The Confused Case of Enlightened Moderates
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
Westfield, IN
I have never met a person in my life more confused than an ‘enlightened moderate’. Apparently sane and educated, he will talk about liberal values and tolerance in religion. The recent developments in Pakistani society regarding the persecution of minorities also bothers him, lack of their freedom to practice their religion concerns him and the abuse of the blasphemy law perturbs him to a great extent. However, regrettably, all these virtues about civil liberties vanish when it comes to supporting the democratic process in Pakistan.
With the poor performance of civilian governments in maintaining law and order, their failure in reviving the economy and their involvement in corruption scandals, the political wisdom of enlightened moderates has been clouded over and festered with doubt. So, they do not mind, or sometimes may in fact prefer, military rule over democracy even if it can only assure temporary economic growth, short-lived peace and momentary sense of security. All these markers of stability, as we all know, were fulfilled in the heavily funded rule of General Musharraf once he received an injection of US dollars, an important reason for him to still enjoy their support.
Another element that helped to boost the economy in his tenure was the influx of billions of US dollars by the expatriates who felt insecure in the West immediately after September 2001 and started buying real estate back in Pakistan, the only place they could call home if they were treated in Europe and US the same way Pakistanis are treated in Arab countries. It is another story nonetheless how those tens of billions of dollars were wasted in purchasing mobile phones and automobiles instead of improving the manufacturing sector, reducing the dependence on foreign oil and building infrastructure.
While living in the democratic West, on the contrary, enlightened moderates behave just like Westerners. They respect their moral values as they should, they participate in the electoral process if they can and they host fundraising gatherings for their local politicians with pride, if they have the opportunity. However, for poor Pakistanis, their standards are entirely different: our local traditions are dismissed as old and conventional, the democratic process is looked down upon as a hoax and fundraising is denounced as a crime. Considering us to be almost as low as slaves, they want Pakistani people to be treated by a master, a dictator who could bludgeon us to obey orders and keep us in a straight line. “We only understand this language of harsh and cruel punishment,” some of them announce with contempt. Perhaps, “ignorant” and uncouth” Pakistanis — as they call us sometimes — are not entitled to choose their own representatives, in their opinion, because “they always vote for looters and thieves”.
For some, it is not a surprise at all if they continue to dole out lame excuses for General Musharraf in the presence of a signed document by him as Chief of the Army Staff declaring martial law in the name of emergency. They argue that everyone’s hands in Pakistan are dirty with the same crime (of supporting a military dictator), including the current leadership of the PML-N and the judiciary, since each one of them had endorsed the emergency/martial law once or even more in their lifetimes, a fact that no one can deny. “Then why only Musharraf is being targeted?” they ask. “Trying him alone equates to selective justice,” they continue. They want that everyone should appear before the court of law from 1956, even if it means the total number of people climbs to hundreds of thousands, to help achieve real and across-the-board accountability, an illogical demand that has only one logical outcome: General Musharraf gets out of jail free.
As a group, they all share three major characteristics. First, financial crime is the biggest offence for them, far worse than the abrogation of the constitution and much more aggressive than physical violence. Second, religion is a personal matter and should not be preached as a social contract. Third, the performance of a government determines its legality.
For some time, they supported Imran Khan as long as he was following their agenda, which he did as a newcomer in politics. However, as he has matured in state affairs, has realized the importance of the uninterrupted democratic process and as he has grown more religious, the group of moderately enlightened has withdrawn their support for him over this period of time. Nonetheless, they still think he is their best choice if push comes to shove after General Musharraf. Again the reason is obvious: there is no history of major financial corruption behind him except some questions about his undervalued properties to avoid taxes.
Maybe, the enlightened moderates are confused between the power of the people and the force borrowed from the gun, between the ammunition and the constitution, and political parties and the democratic process. Or maybe they are puzzled by the fact that Pakistan’s lawlessness makes it impossible to govern and are burdened by the fantasy that with the swing of a sword a powerful general can put things back in order. The bottom line is that they hate all the current politicians, consider them rotten, incompetent and corrupt, and want to live in la-la land in which only ideal civilian leadership exists. If that is not possible, they want unconstitutional rule back in the presidency, yet again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
