One Hour of Anarchy Is Equal to Sixty Years of Tyranny - 2
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
Prof. Akbar in his insightful book “Journey into Islam” deals with this theme (page 5). “Since the ‘war on terror’ was launched, communities in Iraq, and to some degree Afghanistan, have descended into anarchy, allowing ancient religious, tribal, and sectarian rivalries to surface once again. In the absence of daily calm, people begin to look at the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain, for example, with something close to nostalgia. People live in a perpetual state of uncertainty; not knowing whether their homes are safe day or night, whether they will arrive at work, or whether their children will return home from school. Even worse, the killers remain unknown and at large… the war on terror is degenerating into a war of all against all. Taking a page from English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Muslim jurists have historically considered tyranny preferable to anarchy, and this was reiterated in our conversations across the Muslim world”.
The above situation graphically depicts the conditions of the people of Karachi in specific and of other places in Pakistan in general.
The government and its institutions in Pakistan have become toothless, and ineffective to the extent that people are totally dissatisfied with its credentials. The birth of anarchy is the natural consequence, may be preceded as in the past by a totalitarian form of government.
If a chaotic and anarchic situation could erupt in England then it is logical to assume that no place should be considered as safe from the reach of anarchy. In one of my earlier articles I had contended that the near-anarchic situation in Pakistan was due to the desire of the ethnic groups headed by politicians to secure their fiefdoms in areas where they held the sway. In all the countries where people live in a civilized way, the crown of their loyalties is worn not by their ethnic heads, nor by the tribal lords, nor by the religious pastors, nor by the caste-language distinctions, but by the country that facilitates their security, safety and prosperity. In Pakistan, the transference of loyalties from the country to these groups has been very systematic.
Twenty years ago, in Gallup polls, about 80% people said that they were proud of being Pakistani. Now the figure has lowered to 60%. It is more meritorious to be a Pushtun, a Sindhi, an Urdu speaking, a Baluchi, and in the Punjab, a Chaudhry, a Waraich, a Rana, a Randhawa, or a Malik, than to be a Pakistani. Hence the futility of elections and the polarization of the state.
Willian Lind in his article of March 30, 2011, holds a similar view when he says, “The fundamental contest will be a war for legitimacy between non-state actors and the aspiring governments of states. As states all over the world become private preserves of a ‘new class’ who use politics only to serve themselves, people are transferring their primary loyalty away from governments to a wide variety of other entities: religions and sects, races and ethnic groups, gangs, ideologies, and so on. For these new primary loyalties they are often eager to fight; this is especially true where there are large surpluses of young men with nothing else to do. Think of it as supply-side war.”
All of a sudden the demand for the creation of new and numerous provinces in the wake of the law and order situation prevailing in Pakistan, and the economic, social and moral upheavals that the country is going through, one can easily understand the rationale behind such a demand. Any conscientious leaders under such circumstances would have abandoned sleeping with their spouses, and would have lost their appetites and sleep, but not so in Pakistan. Here fools thrive and corruption prospers. In the comity of the 57 Muslim countries, Pakistan was the only real State in the true sense of the word. It is no more now.
Mian Nawaz Sharif, the Thucydides of PML (N), offers a unique solution to the problems of Pakistan. Earlier, he had offered this solution to President Asif Ali Zardari as well. “In all sincerity I had advised President Zardari to hold early elections. People with fresh mandate will able to set the house in order”. In otherwords, he was talking about himself. It is a laughable panacea. Holding elections to get into power when out of it is an old game. The people of Pakistan have had enough of it. Democracy is a dangerous exercise if only one component of it - the elections - is picked and exercised, and the remaining two, namely total obedience to the Constitution, to the laws of the country, and accountability of the corrupt and of all, are sidelined. Late Richard Holbrooke in September 1996 said a very wise thing with relation to holding elections in the ravaged Bosnia. He said, “Suppose the election was declared free and fair, and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to (peace and reintegration). That is the dilemma”. Pakistan lost its Eastern wing in 1971 even though the elections for the first time in Pakistan were held by a dictator in a fair and honest way. After the elections, the next step that has made democracy work in the West, or even in India, is to accept its results, and to play the role of opposition honestly.
Fareed Zakaria in his article, ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy” in November 1997 wrote something that still makes sense. ‘Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life—illiberal democracy”. Quaid-i-Azam in the 1946 elections opted to be a part of the government because he knew that being in the government he could safeguard the interests of Muslims better than being out of it. He along with Chaudhri Muhammad Ali in the background forced the Nehru government to never think of ever ignoring the interests of Muslims as minority. Mian Sahib withdrew from the government of President Zardari, an opportunity for the PML (N) to oversee and to prove through performance that at least the Ministries it held, by contrast, outshone all the rest, corrupt and inefficient ministries.
Holding fresh elections in a rotten atmosphere with the memory of the exercise of the elections held recently in the Northern Areas and in Azad Kashmir would be a death blow to the already dwindling economy, to the law and order situation, to the strained relations with the United States and their impact on the country in the near future. One province, Baluchistan, is already at the brink of secession, and Karachi virtually is in flames, and a state of anarchy is heard knocking at the door, and the main leadership of the country is putting up a demand for fresh elections for solution!
A patient dying of heart attack needs to be treated first for a failing heart and not for bad cold or nose bleeding. Giving a helping hand to the beleaguered, witless and clueless government (if at all democracy is to be given a chance) by being a part of it and overseeing it from inside in the larger interest of the country is the crying need of the country.
Abraham Lincoln faced the kind of situation that Pakistan is facing now - the South ready to secede, and his adversaries at his throat, not even willing to concede to his presidency; he in such circumstances made all his major opponents his partners in the governance of the country. This requires magnanimity, foresight, vision and, above all, an unswerving love for the country first. Elections and that too without an independent election commission is like appointing Hyenas to supervise a baby calf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
