Nicholas
D Kristof in the New York Times had this comment on
democracies South Asia Style. “If there was a form of
government that produced autocrats who sponsored terrorism,
stole millions of dollars while impoverishing their citizens,
shredded public education and health, permitted child bondage,
tortured dissidents and tolerated pogroms against minorities,
then we would all condemn it. Except that in South Asia such a
system is called democracy.”
And
we are told, “The country (Pakistan) has been on the edge of
bankruptcy, 55 percent of adults are illiterate, 10 percent of
children die by the age of 5, and there are more drug addicts
than college graduates. More broadly, South Asia as a whole is
both impressive in the way it has sustained democracies and
depressing in how poorly the democracies have often served
their citizens.”
Commenting
on the General’s empty victory, The Economist (May 2), said:
“One of the principal achievements of the Musharraferendum
has been to forge a tactical alliance between two of
Pakistan’s bitterest enemies, both former prime ministers,
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, as well as between the
secular parties and moderate religious ones such as
Jamaat-e-Islami.who usually despise each other. All resent
what increasingly looks like an attempt by General Musharraf
to prolong military rule in Pakistan indefinitely.”
Not
only is the political situation uncertain as to warrant doubt
whether the October elections will be held at all the paper
gives another reason that may offer the General a perfect
excuse for a postponement on the grounds of ‘national
security.’ The presence on Pakistani soil of al-Qaeda
terrorists and Americans in hot pursuit of them.
An
edit in The Nation (May 6) had this comment: “In fact some
of the perceived irregularities committed in the Referendum
have led some quarters to suspect in advance the fairness even
of the forthcoming parliamentary elections…There are
meanwhile indications that the opposition’s protest campaign
against what it calls a “fraudulent” Referendum is going
to gather momentum in the days ahead.”
Meanwhile,
General Pervez Musharraf was facing trouble as mainstream
political parties denounced him as an “isolated” ruler and
demanded his resignation. The parties at a meeting convened in
Lahore demanded that Musharraf resign both as president and
chief of the army and hand over power to a caretaker
government. This according to a report in the TOI (May 21).
The same report attributed to The Nation the alarming news
that Pakistan had deployed Shaheen missiles in view of
increased tension on India-Pakistan border following the
terrorist attack on Jammu’s Kaluchak Army camp on May 14.
Any further escalation of tension on the borders
is a likely threat to political stability in Pakistan and a
setback to the return to democracy in that country.
“The demand… (That Musharraf resign) at a time when India
has taken an aggressive posture against Pakistan is important,
because the General doesn’t enjoy the moral or
constitutional authority to take decisions at this
juncture,” said the chairman of the Alliance for Restoration
of Democracy, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan according to the
report.
Pakistan’s
flawed referendum has tarnished the image of Gen Pervez
Musharraf according to a leading Canadian paper.
The
Baltimore Sun called it (the referendum) ‘a gala of
fraud.’ And went on to point out that “The United States
isn’t helped by friends who look ridiculous.”
Terms
like ridicule do not affect those with ambition and love of
power. Musharraf rather celebrates his victory claiming 98 per
cent “yes” vote. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)
estimated the turnout at around five percent, which they said
amounted to a rejection of Musharraf and his
“dictatorship”.
An
opinion piece ‘The Dictator’s New Clothes’ by
Brahma Chellaney in the New York Times was eye-catching and
worth quoting. “ In the past, whenever a Pakistani dictator
has employed a referendum to strengthen his rule, tensions
with India have risen. In turn, General Musharraf has taken
advantage of the friendly attitudes of the West not only to
break his democracy pledge but also to shrink back from
promises he made in January—under India’s threat of
war—to clamp down on Pakistani terrorist networks. The
United States is perhaps too preoccupied with other crises to
demand that General Musharraf keep his word even while he is
quietly moving backwards on terrorism.”
The
danger is that the General may now go to any extent to keep
himself secure in the seat of power. An edit in the Daily
Times (May 6) warns of the danger of the use of
ethnic card.
According
to The Christian Science Monitor, “The outcome of this
referendum could have immense consequences for Pakistani
democracy, say experts, politicians, and ordinary Pakistanis.
So while many Pakistanis support Musharraf the man, they fret
about the pattern that Musharraf is perpetuating, a pattern of
military intervention in civilian politics”.
According
to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS),
“much would depend on President Pervez Musharraf’s ability
to hold on to power and further deliver on promises to curb
‘cross-border terrorism’ in occupied Kashmir. The UK
think-tank predicted a deadlock in Indo-Pakistani relations
through 2003.
“General
Musharraf’s troubles have only now begun. The irony is that
he is reaping a harvest sown by his military predecessors.”
This according to Ejaz Haider in the Daily Times.
There
is opinion within Pakistan that the country “has in fact
lost everything it had before September 11 and its economy,
prestige and social fabric have been damaged irreparably.”
According to an opinion in The News quoting the Jamiatul Ulema-e-Islam
chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman. The JUI chief warned that
military dictators’ desire to keep power was undermining the
country and its institutions, and could cause irreparable
damage to national integrity in the likeness of Dhaka Fall. He
criticised the US regimes for invariably supporting dictators
in Pakistan in violation of their own doctrine of democracy
and human rights.
While
going through the various news reports and opinion pieces
following Musharraf’s referendum one came across two Urdu
words “natak” (meaning theatre) and “behayee” (meaning
shamelessness). These words are expected to occur naturally in
any shameless display, grab or perpetuation of power at
whatever level. The gap between the real and the imaginary
decreases as desperation and impatience override scruples,
credibility and legitimacy. The game politicians play and the
extent to which they can go give real happening the appearance
of bizarre theatre. These games are safely subsumed under
“kissa kursi ka”. A small Punjabi community (a registered
body) would hold elections of office bearers in a ramshackle
building every year in Delhi. It so happened once that the
‘president’ of this community refused to vacate the
presiding chair having become fixated to this piece of
furniture in the ramshackle building-- both owned by him. So
year after year he would announce the elections to the
executive body thus: “President I remain of course. You can
elect the secretary etc.” The moral: there is no limit to
‘behayee’ when personal ambition overrides all established
norms and reduces the electoral exercise to ‘natak’. The
affective response is equally confused. One is torn between
comic laughter and tragic pathos.
An
edit in The Cleveland Plain Dealer seemed to round up the
scenario in the wake of Musharraf’s mandate. “Musharraf
may now feel he has a rightful claim on the presidency, but in
fact, his international legitimacy has suffered. Pakistanis
are supposed to return to the polls in October for
parliamentary elections. The impact of that voting already has
been diminished, since the national parliament no longer
elects the president. Let’s at least hope that Musharraf
permits the next round of balloting to proceed under
independent supervision and that he eventually understands
that a full embrace of democracy could truly transform
Pakistan and the Islamic world.”
New
Delhi May 22, 2002
.
