The recent Lahore rally was the focus of newspaper comment in Pakistan. The General seemed to be on the rise phoenix-like from the ashes of civilian misrule of the past, feeding the illusion perhaps that he was unique and indispensable for giving Pakistan a new beginning towards a moderate and economically prosperous state.

 A comment in THE NEWS of April 10, tells us “with the fullest backing of the largest employer and an all powerful state, General Pervez Musharraf launched his victorious political campaign, to sweep an unopposed-election to the Presidency, in his first largest public gathering, consisting of public servants, councillors and their constituents, plus patronage-seeking politicians, at Minar-e-Pakistan here.”

An opinion piece in THE FRONTIER POST tells us “Political power is like being perched at a commanding height. Both blur the vision and both make the heads of ordinary mortals dizzy…Relishing power, brandishing authority, spitting venom, claiming stupendous achievements, the General vowed to restructure the political edifice…

“Referendum was risk taking for him…Pakistan and the people needed him. It was important that the reforms he introduced were not reversed. If he was not around the continuation of reforms could not be guaranteed. The General’s opponents were ‘doomsday agents’ who needed to be proved wrong. So the soldier decided to take the plunge and take the risk.”

Arrogance and obsession reportedly marked the General’s speech.

A number of questions come automatically to the fore. Is Pakistan back to the beginning? Is history repeating itself? Is Pakistan at the critical crossroads? Is General Pervez Musharraf Pakistan’s last hope after a failed civilian rule? Or is the General destined to give Pakistan’s faltering democracy its funeral rites?

According to an opinion “there was an element of déjà vu in the present political scenario in Pakistan, with a referendum coming and debate on the kind of democracy that suited the country. All the old questions were being raised again amidst a clash between clerical authority and military authority.”

According to a comment in THE NEWS of April 10, “By plunging in an unfair political battle, and by using the same defamed methods, General Musharraf has not added anything positive to the credibility he has been enjoying as a reluctant benign dictator…The General is bound to win, not democracy.”

In perspective, we are told in a hard-hitting article by MAK Lodhi that the political stalwarts abhorring the referendum “are the same who played havoc with the creed of democracy and twisted its growth not in the distant past but only yesterday.” The write-up neither credits Nawaz Sharif nor former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto with  “ a single step that they can claim to have performed for the betterment of democracy.”

Keeping an eye on the genesis of Pakistan’s creation, “the religious elements were always on the wrong side and their opposition to any issue means it must be good for the people to earn their opposition to it because historically they have always been on the wrong side.”

Expressing optimism and supporting Musharraf’s stay at the helm of affairs, the writer feels “he will be there, at least for five years, to see that politicians don’t take to squabbling and indulgence in hundred one evil things.

“If the nation has to face another referendum today, it is only because of the disastrous failure of the political forces.”

And then in a sharply diagnostic tone: “Military governments in Pakistan always rise from the graves of stinking politicians who are never so naïve to be exploited.”

And then the excessively optimistic prognosis: “After this referendum also, there will be new grass under the feet and new blooms will sprout. The country will make a new beginning as at every turn of a decade it makes a new beginning. The prime responsibility, therefore, still lies on the shoulders of politicians.”

The article ends on a note of faith in the people “because people of Pakistan have politics in their veins.” There is equal faith in the media and rightly so. “The free media in Pakistan will continue to be critical of any sitting government because the process of reform and reconstruction can’t be continued without media keeping an eye and pointing out its flaws.”

Despite the uncertainty and anarchy prevailing in Pakistan, there is strength and conviction in the voice of the media. The voice of reason prevails. The press reflects candidly and honestly the dilemma Pakistan finds itself in. The energetic voice of the people as reflected in the edits and opinion columns of the press lends hope to an otherwise sad scenario of pulls and counter pulls that have riven Pakistan since its beginning 55 years ago Political turbulence notwithstanding, faith in democracy remains intact.

An opinion piece in THE NATION of April 9, confirms us on the health of the media. “Meanwhile all conscientious newspapers continue to oppose the notion of a referendum. In his speech he (Musharraf) rebuffed all analyses in these papers as pessimism. This is a fatal error, and was the most disappointing part of his speech. What gives the right to the General to say that those who oppose his decisions are the enemies of the country? If all sensible papers oppose his decision, then there must be some truth in their criticism,” according to the writer of the opinion piece “End of illusion.”

And we are further told: “Some of the General’s remarks in this context were embarrassing, and could be interpreted as advice to practise self-censorship. If so, Musharraf should understand that the papers writing against some of his policies are doing so in the national interest…Musharraf is not the only patriot in the country. Those writing against the referendum are equally sincere to the nation…”

Yet another opinion piece explains what is meant by the “lion’s share”. The parable is applied to General Musharraf. “Thus he intends to strengthen democracy!…the referendum will merely confirm our membership of the banana club. General Musharraf says nothing will be done against the Constitution. He conveniently overlooks the fact the Constitution does not allow anyone to assume power by force and then say: the National Assembly should decide with me how to share power. He is thus keeping the proverbial lion’s share.”

The writer explains the parable of the lion that hunted a deer and when supposed to share with a fox and a jackal an equal share of the kill, keeps two shares to himself as a matter of right while the third is in doubt because of his might.

Stumbling upon such use of the parabolic method as a means of effective communication speaks volumes for the creative skill of the media. Western philosophical tradition has often turned to the parable as a means of communicating moral and spiritual insight. Storytelling is often more effective than direct, cut-and-dry communication. It is an indirect way of disarming one’s opponent. Best to remember that parables aim not merely at a change of mind but a change of will.

 New Delhi, April 17,2002