The way to a graceful exit

ALMOST all sections of the population have welcomed the reform and relief package that Prime Minister Gilani announced last Saturday. His ability to retain the people’s goodwill will depend on how soon and how effectively his good intentions can be put into effect. While some of his ideas can be implemented quite easily, some others will require extremely deft piloting.

For instance, student unions can be revived by speedily enacting a law on the subject. IRO 2002 can also be repealed, or preferably amended, by a simple act of parliament. Likewise, the Pemra (Amendment) Ordinance of Nov 3, 2007 and perhaps the press law too can be extinguished through ordinary legislation.

The repeal or amendment of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) is perhaps the easiest of the new prime ministers’ undertakings because not even ordinary legislation by parliament is required. The FCR can be amended, replaced, repealed by an order of the president on the prime minister’s advice. The president’s responsibility as the sole authority for Fata (Article 247 of the constitution) is governed by Article 48, which obliges the president to act on the prime ministers’/cabinet’s advice. He can, however, delay his action by asking the prime minister to reconsider his advice.

Still, the possibility of a difference of opinion on the FCR between the premier and the president cannot by ruled out. Considering President Musharraf’s arguably rigid views on the war against quasi-religious militants in Fata and his fondness for extra-legal measures in dealing with terrorism, he may not be willing to deprive the executive of the extraordinary powers the FCR grants it. Thus the FCR reform will demand accord between the government and the president.

A little more problematic could be Mr Gilani’s plan to rationalise the National Accountability Bureau’s working. The 1999 ordinance is included in the Sixth Schedule to the constitution and it cannot be “altered, repealed or amended, expressly or impliedly, without the previous sanction of the president accorded after consultation with the prime minister”. The condition of consultation with the prime minister was added vide the 17th Amendment. Before that the president was bound to follow the prime minister’s advice. After this amendment he is not because, thanks to the LFO of 2002 and the 17th Amendment of 2003, “consultation shall, save in respect of appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, mean discussion and deliberation which shall not be binding on the president”.

As such the prime minister’s views on the NAB law shall not be binding on the president. President Musharraf may, in the interest of extending his tenure, agree to go along with the soft-spoken Syed from the Seraiki land but for a price.

The ‘consultation’ condition will dog the prime minister’s steps in other areas too. The Qualification to Hold Public Offices Order, under which nobody can become prime minister /chief minister for the third time, is also in the Sixth Schedule and can be tinkered with only with the president’s permission.

Had Ms Benazir Bhutto not been liquidated, this question would have arisen before the new National Assembly met to elect the prime minister. The only other victim of this irrational concoction, Mian Nawaz Sharif, may or may not wish this matter to be taken up immediately but it may become unavoidable before long.

A question that should arise soon relates to the appointment of new governors. The importance of the relevant constitutional provision (Article 101) can be gauged from the fact that almost each regime has tampered with it. A governor is now appointed by the president after consultation with the prime minister.

The points raised here are only a sample of the mess authoritarian rulers have created by riding freely across the constitutional landscape. The new government faces a daunting task of reviving the parliamentary system as the constitution has been thoroughly subverted by encasing it within the mould of a presidential/autocratic form of government.

While the issue of substantive constitutional amendments may have to wait for some time, the immediate issue is whether the prime minister will seek an issue-to-issue “working relationship with the president” or whether the latter will extend his cooperation to the elected government on a case-to-case basis. Either way the state will not be able to settle down to stable, democratic governance.

The only way out of the problem is that President Musharraf should realise it is time for him to gracefully call it a day. There is no point in quibbling about his having been elected, or what will happen to Pakistan without him, or all the nice things he says he has done for the ungrateful rabble. An important political axiom requires all public figures, however popular and whatever their record of service, to bow to public verdict.

The people of Pakistan gave their verdict on Feb 18. It was not a verdict against the establishment’s frontmen, it was first and foremost against the regime President Musharraf had made the mistake of identifying with himself and himself alone.

More often than not Pakistan has had heads of state who refused to function as non-partisan, nominal figures. The two exceptions were Khawaja Nazimuddin and Chaudhry Fazal Ilahi. The latter was so harmless that he was allowed to complete his term as Gen Zia’s guest. All others, from Malik Ghulam Mohammad to General Musharraf, distinguished themselves by preferring their opinion, or interest, to the elected government’s right to rule.

President Musharraf, in particular, insisted on ‘unity of command’ and took personal credit for everything done in, or to, Pakistan for the past eight years. He must show a due sense of responsibility and now accept the bill. He is expected to affirm that while he may not agree with the people’s verdict, he is prepared to respect it with a view to clearing the way for the new experiment in establishing democratic governance. This will be good for him and good for the country.

Pakistan’s external patrons, some of whom apparently care only for the success of their war on terror and bother little about the country’s integrity, do not have to worry about life without President Musharraf. Pakistan cannot afford to live forever in the shadow of strong, supposedly infallible persons. Sooner or later this country must learn to live by its people’s collective wisdom, and the present is an opportune time. Such a moment may not come again for a long time.

The West’s concern at the danger of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into militants’ or other undesirable hands does deserve serious attention. Pakistan will lose nothing by destroying these useless toys but pending the dawn of sanity one should be content with the assurance that the nuclear arsenal is safe in the hands of the defence forces and their chain of control is effective and efficient.

Some observers unnecessarily raise the spectre of the army’s unhappiness at the idea of President Musharraf’s departure from the presidency. This amounts to a presumption against the army high command’s ability, which is becoming apparent day by day, to disown responsibility for the debris of a failed experiment in autocratic rule. The defence forces know better than that.

Expectations from the government

DESPITE the bombings, the price hike, the darkness descending from time to time in the cities hit by power outages and loadshedding, the mood in Pakistan is euphoric. There is an elected parliament and a civilian prime minister not chosen by the army after a long time.

So what is expected from the present government? The answer must be with reference to the expectations of the people.

Let us first look at the circumstances in which elections were held. Since 1999 a military dictator has been ruling the country in the name of constitutional institutions. He created a parliament in 2002 which was a rubber-stamp institution. It had a prime minister who could he changed by the president as if he were a private servant. This parliament took no major decision, discussed no important issue, passed some important laws — but only when the military ruler cleared them first. The ministers did not know what was happening and took no major decisions on their own.

One hopes that the wishes of the electorate will be fulfilled rather than that of the establishment. And what are these wishes? For the common people, cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap housing and justice. For the middle and upper-middle classes the immediate demand is for the independence of the judiciary after reinstating the judges who were removed under the PCO.

And, of course, everyone wants the bomb explosions which claim innocent lives every other day to stop. This is like living in the middle of a battlefield and the fighting has to be stopped forthwith. Also, everybody wants good governance which includes the provision of power, giving jobs to suitably qualified candidates and other similar measures.

How can the government do this? It can only do this by seizing the initiative and asserting itself to make itself sovereign. The restoration of the judiciary is the initial first step but there is a lot more to be done. For instance, as long as the president can dismiss parliament it is not sovereign nor is the civilian prime minister in real control. Therefore, these powers of dismissal — Article 58-2(b) — must be done away with.

Also, as long as there is a National Security Council that includes the chiefs of the armed forces the principle of civilian supremacy cannot be ensured. Members of parliament must not take these things lying down. No matter which political party they belong to — treasury or opposition — they must ensure their own sovereignty, their political power and, indeed, their survival.

During the 1990s, as we can see, two characteristics made civilian governments subservient to the establishment (which meant the president, chief of the army staff and the intelligence agencies). First, the president’s power to dismiss the prime minister and the National Assembly. And, second, the army chief’s power to control or manipulate the civilian rulers.

This was possible through the so-called troika: COAS, president and prime minister, in that order. This illegal, unconstitutional ‘troika’ has to be transcended in order to create parliamentary democracy. And now that it has been given a legal cover by Gen Musharraf, the parliament must see to it that it is reversed.

Pakistan is faced by a number of threats. First, there is the militancy in the name of Islam; second, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor; and, third, that of the increasing breakdown in law and order.

All three are connected with the policies of the establishment. Gen Zia allowed the Americans to make us fight their war in Afghanistan. Then the military and intelligence agencies used Islamic militants to fight in Kashmir. In addition to that the same fighters indulged in sectarian killings. Later, Gen Musharraf reversed this policy — belatedly — but took no action against militants in the Lal Masjid or Swat or Waziristan. Indeed, because of the India-centredness of our policies we banked on the militants to fight our proxy wars and to create ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan.

What we need to understand is that we face threats from within our borders more than any external threats. Thus the previous policies need to be fully reversed, and if there are people in the establishment somewhere who still favour the old policies then they must be persuaded to change their orientation.

Moreover, it is time that the ongoing ‘war on terror’ is seen as Gen Musharraf’s decision and not that of the previous cabinet or the parliament. Whatever decision the present government takes must be seen as our own decision and not an American order. The new government can begin with peace and, if that fails, they can crack down on the fighters later. But if it has to be a war, it must be our battle and not an American proxy war.

The ruling elite must also regulate the distribution of wealth. Salaries of lakhs of rupees on the one end and near starvation at the other is completely unjust and must end. If members of the government are austere, people will accept the loadshedding and high prices. But if they see huge cars go whistling by them they may rise in revolt and that would be terrible for democracy in this country.

The people generally expect good governance. Members of parliament have been developing their constituencies in all governments but this has generally been seen as a means of giving jobs and constructing roads. This is not enough. We need big decisions and pro-poor policies not like those of the previous government which might have brought dollars to the banks but pauperised the poor. What is needed is a concerted effort to make major policy decisions. Such things have been done — the creation of IPPs, the motorway, etc — and may be done again.

Similarly, the law must be easily available and nobody should be above it. If members of parliament in their individual capacity act according to the law (i.e. claim no undue advantage over ordinary citizens), if they do not interfere with the police or with the bureaucracy, then respect for the law will improve. But this is only the beginning.

The real challenge is to make the police an efficient force. And if this is done there will be investment. There will be more wealth and parliament will be strengthened. People will gain faith in civilian rulers, in democracy, and slowly the Bonapartist tendencies in the army top brass will be curbed. The future of civilian, parliamentary democracy may then be assured.

That is the ideal. That is the dream. Let us hope we live to see it come true.

Who to blame: faith or mental illness?

TWO articles published in these pages made some observations about suicide bombers. In one Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (March 9) argued that human rights activists and religious scholars are hesitant to condemn suicide bombing because of its association with Islam. He added, “As the mullah’s indoctrination gains strength, the power to reason weakens.”

He further said, “For them [Americans] it [operating lethal drones] is a way to defend their country. What is harder to understand is how the Pakistani suicide bomber can kill people who are so close to him in so many ways.”

Dr Amin Gadit (Feb 26) explained the phenomenon in these words: “A disturbed neurochemistry of the brain cannot be ruled out either, as a number of them are either depressed or have suffered from depression.”

The history of ‘homicide by suicide’ shows that ever since two Jewish revolutionary groups were associated with this sort of activity in the period 4 BC to 70 AD, suicide bombing has been used as a war strategy by the Germans, Japanese kamikazes, the Palestinians and the Sri Lankans. Since the first suicide bombing took place on Nov 6, 2002 in Pakistan, nearly 2,000 people have died as a result of this form of violence. Suicide bombings can only be understood in reference to the context of individual cases.

As psychiatrists we will restrict ourselves to a psychological examination of this phenomenon. In a word, what prompts suicide bombers to destroy themselves while killing others?

One explanation lies in group dynamics which is one of the most powerful elements in terms of shaping a person’s behaviour. It provides him strong motivation, a source of support, a sense of belonging, a unique lifestyle and gives meaning to life. Pushing groups against the wall increases their cohesiveness and reinforces their determination to survive. The greater the oppression, the more powerful is the resistance. As such, use of disproportionate force does not work as the IRA and Hezbollah have demonstrated.

Another factor to which this phenomenon may be attributed is the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This suggests that frustration develops when a person is prevented from achieving his goals or needs, giving rise to feelings of rage and hopelessness. This leads to the belief that there is ‘no other option’. Feelings of revenge take over, prompting a person to join a group that shares these sentiments.

There could be yet another factor at work, namely the behaviourist model that believes that we learn behaviour, sometimes by mere association and at other times by the consequences of our behaviour. Such behaviour is sustained by positive reinforcement in the form of widespread support, appreciation and religiously defined rewards in eternal life as well as the perceived glory of military victory. Widespread condemnation could, conversely, work to discourage such behaviour.

One cannot overlook the dichotomous style of thinking that characterises the approach of many people in our society. For them there are only two sides to a situation: right or wrong. The wrong must be eliminated. It has been argued that the mindset of suicide bombers is dichotomous. Their mental state is therefore pathological; i.e. they are mentally ill. But dichotomous thinking is apparent in many of our leaders as well. They are, however, not perceived to be mentally ill.

No one has looked into the mental state of suicide bombers prior to their death. If these bombers are suicidal secondary to depression, their depression must be of a severe nature. Can a person depressed to this degree attempt such precise, complicated and highly motivated manoeuvres and carry them out with utmost precision? We should differentiate between the patients who take their lives because they want to die and those who want to kill themselves to take other peoples’ lives.

There is hardly any evidence to suggest that these people suffer from depression. Are we not increasing the stigma of psychiatric patients by labelling suicide bombers as depressive?

What determines the behaviour of such groups’ members is the absence of individuality and moral considerations. Obeying the leader even when his commands are unjust, illogical and fatal for the person and lethal for others is a well-known process of group dynamics. It can happen in the name of religion, faith, unity of command, defence of the motherland or honour. We must condemn the act of suicide bombing in our context. Nevertheless, mere condemnation will not stop these acts.

Until we are willing to know what pushes a person this far, and are determined to relieve his grievances, such sad but brutal acts are likely to continue. Calling the suicide bomber mentally ill or only motivated by religion is perhaps an oversimplification and complicates matters. Unfortunately, we are constantly providing suicide bombers the required ‘ammunition’ with our firm and uncompromised commitment to the war against terror. We are increasing their belief that there is no alternative.

Black-and-white thinking not only explains the actions of those who kill themselves to kill others. It also manifests itself in the thinking of those who oppose them.

The writers are consultant psychiatrists.

naim.siddiqi@hotmail.com