Authoritarian rule and democracy

ONE bitter truth confronts us today on the 59th anniversary of our existence as an independent nation: in terms of democratic evolution, Pakistan today is where it was in 1953. That year rankles in memory, for in 1953 Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad took a decision whose ramifications are still with us. He not only dismissed the Nazimuddin ministry (followed by the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly the next year), he involved the army in politics by making army chief Gen. Ayub Khan a defence minister in the reconstituted cabinet formed by Mohammad Ali Bogra. This marked the starting point for the army’s repeated interventions in politics and the gradual depoliticisation of civil society. Once in the cabinet, Ayub developed his own ideas about the ruler and the system the country needed. In October 1958, in collaboration with Gen. Iskander Mirza, the first indirectly elected president, Ayub seized power, abrogated the 1956 Constitution and dissolved the National Assembly. Twenty days later he parted company with Mirza, exiled him to London and became absolute ruler.

This was the first full-fledged military takeover, which also set a precedent for other Bonapartists to intervene in politics and give “systems” to the people. Doing away with the parliamentary form of government, with which the people of the subcontinent had been familiar in varying degrees, Ayub made a new constitution that was presidential in character and provided for indirect elections to the office of the head of state and the national and provincial legislatures. Ayub was not all evil. He did some good things, which included the abolition of the jagirdari system and the introduction of some form of land reforms (though the implementation of the reform laws left much to be desired), the signing of the Indus basin water treaty with India and the beginning of the country’s industrialisation. But the problem lay with the system, for it collapsed when he was out of power basically because it did not have the people’s confidence. Even though Ayub said he wanted to create a durable system which the people could understand and which was suited to their genius, the fact was that when he resigned in 1969 following countrywide agitation, his system collapsed because he handed over power to army chief Yahya Khan, who abrogated the 1962 Constitution.

Gen. Ziaul Haq, who seized power following the PNA movement against vote rigging by the PPP government, overthrew Z.A. Bhutto’s elected government. This he did precisely when the government and the opposition were on the verge of clinching an agreement on fresh elections. Zia adopted an Islamic posture in his public speeches, promised to hold elections within 90 days, but went on to hang Bhutto and rule for 11 years as a military ruler while remaining army chief. In spite of his best efforts, Zia could not do away with the 1973 Constitution because it was enacted by the people’s representatives. Nevertheless, to ensure unabashed personal rule, Zia disfigured the basic law’s parliamentary character and introduced a new clause (58-2b) that allowed him to sack an elected prime minister and dissolve the assembly. So jealously did he guard his absolute power that he sacked his own protege, Mohammad Khan Junejo, dissolved the assembly and again violated the Constitution by giving an election date which was beyond the 90-day limit provided for in the Basic Law. In the putsch and 11 years of tyranny, Zia found some willing collaborators among politicians. They collaborated with him in the judicial murder of the country’s first elected prime minister, took part in partyless elections and helped Zia draft the draconian laws which are still with us.

Eighteen years after Zia’s death, things do not seem to have changed much. Like Zia, Gen Musharraf is ruling us as both head of state and army chief, the 1973 Constitution has once again been mauled and the infamous Article 58-2b, which had been repealed by the political government, been revived. On top of that, there is a national Security Council which the general-president heads, thus completely subordinating the elected prime minister to the whims of the military. More regrettably, as with Zia, some politicians are collaborating with Gen. Musharraf.

The future appears murky, because it is not clear when, if at all, President Musharraf will shed his uniform. The guidelines of a political system for this nation were laid down by Jinnah when he made it clear on several occasions before and after independence that Pakistan would be a democracy in the sense the word is understood the world over. The “systems” given by the Bonapartists have failed to give Pakistan stability, because the people had no share in their crafting. If we are not to suffer the consequences of the mistakes that our leaders continue to make — and this is a tall order — there is no other way out except that this country must have unadulterated democracy. There is no room for the military’s role in politics. The elections due next year will be a test of the military’s sincerity not only to democracy but to Pakistan itself. They must be truly transparent, with an even playing field for all political parties, and they must be organized under a caretaker set-up with a truly independent election commission ensuring honest polling and counting. As for President Musharraf’s own future, he has no choice but to give up his uniform and enter politics as a civilian if he thinks he has a chance after the expiry of the mandatory period before a government servant can take part in elections.

UN resolution on Lebanon

QATAR’s foreign minister is right when he says that Resolution 1701, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on Friday, contains “imbalances in favour of Israel”, but to expect anything else would be unrealistic. Israel’s staunchest supporter is the world’s sole superpower, and as such a discriminatory tilt in Tel Aviv’s favour, however morally wrong, was inevitable. While it falls short of the ideal, the resolution offers the first glimmer of hope for an end to hostilities in Lebanon, where the civilian death toll during the month-long Israeli offensive is estimated at over a thousand. Israel too has suffered civilian casualties. The priority at this stage is to stop the bloodshed and if semantical twists and turns can help achieve that end, it should be accepted.

It will be up to Israel’s patrons to ensure that Tel Aviv does not exploit the face-saving exit devised for it at the UN. For instance, the resolution calls for the “immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks” and an immediate end to “all offensive military operations” by Israel. This is a major grey area given Israel’s insistence that its actions in Lebanon, as well as in Gaza, are inherently defensive in nature. So, in theory, it could continue bombing Lebanon without being held guilty of “offensive” military strikes. The resolution also fails to demand Israel’s immediate withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Instead, it calls on Israel to withdraw its troops when the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) and the Lebanese army begin their deployment. In short, there is no clear-cut time frame for an Israeli pull-out or a ceasefire. The resolution also overlooks the antecedents of the Middle East crisis when it expresses its “utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah’s attack on Israel on July 12, 2006”. It is expected that the Israeli government, which is scheduled to discuss the issue on Sunday, will accept the resolution because it is now clear to Tel Aviv that it cannot win this war. At the same time, it is incumbent on Hezbollah — which is a military and political force and not a terrorist organisation — to show greater restraint and responsibility. Its enemies are looking for excuses. Provoking them helps no one in the Muslim world.

A certain amount of light

ON July 26, 1953, Fidel Castro Ruz, along with an armed group of 123 men and women, attacked the Moncada army barracks in Santiago de Cuba in Guatanamo province.

The plan was to overthrow General Fulgencia Batista who, with the support of the armed forces, had forcibly taken control of Cuba in 1952. Fidel had intended to continue the struggle in the mountains in case the attack on the barracks failed. Some of the men were killed in the first attack; others surrendered.

With 18 men and what arms and ammunition were left, Fidel retreated into the mountains. The terrain was completely unknown to the guerillas. For a week they held the heights of the Gran Piedra range and the army occupied the foothills. Fidel and his men could not come down; the army didn’t risk coming up.

It was not force of arms, but hunger and thirst that ultimately overcame the rebel’s resistance. Fidel divided the men into smaller groups. Some of them managed to slip through the army lines; others surrendered. Finally, only two comrades remained with Fidel. While the three men slept, totally exhausted, a force led by Lt Sarria surprised them at dawn. Fidel recalled that “this was Saturday, August 1st...This officer, a man of honour, saved us from being murdered on the spot with our hands tied behind us...”

The lieutenant who arrested Fidel ignored orders to have him executed and instead delivered him to the nearest civilian prison. In prison Fidel came close to death when his food was meant to have been poisoned. The captain entrusted with this task refused and instead revealed his orders to the Cuban people. He was court-martialled but, concerned about world opinion, Batista decided not to have Fidel killed. Instead, Fidel was put on trial charged with organising an armed uprising.

Isolated and denied right to an attorney, Fidel prepared his own defence and spoke about the tyranny and injustice of dictatorial rule, testifying that “...only one who has been so deeply wounded, who has seen his country so forsaken and its justice trampled so, can speak at a moment like this with words that spring from the blood of his heart and the truth of his very gut...The fact is, when men carry the same ideals in their hearts, nothing can isolate them — neither prison walls nor the sod of cemeteries. For a single memory, a single spirit, a single idea, a single conscience, a single dignity will sustain them all...” Fidel’s defence in court did not absolve him of the charges of armed insurrection. Instead, it earned him 15 years in prison, and infinite respect as a man of deep commitment and integrity, a man with a vision and a purpose which could not be thwarted by tyranny. Fidel’s speech has been immortalised as a publication titled History will absolve me, and today he stands tall as a man who has resisted despotism of all kinds, enduring the wrath of the world’s mightiest power which has attempted to assassinate him over six hundred times.

What makes Fidel the man he is? What compels men and women all over the world to stand up for what they believe are their ideals of a just world, facing military might, facing the possibility of death or exile or incarceration? What are those ideals for which men and women have shed their blood which seeps into the crevices of a fractured world, nurturing yet more rebellion again oppression, dictatorship and the injustice of totalitarianism?

Fidel Castro Ruz was born on August 13, 1926 to a prosperous farmer and a servant, on a sugar plantation in the province of Holgumn. Even as a child, Fidel was rebellious and at the age of 13 he helped organize a strike of sugar workers on his father’s plantation. Fidel received a rigorous and disciplined Jesuit education and in 1950 graduated from Havana University with a doctorate in law.

As a young lawyer, Fidel took cases for those who could not afford to pay for justice. It is possibly here that he came across the desperation and despair which stalked his country. In 1947 Fidel joined the Cuban People’s Party, believing in this new party’s campaign against corruption, injustice, poverty, unemployment and low wages. The party accused government ministers of taking bribes and running the country for the benefit of the large American corporations that had factories and offices in Cuba.

In 1952 Fidel Castro became a candidate for Congress for the Cuban People’s Party. He was a superb public speaker and soon built up a strong following among the young members of the party. The Cuban People’s Party was expected to win but during the campaign General Batista usurped power, compelling Fidel to believe that the revolution was the only way to take power to the people.

Following his trial and imprisonment in 1953, pressure from the people compelled Batista to release Fidel after he had served only two years of his sentence. Batista also promised elections but when it became clear that they would not take place, Fidel left for Mexico where he began to plan another attempt to overthrow the Cuban government.

After building up a stock of guns and ammunition, Fidel, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and 80 other rebels arrived in Cuba in 1956. This group became known as the July 26 Movement. With only 300 men ready to face ten thousand soldiers, the group planned to set up their base in the Sierra Maestra mountains. Despite fierce fighting which diminished Fidel’s forces to only 16 men and 12 guns, the guerillas took control of territory and redistributed the land among the peasants. In return, the peasants helped the guerillas against Batista’s soldiers. In some cases the peasants also joined Fidel’s army, as did students from the cities and occasionally Catholic priests.

Batista’s need for information about Fidel’s army people led to the torture and deaths of innocent people who were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others, ironically increasing support for the guerrillas. In 1958, 45 organisations signed an open letter supporting the July 26 movement. National bodies representing lawyers, architects, dentists, accountants and social workers were amongst those who signed. Fidel, who had originally relied on the support of the poor, was now gaining the backing of the influential middle classes.

Seeing its interests threatened, the United States supplied Batista with planes, ships and tanks, and the latest technology such as napalm. In March 1958, the US government, disillusioned with Batista’s performance, suggested he held elections. This he did, but the people showed their dissatisfaction with his government by refusing to vote. Over 75 per cent of the voters in the capital Havana and 98 per cent in Santiago boycotted the polls.

On January 1, 1959, General Batista fled Cuba and Fidel Castro marched victoriously into Havana, taking control over the country. In 1960, Cuba’s private commerce and industry were nationalised and US businesses expropriated, leading to the severing of America’s economic and diplomatic ties with Cuba. In April 1961 Cuba was declared the first communist state in the western hemisphere, uncomfortably close to mainland USA. This small island proved to be a thorn in the side of the greatest capitalist economy of the world, and in order to protect itself, Cuba began acquiring weapons from the Soviet Union, leading to the October 1962 missile crisis.

For almost half a century, Fidel has struggled to give to the Cuban people what he believes are their inalienable rights to basic services, health and education, employment, ownership of and access to land and justice, and a sense of well-being and dignity. Reviled, attacked, scorned and feared by the leaders of the so-called Free World, Fidel has remained steadfast, lifting millions of Cubans out of poverty and a state of inhuman subjugation.

Today Cuba has perhaps one of the most effective healthcare systems in the world with 6.2 per cent of the GDP going into public sector health expenditure, an average spending of $229 per capita. Cuba has 596 physicians per 100,000 people, while 95-100 per cent of the population has access to affordable essential drugs.

Ninetynine per cent of all children under the age of one are immunised against tuberculosis and measles, and only four per cent below the age of five years are underweight. Over 90 per cent of the people have access to improved water sources and sanitation. The life expectancy of Cubans is 76 years, with Cuban women living longer then men. Only seven infants die out of a total of 100,000 live births.

Achieving 96 per cent literacy, Cubans can boast of a 99.8 per cent youth literacy rate, a primary enrolment ratio of 96 per cent, and a secondary enrolment ratio of 83 per cent.

These are the best human development indicators in all of Latin America. Compare these statistics to those of our own country which is purported to be well onto the path of progress, bolstered by neo-liberal economic blueprints and a liberal dose of an undefined ingredient called ‘enlightened moderation.’ In Pakistan, 38 per cent of all children are underweight, with 83 infants dying out of 100,000 live births.

The life expectancy of Pakistanis is said to be 61 years, with only 68 doctors per 100,000 people. Pakistan spends one per cent of its GDP on healthcare, an $85 per capita expenditure. On the Human Poverty Index, Pakistan ranks 71 while Cuba is considered to be amongst the most developed countries of the world with a ranking of five.

Fifty three years ago, Fidel Castro defended himself in the Moncada trial. Today his words are a beacon of that light needed to lift ourselves out of the web of deceit and inequity, out of the “dark corners of the world”:

The writer is a former UN ambassador of goodwill.