Will Pakistan
be Pressured?
By Shahid Javed
Burki
How do policy
makers, columnists, and editorial writers in the
West - in particular the United States - view Pakistan's
political system in light of the inaugural address
by President George W. Bush? A quick consensus emerged
among most analysts that General Musharraf's political
system, notwithstanding his own description of it,
was not strictly seen as a democracy. In fact Pakistan
was being lumped together with some of the more
authoritarian regimes in the world. "When opposition
to tyranny has been at odds with security or economic
policy - in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia,
in Russia, in China - the Bush administration of
the past four years consistently chose to ignore
and excuse oppression," wrote The Washington Post
in an editorial that appeared a day after the speech.
Even President
Musharraf's domestic opponents would not call his
system or his style of governance "tyrannical" or
"oppressive" but that was the description used by
several analysts in America. If the Pakistani system
did not qualify as a democracy, should Washington,
following President Bush's pledge to bring freedom
and liberty to the world, work to change it? If
Pakistan is to be nudged towards a system that is
different from the one it has in place today, in
which direction should it be pushed? Or should Pakistan
be left alone to find its own way as long as it
continues to help the United States in its fight
against Islamic radicalism and international terrorism?
The Washington Post had an answer to these questions
which were echoed by a number of other commentators.
"Anyone judging
by Mr Bush's speech yesterday would have to conclude
that US policy towards those countries, and many
others, is on the verge of a historic change. If
not, his promise of the 'greatest achievements in
the history of freedom' will be remembered as grandiose
and hollow." This was a severe indictment for Pakistan
and an invitation to Washington to begin to adopt
policies that would bring about change in Islamabad.
It matters for Pakistan how it is viewed by opinion
makers and policymakers in the United States. There
is a great deal at stake in Islamabad's relations
with Washington. What is at issue is not simply
how much economic and military assistance America
will be prepared to provide Pakistan as the latter
struggles to revive its economy and place it on
a path of sustainable growth and development for
years to come. How America looks at Pakistan will
also determine Islamabad's relations with a number
of counties, and most definitely with India.
A good working
relationship with the United States will give Pakistan
the confidence to work out its differences with
its large neighbor. The United States has much greater
leverage in both India and Pakistan when it is seen
to be even handed; a tilt in one direction or the
other can have a significant impact on how Delhi
and Islamabad shape their relations with each other
and with the rest of the world. It was the United
States' mild hostility towards Pakistan in the 1990s
that was a factor in Islamabad's decision to support
the Taliban in Afghanistan. Insecurity can always
lead to irrational behavior although to the architects
of that particular policy it seemed like an appropriate
response. In analyzing how America's stance towards
the world would change if President Bush and his
team were serious in pursuing their "freedom and
liberty" agenda in their foreign policy dealings,
questions were most often asked about Washington's
relations with China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
It was recognized
that there was a great deal of difference in the
political systems that operated in these countries.
Under Russian president Vladimir Putin, the country
seemed to be veering towards authoritarianism. He
placed curbs on the media, harassed large businessmen,
abandoned the system of elections for choosing provincial
governors, and became more aggressive in projecting
the Russian influence over what Moscow called the
"near abroad". President Putin was resentful of
the way the West had influenced the electoral process
in Ukraine. He ultimately - but very reluctantly
- accepted Victor Yushchenko as the duly elected
president of Ukraine and allowed him to take office
on January 23, 2005.
Notwithstanding
this change of heart, the Russian president was
not pleased with what happened as a result of the
"silent revolution" in which a very large number
of citizens had simply refused to accept the results
of the previous election that was widely regarded
to have been rigged. It was well known that the
Americans in particular but also the Europeans had
provided money, help and training to the grassroots
organizations that had used "peoples power" to persuade
the outgoing president Leonid Kuchma to agree to
another poll. There was much rejoicing in liberal
circles that a quite revolution rather than military
confrontation had brought about change in Ukraine
and moved that country towards democracy.
Even President
Bush paid an oblique tribute to this development
when he said in his inaugural address that "it is
the policy of the United States to seek and support
the growth of democratic movements and institutions
in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny in our world". China also presented
a problem in pursuing what some analysts had begun
to call the Bush doctrine. The Communist Party continued
to control the state with an iron hand. It was not
prepared to allow a great deal of freedom to the
media and had no hesitation in suppressing the news
that was regarded as inimical to its security concerns.
Chinese have long memories. They were mindful of
the fact that it was the outpouring of affection
for Hu Yaobang, once the party secretary-general,
at his funeral that led to the Tiananmen Square
incident in June 1989.
When Zhao Ziyang
died in January 2005, after remaining in house arrest
for 16 years, the Chinese feared that his death
could once again galvanize the Chinese youth and
get them to demand an opening up of the political
system. Should Washington encourage such a movement
as it had done in Ukraine when it had become so
dependent on the Chinese economy for its own economic
health and when the Chinese had been fully cooperative
in Washington's war against international terrorism?
Egypt also posed a serious dilemma. It was the second
largest recipient of American aid; under the long-serving
President Hosni Mubarak, it had walked a fine line
in the dispute over territory between the Palestinians
and the Israelis. Washington regarded Egypt's voice
to be the more moderate one in the Arab world. But
there was a problem. Muhammad Ata, the mastermind
of the September 11 attacks on the United States,
was an Egyptian who was deeply resentful of the
authoritarian ways of the Mubarak regime.
President Bush
seemed to be speaking for people such as Ata when
he said that "America will not pretend … that any
human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by
making clear that success in our relations will
require the decent treatment of their own people".
Will Washington follow through these words with
actions that resulted in persuading the Egyptian
president to think again before presenting himself
at the head of another ticket in the next presidential
elections? Would the United States be ready to aid
civil society in Egypt as it did in Ukraine to open
up the system? Or, conversely, would Egypt's usefulness
to the United States in its approach towards the
Middle East override this ringing cry for freedom?
The Bush doctrine about promoting freedom and liberty
was put to an early test within a couple of weeks
of the inaugural address. On January 31, the Egyptian
authorities apprehended Ayman Nour, the leader of
a new opposition party - the Tomorrow Party - that
had called for the establishment of liberal democracy
in that country.
Nour was roughed
up by the security forces and sentenced to 45 days
in prison on a charge of forgery. "In standing for
Mr Nour, Mr Bush would be supporting homegrown constitutional
reform aimed at the creation of a parliamentary
system of government, to be chosen in a fully democratic
election," declared The Washington Post in yet another
editorial. Saudi Arabia, another country that practiced
politics very different from the one President Bush
was advancing as a cause for the entire world, was
closely allied to the United States. It was one
of the main suppliers of oil to America, and was
in some ways the major presence in the Muslim world.
It had also joined the American war on terrorism.
But then there was considerable restiveness in the
Kingdom as people - in particular women - wished
for greater participation in political processes
and in the country's economic life. Saudi Arabia
also had a poor human rights record and its legal
system with public beheadings of those convicted
sometimes of petty crimes did not suggest a rapid
march towards modernity.
At the same
time, the Saudi government had used its enormous
resources to promote the orthodox version of Islam
that it practiced, not only to such other Muslim
countries as Pakistan, but also to Muslim communities
in America and Europe. Did the Bush doctrine apply
to the kingdom? How should President Musharraf respond
to this challenge? His style of governance is widely
misunderstood among the liberals in the United States.
It is a stretch to include Pakistan with Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, China and Russia as a country that
has gone completely off the democratic track. It
is necessary for Islamabad to do a better job of
explaining what it is doing in the field of political
development. Democracy cannot be imposed from the
outside; it cannot suddenly take root. Even the
outpouring of enthusiasm by the Iraqis for the polls
conducted on January 30 is not going to usher in
democracy in that unfortunate land.
It will take
patience and perseverance. Institutions that must
be in place before democracy can flourish take time
to develop. This is also the lesson of Pakistan's
experience. Elections did not produce democratic
governments in the country. Pakistanis went to the
polls four times between 1988 and 1997 and each
time they chose a government that, in terms of quality
of governance it provided, was worse than the one
before. The assemblies, political parties and the
judicial system were not able to constrain the wayward
behavior of self-absorbed politicians. This brings
me back to the example of Ukraine. If America and
its president are really interested in promoting
democracy in the world they should work with the
institutions and civil society to cultivate behavior
that would promote democracy. That is precisely
what was done in Ukraine. Islamabad should welcome
assistance in developing a democratic culture in
the country. That would be a real contribution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
