People Must Enjoy the Freedom That the Constitution Provides
By Misbah Azam, PhD
Phoenix AZ
Gen. (Retd.) Musharraf and his supporters are time and again telling the Western media that democracy and human rights issues in Pakistan should be seen from “Pakistan’s” perspective instead of the way the West looks at them. Humayoon Gauhar appeared on a foreign news agency the day Gen. (rtd) Musharraf took oath as the President and argued that we should take the example of China where the government controls everything and slowly they will move to democracy. This comparison is flawed in principle, because of the obvious cultural, historical and political dissimilarities between Pakistan and China. However, Pakistan should be compared with India , where the social, cultural and political dynamics are very similar to Pakistan.
All autocrats before Musharraf tried to come up with similar excuses to engineer a “Pakistan-style” democratic system and history tells us that their machinations never worked. The dictators in Muslim countries and some pedantic columnists always argue that democracy is country-specific; it cannot function because of corrupt politicians and it can only function if the country’s per capita income rises above some level.
The ground reality, however, is very different. In democracies all over the world, people elect corrupt, honest, incompetent and competent politicians. It is true, that over the long course of history, democracies do indeed appear fragile and few, even from the vantage point of a decade of democratic resurgence.
Also, history witnessed that most of the democracies have by no means been immune to the harsh tides of history. Time and again they have collapsed due to political failure, they have succumbed to internal division, or destroyed by foreign invasion. However, with all their shortcomings, democracies have demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time – much more than the autocratic rules -- and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardships, reconcile social and ethnic divisions, and, when necessary, prevail in times of war, as history witnessed how Great Britain reemerged after the disastrous and debilitating World War II.
The process of debate, dissent, and compromises may be seen as its weakness from the dictatorial power echelons, but in reality these are the very strengths of the democratic system. True, that democratic decision-making in large, complex and ethnically divided societies like Pakistan may be a messy, grueling, and time-consuming process. But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of military force or an un-elected party apparatus. The peoples’ role in democratic states is very vital because when they vote they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall rule in their name.
Historically, the autocrats in Pakistan and their supporters like Humayoon Gauhar, Chauhdrys of Punjab and other leaders of king’s parties like Convention Muslim League, PML (Q) etc. have a common misapprehension that democracies lack the authority to govern, and that is the reason they support the generals to take extreme actions like the one taken by General (Retd.) Musharraf on November 3, 2007. This view is fundamentally wrong and even Pakistan history can provide counter evidences. It’s very much possible that the Prime Ministers and their team are corrupt and they take the country to a disastrous situation. But, every political party has limited years to work, and the voter can throw it out if its performance is not satisfactory, which is not possible when a military general is at the helm with his hand-picked cronies, as has been the case in the political history of Pakistan.
I must also argue in defense of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Ms. Benazir Bhutto. It’s true they demonstrated incompetence and they failed the very people who brought them to power but whenever we judge them we must also scrutinize the military juntas who ruled the country for decades with teams of – in some cases – most corrupt leaders, and consequently, broke the country, lost Siachin, introduced drug culture, brought the country to the brink of nuclear holocaust involved the country in proxy wars, brought serious restlessness in the tribal areas and in small provinces, and whenever their authorities were threatened, destroyed independent democratic institutions and brought their subservient courts to sign off their every single extra-constitutional acts. Same generals expect the political governments to deliver a great deal and clean up all the mess they created during their decade long regimes, just in two years, and even those years when democratic governments were not sovereign and regularly encroached upon indirectly by them.
To conclude this argument, I would like to argue that we, the people, must understand, that we do not need a “messiah” general who will make the country a super power and economically vibrant, we need to have strong and resilient democratic institutions to run the country, where even incompetent politicians will be marginalized. The ongoing movement by the civil society and the lawyers community may be the last hope for the country to return to the track of democracy. Here, failure is not an option.
Time has arrived now when even the politicians should understand as well that people of Pakistan have lot of awareness about the situation around them (thanks to the private media, the access to the internet and the strong voices of intellectuals from the civil society of Pakistan) and the old oligarchic order in which most of the power centers – some political elites and the government’s party – will not be accepted by the ordinary people, and they will demand all the freedom, which the Constitution provides them, regardless of what Gen. (retd.) Musharraf and his cronies lecture the West.
