Pakistan’s Democratic Compulsions: Will the US Administration Listen?
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
America is at war, and as always Pakistani leadership finds it beneficial to side with its powerful ally. Pakistan has been paid ten billion dollars for her services in America’s war on terrorism. The war is still on, the enemy remains elusive, and undefined. The US Congress has expressed its exasperation over this unabating war and continuous loss of life and money without making any meaningful progress. Despite this frustration there is no desire in this country to redefine the war, and readjust its policy in pursuit of its enemies. More of the same, with only cosmetic changes, seems to be the consensus.
On the contrary the people of Pakistan have decisively spoken in favor of change in the so-called war on terror. In the February-2008 elections the people perceived that their country was fighting a war against its own people for the benefit of a foreign power who has helped foist an unpopular military dictator on their heads. This perception may not be wholly correct, but then, in politics perception is the reality; and it does reflect a serious level of disapproval of the current US-Pakistan approach to the problem. In the same election the people also rejected religious parties and voted in favor of secular leadrship.
Equally important is the year-long lawyers’ movement which, despite a long span of time, and its secular nature, remains strong and enjoys popular support. The military dictatorship got its first jolt at the hands of the legal fraternity when dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was overwhelmingly rejected by the masses and they demanded his restoration. The Chief Justice was restored only to be dismissed again along with sixty other judges on November 3, 2007. This mass dismisal of judges was prompted for no other reason than to pave the way for Musharraf’s illegal re-election. The people and the legal fraternity have stood strong and united in their demand to restore the judges.
Through elections and the lawyers’ movement the people of Pakistan have made it abundantly clear that they are no religiouis fanatics and want to live in peace underr a democratic order and independent judiciary. Will the strongest democracy on earth listen to what the people of Pakistan are saying? Under the changed circumstances when the Washington-favorite Musharraf has no political future in Pakistan the US needs to adjust itself to the new reality.
Pakistan has recived whooping ten billion dollars from the US. The people of Pakistan wonder where all that money has gone. Why this generous cash reward from a friendly country has made no positive impact on their lives. They do not see a single bridge, a highway, a hospital, or an education institution built with this money. It’s time the US stop depending on one discredited dictator and listen to the people of Pakistan.
Extremism has no roots among the masses and it poses a threat to the way of life the people of Pakistan are accuetomed to. Yet the US led war on terrorism has little support among the masses in Pakistan. Poll after poll has demonstrated popular disapproval of the US approach and even worse they are not comfortable with the ultimate objectives of the US.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal, facilitated by the US, visualized a smooth working relationship between the two. With the assassination of Benazir the dynamics changed abruptly. Musharraf and his supporters became even more unpopular. Election results showed that the PPP got less than expected support partly because the party did not take a clear stand on the issue of judges and was tainted by its tacit tolerance of Musharraf in the future set-up. The PPP cannot afford to remain pro-Musharraf and tarry on the restoration of judges without paying a heavy political price. The US should treat the deal as dead and let the political discourse move forward.
It’s counter productive for the US objective to be seen as a supporter of Musharraf and opposed to the restoration of judges. The US shortsightedness on these two issues has done more harm to the war objective than anything else in the recent months.
Pakistan is uneasy with the unprecedented influence India has in the Karazai governemnt. The number of Indian consulates all along he Pakistan-Afghan border makes the Pakistani adminstration uncomfortable. The death of Indian diplomats in a suicide attck on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has further strained mutual distrust. The US should do, whatever it can, to keep India-Pakistan tension out of Afghanistan and not let it affect the Pakistan cooperation with the US.
The US aid to Pakistan should address the economic woes of the people and not just the interests of the undemocratic forces. Supply of wheat to Pakistan as an emergency measure is helpful for mutual relations, but this is a very smal measure. The US can do a lot better by giving greater access to Pakistani exports to the US markets. If the US feels it cannot give preferentail treatment to one country, it can make this accessibility for a certain period of time, may be five years. This one measure would go a long way in winning over the Pakistani business conmmunity and improving the economic situation in that country.
When the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani visits Washington next week the Administration would be better advised to let the new leadership feel that their country is relevant to the US in a broader policy perspective and not just on the issue of terrorism. The US should not be seen supporting a discredted dictator and holding the Pakistan government back on the issue of the restoration of judges. Let these isues be resolved through the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. There is a limit to which the US can engineer Pakistan’s messy politics, without harming its long-term policy objectives. It’s easy to work with one man who has all the power, and not so easy when you are dealing with a democraticaly elected coalition government, which is answerable to the people. The US has to adjust itself to the new reality in Pakistan, and give a wide berth to a man who has little to offer.
