third of all districts are Naxalite-affected. We also know the limits of New Delhi’s writ in various border States. Nor are we free of the “fundamentalist” forces whose presence we find so ominous in Pakistan. For instance, a few months ago, the killers of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were deified as “martyrs” in the Golden Temple. Yet neither the Punjab government nor the Centre nor the BJP (a coalition partner in Punjab) can dare raise a voice of protest against this extraordinary concession to the extremist. There is no real ground for us to feel superior vis-À-vis Pakistan, a presumed “failing state.”

Irrespective of the Americans’ shifting calculations, our aim should be to craft a discourse that may help the Pakistani state re-discover its collective élan. It is time we disabused ourselves of the American prescriptive insistence that “democracy” ipso facto produces vibrant institutions and yields governmental efficacy. It is for the Pakistanis to strike a balance between the messiness of a “democratic” spell and the governmental effectiveness that the army claims it has been able to provide. We in India can well avoid taking sides as our neighbour sorts out its governing paradigm. Our presumptuousness can only complicate Pakistan’s internal angst.

Whether it is the American preference or the Indian solicitousness about “democracy” in Pakistan, it is time the so-called “democratic” political leaders in that country learnt the rules of moderation and reasonableness. Just because a Benazir Bhutto or a Nawaz Sharif says that he or she is opposed to a military dictator does not necessarily bestow democratic legitimacy on them. For too long, foreign powers have played favourites in Pakistan, sometimes favouring an army general, sometimes promoting a civilian government. The “chosen” civilian regime never sought to deepen its acceptability with the people; rather such regimes were only too content to mollycoddle to this or that western power and to establish accounts in off-shore banks. Curiously enough, we in India who know a thing or two about obligations and responsibilities of democracy continue to let the “democratic” rulers in Islamabad short-change the Pakistani masses.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Welcome to country
Fighting terrorism
Democracy in Pakistan and us
Towards talks on reactors from Russia
Do the winged visitors harbour bird flu virus?
Biofuels are not a green panacea
Corrections and clarifications
Mumbai politics
Unfortunate
Curb migration

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu