March 27, 2009

Umpires or Vampires?

 

When President Ayub Khan, during the spring of 1969, quit the national stage, it set into motion a process that included: the December 1970 general elections – the fairest in Pakistan’s history, the emergence of Bhutto and Mujib, the flaring up of secessionist sentiments in the eastern wing, the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Dacca debacle, and the vivisection of united Pakistan.

Forty years later, in 2009, despite justifiable jubilation over the events of mid-March, the threat to the federation is no less dire. It includes, but is not limited to, political immaturity, the military stymied in combating domestic insurgencies, and an eroding government writ.

The veneer of democracy appears, in effect, as a paint job to cover up dynasty. Political tussles, therefore, tend to center on which family gets to grab the biggest slice of the cake of power. They collude when it suits them and collide when it does not. And when there is an overreach, a national crisis erupts.

Is this pattern inevitable? No. For a man-made problem, there is a man-made solution. There has to be an honest acknowledgement that the existing set-up has failed to deliver the goods. It rewards swindlers and ensures a monopoly of means and genes. Also, it deepens the frustration of the bypassed sectors of society on the lack of opportunity and fair process.

When the keys to the kingdom are handed over, not to upright umpires, but to vampires, then the consequences are predictable. Ironically, those who accept bad captaincy still expect excellent results.

The existing set-up won’t work because it can’t. It stumbles from one crisis to another with the issues of common good and governance remaining neglected.

In the United States, the unanimous opinion of historians is that Abraham Lincoln, the 16 th President, was America’s best-ever. The reason: Lincoln realized that slavery could not co-exist side-by-side with the new nation and its side effects could consume all of America. Hence, he was willing to fight and, in doing so, saved the Union even at the cost of his own life in April 1865.

In its present format, the parties, players, and policies are unhelpful to Pakistan’s solidarity. Personalities thrive while people barely survive.

Merged with the March upheaval were popular grievances running neck-to-neck with the drive of the legal community and civil society for judicial integrity and rule of law. Further momentum was derived from the fact that, in the public domain, the person supposedly heading the federation seemed to lack the credibility, integrity, and ability to get the job done.

The whole turmoil reinforces the argument that the façade of democracy – without its substance – is an unworkable luxury incompatible with the foremost priority of nation-building. The endless parade of collapsing rulers is compelling evidence that the routine approach of running the government is inherently programmed for self-inflicted wounds.

Despite a state of national disagreement over key issues, there is yet a profound consensus across the political spectrum: that the current set-up is dysfunctional.

The crux of the problem is that the socio-political culture is corrupted and hijacked by the overwhelming grip of big money. And the key to any remedy would be to loosen its grip. This would be a true test of revolutionary vision and moral backbone.