Opinion

A Parallel Universe
By Ahmad Faruqui, PhD
Dansville, CA

Most people around the world greeted the August 18th resignation of Pervez Musharraf with a sigh of relief. But there were some who did not, including several good friends of mine.
More than one is wishing that Musharraf would return. One wrote to me, “Musharraf will be back and this time he will come with the help of the people.” I was dumbfounded.
My friends must live in a parallel universe. They greeted his coup of 1999, ignored the one-sided nature of his presidential referendum, accepted the rigged general elections of 2002, were not bothered that he reneged on his promise to remove the uniform in 2004 and, most importantly, they did not hold him responsible for leaving behind the worst political mess in the nation’s history.
Now that he has departed from the center stage, they are down with a serious case of “Post-Musharraf Blues.” Their shock and anger has gotten the better of them. How else could they be hoping for the messianic return of a person who, despite being the absolute ruler for nine long years, failed to transform the political fundamentals of the nation?
The day he quit office, the political clock reverted back in time to the 12th of October, 1999. If the nation has limited political choices today, it is because Musharraf aligned himself with the religious parties and stifled the growth of new secular leadership.
Musharraf’s supporters are upset that his replacement is likely to be Asif Zardari. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December, Zardari effectively accused Musharraf of being responsible for her death.
In their eyes, Zardari’s threat to impeach Musharraf was the ultimate betrayal. After all, it was Musharraf who had allowed him back into the country and given him a new political life through the National Reconciliation Ordinance which pardoned him for all his known and unknown transgressions.
These hardcore Musharraf loyalists are now taking their anger out on the lawyers, the judges and the politicians who inspired the civil revolt that brought the dictator down.   In their eyes, it is not just the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was corrupt. It was the entire political and judicial apparatus of the country.
By default, they seem to be arguing that the only institution that deserves to rule is the military. Such a longing is doomed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the military continues to seize power every time there is a political crisis, how will effective civilian institutions develop?
They conveniently gloss over the harm done to the country by generals from Ayub on down. General Jehangir Karamat is quoted in Shuja Nawaz’s book, “Crossed Swords” as saying that the army has not ruled the country any better than the civilians.
So what is the point of dredging out the same old anti-democratic arguments? For the umpteenth time, we are being told that democracy does not deliver good news in Pakistan, that it is a weak reed on which to set the edifice of the state.
But there is a good reason why democracy has not worked in Pakistan . The military controls the civilians and not the other way around.
The classic example of what happens when this principle is violated is Central America . Between 1948 and 1982, two-thirds of the 47 governments in Guatemala, El Salvador , Honduras and Nicaragua came to power through a coup.
Those supporting a return to military rule are wrong on five counts.

Just because past politicians have failed to deliver political stability and economic progress does not mean that all future politicians will fail. Democratic processes, when they are allowed to function without military interference, do ultimately produce strong civilian institutions and competent rulers.

Feudalism is not a barrier to democracy. If that was true, no country would be a democracy today since all were feudal at one point. The empowerment of the people brings an end to feudalism.

Being Muslim does not equate to being anti-democratic. Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali and Turkey are democratic countries.

The Indian example shows clearly that “strong men” are not a precondition for democracy and slays the myth that law and order, education, and economic development have to precede democracy.

Military rule is not necessary to hold a multi-ethnic state together. Indeed, half of Pakistan was lost due to the excesses of its military rulers.

It is important to note that elections are a necessary but insufficient condition for a successful democracy. They have often been used by dictatorial regimes (both civilian and military) to create the illusion of democracy. Authoritarian rulers often impose restrictions on who can stand for election, limit the laws that can be brought before parliament, encourage unfair voting practices and engage in falsification of results.
Now that Pakistan has begun its third transition from dictatorial to democratic rule, it is time to build a political culture in which a “loyal opposition” can exist. And right now, this responsibility falls most notably on the shoulders of Asif Ali Zardari.
All sides in a democracy need to share a common commitment to civil discourse. If an incumbent loses power, he or she must accept the judgment of the voters and transfer power peacefully to the winners.
The losers should be assured that their defeat does not equate to loss of life or liberty and that they can continue to participate in public life. Their loyalty to the state should not be questioned if they criticize the government of the day.
In the new set-up, the parliament must be sovereign since it is the voice of the people. It should have the power to approve the government’s budget including the defense budget.
The judiciary should be independent and have the power to declare military coups as unconstitutional. It should equally have the power to strike down laws passed by parliament that contradict the Constitution and to reign in any executive that exceeds its authority.
None of this is meant to say that democracy is a panacea. There is no dearth of bad civilian leaders in Pakistan. Nor is there any dearth of bad military leaders. But they can be voted out of office in a democracy and that is reason enough to stick with democracy.
(The writer has authored “Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America and the Middle East,” Vanguard Books, 2008)

------------------------------------------------------------------------