HAVING pointed out the problems that beset the country (‘What ails Pakistan’, Feb 6), I will now elucidate how the transition to democracy should be effected. If the demand for the removal of the present political set-up in Pakistan is to be met, in specific terms, the realisation of the following minimal conditions is necessary:

1. Gen (retd) Musharraf steps down from the office of president.

2. All the pre-Nov 3 judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts are reinstated.

3. The 1973 Constitution is restored, without the amendments introduced by military regimes.

4. The present caretaker governments, which are simply extensions of the PML-Q, are replaced by caretaker governments acceptable to all parties, and charged with holding elections within a fixed period of time.

5. A new election commission acceptable to all political parties is appointed.

6. All political prisoners, including judges and lawyers under house arrest, are released.

Rushing into the elections orchestrated by Musharraf under pressure before the above pre-conditions for a fair vote are met, is deemed problematic on several grounds.

Firstly, it confers legitimacy on Musharraf’s hold on the presidency, which he acquired through legally devious means by firing the Chief Justice of Pakistan and his panel of judges who were about to rule on the legality of his election to the office. To agree to participate in elections under him also sanitises his wrongful actions taken since the imposition of emergency rule on Nov 3.

Secondly, the present set-up contrived by Musharraf opens the door to massive rigging of elections, and this is known to all politicians. To put it in the words of Imran Khan from a recent speech he made in New York, the Feb 18 elections will witness ‘the mother of all riggings’.

There are credible reasons for these fears. The partisan character of the caretaker governments and the election commission is one of them. Then there are the local level governments, products of Musharraf’s ‘devolution of power’ scheme. Their nazims, especially in populous Punjab, are dominated by the PML-Q.

They can be very effective instruments of rigging with their influence-peddling, intimidation and even resort to kidnappings of political workers and candidates.

Another factor that is already casting a shadow over the fairness of the elections is the number of cases registered by the police against people implicated in widespread riots that broke out in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. PPP sources have claimed that multiple cases have been registered against half a million of their supporters and political workers in the Sindh province alone. In the absence of a functional and independent judiciary, there seems to be no remedy for this predicament.

Thirdly, if against all odds the elections turn out to be fair enough to produce a government by the PPP with a parliamentary majority of its own, or in coalition with the PML-N, this in itself will scarcely be a victory for democracy.

Much will depend on whether this government accepts the status quo and settles down to work in a power-sharing arrangement with Musharraf as president for the next five years, or asserts its independence and opts for some real change.

The latter at least will involve the reinstatement of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary, the challenge to the legality of Musharraf’s hold on the presidency, and the rescinding of the Seventeenth Amendment which empowers the president to dissolve parliament and dismiss the prime minister.

Unforeseen events can always happen in politics, but given its past history and present make-up the PPP — or, for that matter, the PML-N — is not the party that once in power can be expected to venture too far from the status quo.

The leadership of the party remains firmly with feudal elements; its most capable and principled leader, Aitzaz Ahsan, has withdrawn from the electoral contest and the party has no articulated political and socio-economic agenda.

Pakistan today is going through a crisis that is unprecedented in its intensity and complexity. It will be foolish to spread the illusion that a hastily arranged election, without a functional and independent judiciary, and a compromised Constitution can put the country back on the road to democracy.

The Musharraf regime is already tottering under increasing opposition within Pakistan and pressure from abroad. President Musharraf is making pathetically desperate attempts to save his legally questionable presidency by trying to make last-minute deals with leaders of the PPP and the PML-N at home while pleading for support in western capitals. There is no need to give his presidency a democratic gloss by any means. The only negotiation with him should be limited to address the strategy of his exit.

What is important is a transition to an elected government based firmly on the institutional structure of democratic governance — a constitution with entrenched human and civil rights, an independent judiciary and a free press and broadcast media.

Thanks to the lawyers’ movement, Pakistan has never been closer to achieving these essentials of democratic rule. What is more challenging and difficult is to undertake the tasks ahead which can help sustain democratic rule, and make Pakistan a peaceful and economically just society.

The significance of these tasks for Pakistan’s future and how they can be accomplished is another subject for exploration which can be left to another time. But some of the most critical ones, on which much has already been said elsewhere, need to be pointed out here as a reminder while the struggle for the country’s future is on.

The praetorian role of the Pakistan army has to end.The hegemony of the United States over Pakistan’s internal politics and foreign policy has to end.

While freedom of belief and worship should be guaranteed, the Pakistani state should be restrained from playing with the politics of religion.

The World Bank/IMF credo of economic growth has to be replaced by emphasis on economic justice.The autonomy of the federating units of Pakistan must be respected.

The writer, a professor emeritus of sociology and anthropology, is author of ‘Chains to Lose: The Life and Struggle of a Revolutionary’.

gardezihassan@hotmail.com

ALBERT Einstein witnessed the rise of militant nationalism during Hitler’s time and was so disgusted by it that he described it as ‘the measles of mankind’. He regarded patriotism, on which nationalism is based, as ‘pestilent nonsense’.

Recent research has shown that nationalism is a common characteristic of all primates. For example, chimpanzees, our closest relatives, become extremely violent and literally tear to pieces any intruding chimpanzee from another colony and then eat its flesh!

There is some evidence that ancient humans also displayed cannibalistic tendencies towards their enemies. It will, therefore, not be wrong to assume that modern warfare is just another version of the terrible conflicts that must have taken place among various tribes.

Coming to modern times, a nation can be described as an entity made up of a body of people who are united on the basis of a common language, ethnicity, culture, customs, history and ideology. Of these, ideology, which includes religion, appears to be the weakest link. Numerous wars have been fought among nations professing the same religion, and the USSR disintegrated as it was linked together solely by the communist ideology. Religion could not hold East and West Pakistan together.

Language and ethnicity are probably stronger forces than ideology in uniting a nation. Nationalism based mainly on ethnicity sprouted in Germany and Italy before the Second World War under the garb of fascism. Mussolini summarised this: “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Under fascism, the media was controlled, corporate power protected, trade unions and leftwing parties suppressed. The communists were especially targeted as they called for the workers of the world to unite.

Hitler needed a scapegoat to explain the defeat of Germany in the First World War. He did this by blaming the Jews for all the ills of the country. In Mein Kampf he wrote, “The Jew is and remains a parasite, a sponger who, like a pernicious bacillus, spread over wider and wider areas … the effect produced by his presence is like that of the vampire, for wherever he establishes himself the people who grant him hospitability are bound to bleed to death, sooner or later.”

He did not place much importance on the rule of law. Finally, Hitler’s hubris destroyed Germany.

It is ironical that Jews who suffered so much under Hitler now persecute the helpless Palestinians. This shows how nationalism makes people blind to their own faults.

The democratic countries of Europe also saw advantages in keeping the fires of nationalism burning to maintain their colonial hold on most of Africa and Asia. The slogan, ‘My country right or wrong’ was used for this purpose. The rise of Japan as an imperialist power meant that when the war broke out due to a conflict of national interests, it engulfed the whole world. For the first time, nuclear bombs were used.

A number of ultra-nationalist militant organisations have sprouted in the subcontinent with their own private armies reminiscent of Hitler’s ‘storm troopers’. Prominent amongst these are the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Shiv Sena in India. These were mainly responsible for the killing and terrorising of minorities (both Muslims and Christians) in Bombay in 1992-3 and in Gujarat in 2002. Muslim counterparts of these militant organisations exist in Pakistan and are mainly responsible for suicide bombings.

After the end of the Second World War, West European countries realised that the extreme form of nationalism which had devastated the continent should never be repeated and Europe should move towards some form of unity. This led to the formation of the European Union (EU), the present form of the initial six-member European Coal and Steel Community, later the European Economic Community of the 1950s. It has now 27 member-states.

EU’s motto is ‘Varietate Concordia’, meaning ‘United in Diversity’. Its anthem is ‘Ode to Joy’, the centrepiece of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. The system works very well and more countries are waiting to join the EU. Its success can be gauged by the rise of the euro against the US dollar and other currencies.

If a European Union is possible among former enemies who have fought numerous wars, why not an Asian Union? This is unlikely, at least at present, as Asia is ethnically, linguistically and culturally more diverse than Europe.

However, relatively minor groupings such as Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) are working quite well. Hopefully, South Asian nations will also come together in a more meaningful manner and solve their political disputes so that the ever-increasing defence expenditure can be reduced. This should be one of the principal aims of the new government that will emerge after the elections in Pakistan.

PAKISTANIS, their rulers in particular, may not like it but the fact is that their country is increasingly assuming in international discourse the form of the sick man of Asia.

And the homilies and warnings being delivered to Pakistan are similar to what was heaped on the Ottoman Empire which used to be described as the sick man of Europe in the days of its decay by its more powerful imperialist rivals.

Quite a few foreign commentators are warning of Pakistan’s balkanisation if timely action is not taken. As was noticed in the case of Turkey a century or so ago, the present attention on Pakistan cannot be considered altruistic. Some or most ‘Pakistan experts’ may have material interest in, or even plans to benefit from, Pakistan’s tribulations. But that is no reason to dismiss the debate abroad and repeat the mistakes of 1971 when all warnings of the drift towards disintegration of the country were scornfully pooh-poohed.

The most serious warning emanates from a reading of the strains on the bond between the federation and the federating units. These strains could become unbearable, it is argued, if the state is not restructured so as to regain the allegiance and trust of Balochistan, the Frontier and Sindh. Many within Pakistan will agree with this prognosis, and for obvious reasons.

It is in the nature of extra-constitutional rule that it generates in the three less populous provinces a demand for changes in the Constitution. The reason is that all extra-constitutional regimes in Pakistan have strengthened the centre’s stranglehold on the provinces and have not hesitated to alter the Constitution to secure this end. Thus, the demand for a new constitution after the collapse of the Ayub regime could not be resisted.

Yahya Khan realised he could not proceed at all without undoing two constitutional aberrations — the East-West parity design and the monstrosity that the One Unit was. Even then the need for a new framework for centre-province relations was the principal issue that the authors of the 1973 Constitution had to face. Ziaul Haq had to negotiate a cover for his constitutional amendments through the Eighth Amendment and Pervez Musharraf had to seek the protection of the Seventeenth Amendment. The demands for firmer constitutional guarantees for provincial rights after the 2008 election will, therefore, be harder and more substantial than ever.

It may not be possible to restore the federation to equilibrium without devising a new power division formula. By failing to honour the pledge to abolish the concurrent legislative list the centre has compelled the federating units to demand more and leave it with fewer subjects than they might have conceded 30 years ago.

They will not be fobbed off with the kind of rhetoric that has been used hitherto to resist their demands related to an equitable functioning of the National Finance Commission, the Council of Common Interest and the water-sharing mechanism. If the centre resists the demands of the federating units with the stubbornness demonstrated by the post-1999 regime, the threat to Pakistan’s integrity may become greater than what is indicated in the western media.

Unfortunately, the room for optimism is limited. A resurrection of the federation is not the only priority item on the national agenda. Among the other problems Pakistan faces, the more serious include the demand for the restoration of the judges felled on Nov 3, the revival of the parliamentary system, and a thorough revamping of the executive organ of the state.

The first two issues are related to the question of whether it would be possible for parliament to review the actions taken under the vacuous cover of ‘emergency’. So far, the regime has rejected all such possibilities. Richard Boucher of the US State Department and Nisar Memon of the caretaker outfit have tried to extinguish the question by warning of the National Assembly’s dissolution or a repetition of Nov 3, 2007. So much for the transition to democracy.

Incidentally, the observations made by both of them are not only unwarranted threats to all those who disagree with Gen (retd) Musharraf but also constitute an attempt to influence the voters in favour of the king’s party. The State Department is telling Pakistan voters that if they wish the next National Assembly to escape mortality in its infancy they should not support the candidates that are backing the judges under restraint.

As for the caretaker information minister’s harangue, the more sinister part is not the threat to the media but his insinuation that the parties hoping to win the forthcoming polls should be prepared to adjust themselves to the president. In other words, Pakistan will be governed by a strong president and the cabinet will serve during and for his pleasure. This is like pronouncing the next parliament dead before it is born.

The establishment’s present posture that nothing done between Nov 3 and Dec 15 is open to revision or even negotiation is a prescription for disaster via a perpetual confrontation between the state and a large section of the population. The upheaval caused by the Oath of Office (Judges) Order of Nov 3 apart, the changes made in the Constitution vide the Constitution (Amendment) Order of Nov 20 and the Order of Dec 15 cannot be put outside parliament’s right of review.

Even the media cannot function under the new restrictions placed on it through amendments to the Press and Newspapers Ordinance and the Pemra Ordinance, which put a ban on the publication or broadcast of any material “that defames, brings into ridicule or disrepute the head of state or members of the armed forces or executive, judicial or legislative organs of the state”. What is the media supposed to do besides castigating civil society?

At issue here is the massive curtailment of basic rights and civil liberties in the wake of the extra-constitutional steps of Nov 2007. When the International Crisis Group called for a change at the top, this was described as sedition by an official spokesperson. Suggestions by Europeans for recognising elementary democratic norms were shouted down as an obsession with notions that the Pakistani people did not deserve.

The judges under restraint can be detained without orders and Aitzaz Ahsan and Tariq Mehmood can be detained without indication of any crime they may have committed. Some of the lawyers’ demands for which these detentions are sought to be justified relate to the exercise of the most fundamental rights. To deny them means denying the democratic foundations of the state.One great harm resulting from the neglect of the federating units’ rights and resistance to any review of the emergency acts will be that it will not be possible to undertake the vitally-needed restructuring of the administration. That the colonial pattern of ruling the people through privileged and all-powerful bureaucrats cannot serve Pakistan’s needs of an efficient and people-friendly administration is now abundantly clear. This system must be replaced with one which invests communities with real power to manage their affairs. The so-called devolution and new police system need to be reviewed and the way cleared for a genuine transfer of power to people’s trustworthy representatives at all levels, local to the national.

This task which is the sole path to survival and regeneration will remain unaddressed so long as the people are obliged to continue fighting for an independent judiciary and a duly sovereign parliament.