EVEN by the standards of the callous disregard that Israel has demonstrated for international law over the years, its current campaign in Lebanon is unprecedented, both in scale and ferocity. While both Israel and the US have succeeded in convincing large sections of public opinion, even in Muslim countries, that Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 triggered the current crisis, European sources, as early as February this year, said that the two countries had already drawn up plans to discredit Hamas and destroy Hezbollah.

For the Bush administration, their victory in elections recognised as free and fair, was a serious rebuff that only strengthened its resolve to cut both down to size. These two organisations, however, evolved into effective political parties in their respective constituencies, with strong grassroots support and the ability to provide clean and efficient municipal services. The Bush administration refused to engage with them, not because it failed to appreciate their importance, but precisely because it feared that Hezbollah and Hamas would remain major impediments in the way of American plans for the region.

Israel’s unprovoked attack on a group of picnicking Palestinian civilians on a Gaza beach in early June, was staged primarily to provoke Hamas to retaliate and thereby break the unilateral 16-month ceasefire it had observed. This gave Israel the pretext to kidnap dozens of Palestinian ministers and legislators, with not a whimper of protest from any quarter. Israel knew full well that Hezbollah would have to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinians, which took the form of capturing two Israeli soldiers. Israel was now free to unleash its military campaign against Lebanon and demanded that the world support its efforts to wipe out this “terrorist” organisation.

Though there were few takers for this line of argument, Israel only wanted the support of the US, and here the Bush administration was more than willing to do Israel’s bidding. Since then, we have witnessed the world expressing its horror at the massive destruction unleashed by Israel, but the US proclaims that Israel can continue on this course for as long as it needs to achieve its war aims. It is also using its diplomatic clout to prevent the Security Council from calling for an immediate ceasefire. Ironically enough, at the same time it announced a $30 million aid package for relief and rehabilitation of Lebanese victims whose homes were destroyed by the advanced weapons that America provided to Israel.

It is now clear that Hezbollah’s destruction was the first step in plans drawn up by the US and Israel to turn Lebanon into an Israeli protectorate and then work for a regime change in Syria. Thereafter, Iran’s expected refusal to compromise on its nuclear programme would have been used as a casus belli to unleash massive aerial bombardment to facilitate a regime change in Tehran as well.

The anxiety of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US is evident from what Dr Henry Kissinger, the guru of the US foreign policy establishment, wrote in the Washington Post recently. He warned western powers not to permit Iran to use the Lebanese crisis to weaken their resolve against its nuclear weapons programme.

It may appear strange, but the Bush administration was so confident of its plans that it was prepared to start a new crusade, while still stuck in two major conflicts. This is evident from the obvious delight with which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice characterised Israel’s invasion of Lebanon as “the birth pangs of a different Middle East, a new Middle East”.

True, the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon is the first step in the unfolding drama to usher in a new Middle East. But will it be one drawn up by the neo-conservatives of the Bush administration, or will it become the centre of renewed conflict and greater turmoil and eventually a graveyard for American plans? That this is not as far-fetched as it sounds is obvious from the increasing hostility to America all over the globe.

To understand this, it is important to look beyond the death and destruction in Lebanon, massive and awful though it has been. The after-effects of this conflict are already being felt in the region and beyond. Such committed allies of the US as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, are experiencing tremors that are frightening the regimes, forcing them to change their public postures.

Though the Saudi foreign minister had held Hezbollah responsible for the crisis, the monarchy is now encouraging religious leaders, including the imam of the Kaabah, to praise Hezbollah and appeal to Muslims to “unify their ranks”. In Egypt, too, many political figures have declared solidarity with the freedom fighters in Lebanon. Similar is the shift in Jordan, where King Abdullah is appealing to the world to assist “the victims of Israeli aggression”.

New and powerful forces have been unleashed that are creating both uncertainty and concern in all capitals. These could have a long-lasting impact in unpredictable ways. Some observers fear that if one of these pro-US regimes were to fall, the entire American-crafted edifice could come crumbling down.

But even in the current uncertainty, one can discern which way the wind is blowing. For one, the myth of Israeli invincibility has been shattered — an extremely rude awakening for Israel. This false sense of over-confidence and euphoria has already caused it much grief. Israeli generals are admitting that they are astonished, not only with the skill with which Hezbollah fighters are conducting the battle, but more importantly, with their willingness to lay down their lives.

Israelis simply cannot fathom this phenomenon. This has given rise to a furious debate in Israel, with many politicians claiming that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with no military background, has permitted the armed forces to call the shots. This, and his desire to prove his leadership, has added to many of its miscalculations in the Lebanon operation.

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, a paper known for its pro-Israel slant, warned that if Israel maintains its current policy, “it was headed for the greatest military humiliation in its history”, as it was “losing the war both militarily and politically”.

Uri Avnery, a highly regarded Jewish political analyst, has expressed his fear that the Israeli army’s failure against Hezbollah, will lead to demands for further expansion of the theatre of operations, till it finally extends to Syria, which would engulf the entire region. He has warned that the Israeli leadership is deluding itself if it thinks that it can control the war: “the war controls them”. His advice is short and simple. Israel should “declare victory and get out”.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has pointed in an article that Israel’s “devastating response” to Hezbollah’s provocations had resulted in worldwide support for these groups, “while condemnation of both Israel and the US has intensified”. He also warned that “there will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions”.

Hezbollah’s courage and Hamas’s refusal to compromise has introduced a totally new element in Arab politics. This has given rise to genuine admiration amongst Arab masses, who feel that for the first time after Egypt’s Nasser, they have an Arab leader in Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, who has both the skill and determination to defy the West. The established order is losing ground, while the non-state actors are occupying centre-stage.

America’s goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East lies in tatters, its lack of morality exposed. No amount of rhetoric or propaganda can convince people in the Arab world or even in Western Europe and places as distant as the Far East that this administration has regard for human life or respect for international law.

The much touted propaganda of a permanent Shia-Sunni divide and their portrayal as implacable foes has turned out to be a gross exaggeration. The manner in which Sunni Syria has been assisting Shia Hezbollah and Shia Iran has been expressing its solidarity for Sunni Hamas is a remarkable development. This could change the political landscape in many of the Arab countries, especially those with substantial Shia minorities.

The forthright manner in which Iran has come to the assistance of Hezbollah and Hamas is also creating a tremendous fund of goodwill for Tehran in the Islamic world. This is likely to reduce considerably the millennium old Arab-Ajam hostility, which would be a healthy development for the Islamic world. Iran’s standing and influence in the region has also gone up.

Finally, unrepresentative and authoritarian regimes, which are dependent on the support of foreign masters, have been put on notice. All these governments will have to either abandon their subservience or accept the inevitable march of history.

The US is making a fatal mistake by its refusal to rein in the Israelis. It is making life extremely difficult for moderate forces in Muslim states, which are becoming marginalised. This will give greater credibility and acceptance to radical parties, which appear more in tune with the sentiments of the masses. The call for moderation is now a cry in the wilderness.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, what is currently happening in Lebanon will not leave us untouched either. We have so far been prudent and cautious in our approach. But we now risk appearing too sensitive to American interests and too oblivious to the sentiments of the Muslim masses. We need to impart greater vigour to diplomatic efforts to bring about an end to the fighting and at least give the appearance of conducting an independent foreign policy.

The writer is a former ambassador.

“IT does not matter how many people vote,” Stalin once famously observed, “only who counts them.” As another round of “free and fair” elections draws near, the ghost of Stalin can expect to spend some busy days in Pakistan.

Reports indicate that while the ruling PML is expecting to cruise to another victory on the wings of the “skills” of such ghosts, the opposition ARD is worried about their lethal effects.

Open and honest elections are important not merely as an expression of commitment to the principle of sovereignty of the people, it has practical value as well. Just as Stalin’s USSR showed, it may be easy to beat the people at the polls every time these are held, but the victory comes at a cost. If it helps governments, it weakens the state. Deprived of the support of the people because of these tactics, Stalin’s USSR weakened and disintegrated from the inside despite being the second most fearsome state in the world.

The problem with fair elections is not so much of candidates from different parties trying to manipulate them. That is easy to control, provided the state machinery is strong and independent. One way for the Election Commission of Pakistan to stop such manipulation would be to learn from Stalin’s observation and stop “outsourcing” the vote count.

Outsourcing has been an important part of globalisation and is reckoned to have picked up momentum after the Y2K scare. But our election commissions have been outsourcing the vote-counting since 1985. Several elections and referendums held since then stand out as the earliest examples of “outsourcing” electoral work causing embarrassment even to the “victors”.

Although there are soundings that this time round “open and honest” elections rather than the usual “free and fair” ones may well be on the menu in 2007, many remain sceptical. But democracy is more than merely holding elections. Assuming open and honest elections are actually held, what would be the contours of democratic governance resulting from such a mandate?

There has been talk of various models of governance to help the transition to democratic rule after the elections. This is somewhat similar to the situation at the time of the last transition from military to democratic governance that took place in 1988 and it may be helpful to understand it better.

Then, too, the transfer of power was negotiated and transferred after Benazir Bhutto agreed to four conditions. To the best of our knowledge, she observed those four conditions. And yet, within 12 months, that government was targeted by a “vote of no-confidence” in October 1989. When that attempt failed, the government was overthrown a few months later — this time directly by the president who listed various alleged corrupt practices as reason for the dismissal of an elected government.

If that was the real cause, the best thing then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan could, and should, have done was to have called the prime minister and the chief justice of Pakistan to a meeting and worked out the legal and institutional framework for setting up judicial tribunals at federal and provincial capitals to make fair, independent, impartial and transparent inquiries into complaints of alleged corrupt practices. These courts should have been made free from any influence, empowered to give judgments against anyone in power and also to penalise those making false and frivolous complaints. That would have made accountability credible in the eyes of the people, eliminated the excuse for overthrowing governments and strengthened democracy in Pakistan.

Instead, the window of destabilisation was kept open while the fragile democratic experiment of the nation was summarily thrown into the dustbin. It neither improved accountability nor strengthened democracy. That window has been repeatedly used and misused and still remains open for business.

In a meeting with this writer in the 1990s, former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore talked about the secretive and unpredictable style of our governance. This model of governance, as Lee put it in his usual forthright manner, had created an environment where “at any time in Pakistan those in power are always looking over their shoulders to see who might be trying to stab them in the back, and those outside are busy scheming to gate-crash into power”. He asked how national development could be pursued under such governance.

Since Justice Munir’s days, our courts have, so far, rarely extended the “doctrine of necessity” to uphold the sovereign will of the people in governance or to protect elected assemblies and governments installed by the people’s mandate. Ever so often, the discretion of one individual has been sanctified to trump the will of the people.

That model of governance still dominates in the country, although after the Seventeenth Amendment its contours have been further complicated. On top of it all, comes the ruling party’s peculiar definition of democracy making resolution of issues even more difficult.

Ian Smith, former Rhodesia’s racist prime minister, used to joke about the African style of democracy. African politicians, he said, did believe in democracy and the principle of “one man one vote” but only to be exercised once in a lifetime. Whoever once came to power never felt the need to renew the mandate of the people or leave office.

Some truth in Smith’s cynical observation is discernible in Pakistani governance specially when politicians, otherwise unelectable or whose mandate from people has long expired, still insist upon ruling the country on the coattails of Stalin’s ghost or by perpetuating themselves through technical extensions. Less committed to anything larger than self-interest, they become political bureaucrats and are as much careerist as their cousins in the civil and military bureaucracy. Many problems of democracy not taking root in Pakistan can be traced to — in addition to Bonapartism — the machinations of several politicians anxious to rule as political bureaucrats rather than as the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan.

Now when the ARD and MMA are planning to move a vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, an open invitation would be extended to display the base human instincts harboured by the political bureaucrats in their ranks.

As the ruling PML has many shades of political bureaucrats in its ranks, Mr Shaukat Aziz could soon be having sleepless nights if the combined opposition really pulls its weight together — irrespective of winning or losing the move. If the no-confidence vote of 1989 is any guide, Mr Aziz would soon find that his personal qualities or any help and favours he may have done will all be forgotten by the beneficiaries — with some honourable exceptions.

He would have a tough time making out friends from foes even among his party members. The flip side is no less relevant. If the government turns on its “charm offensive” how many members in the opposition would stand tall with the party and its leadership?

Like a malfunctioning part of the human body that draws too much attention, energy and resources in trying to set itself right, the body politic of Pakistan has also been suffering for long from the kind of governance it has endured. This has sapped the energy and resources of the nation.

Our experiments to bring stability and unity without respecting the principles of legitimacy haven’t brought much success either, simply because there is no stability and continuity without legitimacy. These and other issues have been crying for attention. Everybody knows that for internal and external reasons, Pakistan cannot afford to widen the gap between legitimacy and stability.

The question is: do we have the wisdom to agree on a system of governance that combines legitimacy and stability?

The writer is a former federal secretary. E-mail: smshah@alum.mit.edu