March
30, 2007
The Ruler Derby in Pakistan
Considering the checkered history of the system
of governance in Pakistan, over the past six decades,
the current stand-off between the legal fraternity
and the military government in civilian clothes,
is likely to erupt into a massive agitation if the
political parties succeed in their designs to exploit
the development. This makes one wonder why governance
in Pakistan has been marked by almost rhythmic swings
between civilian and military rules –a kind
of ruler derby.
The derby reflects the inability of the ruling elite
to commit honestly to the form of government they
have themselves enshrined in the constitution. With
the exception of the first military ruler, Ayub,
who proclaimed honestly ‘democracy doesn’t
suit the genius of the people’, all other
leaders past or present have declared allegiance
to democracy. What they practiced was hypocrisy.
Elected leaders have been behaving like dictators
and military dictators have been masquerading as
elected, civilian leaders. Z.A. Bhutto used to even
don a jacket resembling the uniform of a General.
He suspended civil laws and ruled the country under
Martial Law for the first two years of his regime.
His successor, Gen. Zia, almost always appeared
in public in Sherwani and pretended to have been
an elected President on the basis of a fraudulent
referendum -a monumental hypocrisy!
The dichotomy is rooted in the colonial legacy of
(1) viceregal (authoritarian) tradition in which
decision making is in a descending order, and (2)
parliamentary tradition which prescribes the process
of decision making through debate and discussion
in an ascending order. The British resorted to either
of the two depending on which one, in a particular
circumstance, served their colonial interests better.
The viceregal or authoritarian tradition provided
a centralized, hierarchical apparatus to ensure
law and order and to collect revenues to siphon
off the surplus to the colonial coffers.
The British rule, however, coincided with an era
dominated by liberal ideology and practices. British
liberals and Indians educated in England introduced
into the Indian polity liberal values and parliamentary
precepts. The political parties founded in India
by these liberals led the democratic struggle for
independence that culminated into the creation of
India and Pakistan.
While democracy thrived in India it withered away
within a decade in Pakistan, making room for the
viceregal, authoritative rule of a combine of the
army and civil bureaucracy.
Why did Pakistan follow a path different from that
of India? Main reasons are as follow.
The areas that constitute the present day Pakistan
came under the British rule a century or more after
the colonization of south, east and central India.
North-western India had been under the authoritarian
rule of a Sikh dynasty that had successfully subjugated
the local population, an inherently virile and enterprising
people, and made them see the benefits of authority
worship.
The British found this tradition quite advantageous
from the point of view of their colonial objectives
and therefore strengthened it further and treated
the area as the strategic preserve for viceregal
rule.
The founding fathers, the two Quaids, who were strong
proponents of democracy, passed away within the
first few years of the creation of the new state..
The low caliber of the other politicians, admitted
the usurpation of power by senior civil and military
officers. The executive thus became much more powerful
than the legislature. There being no outstanding
political figure, politics became a game of musical
chairs for the Prime Minister’s office. The
first fair and free elections could not be held
before 1970, almost a quarter century after independence,
and that too under the supervision of a military
dictator. The puny politicians, over-awed by a powerful
civil and military bureaucracy, failed in adding
sinews to the democratic institutions. And, they
failed more miserably in taming the warrior sector
of the society.
The warrior caste, the military, received invigorating
shots in the arm by the Western powers, the US in
particular, owing to the country’s membership
in CENTO and SEATO and bilateral defense alliances.
Military aid that flowed into the country strengthened
further the military-bureaucratic elite.
The colonial structure of power under the Viceroy
comprised the civil bureaucracy, the army and the
feudal aristocracy. While the Indian leadership
got rid of feudalism soon after independence, the
leaders of Pakistan in the same period were inescapably
absorbed in attending to the more urgent problems,
such as the enormous influx of refugees, the setting
up of a nascent government, and finding finances
for essential expenses since its agreed share in
central funds was teasingly held up by New Delhi.
The Indian success in abolishing feudalism, made
the landed gentry of Pakistan realize that it could
survive only as an adjunct of the establishment.
Allowed to continue, the feudal barons entered the
political arena, often with the blessings of the
establishment, and continued to expand their clout
till they virtually monopolized elected offices.
The most important factor in a democracy –
the voter - became a non-entity, to be remembered
only at the time of elections. The leaders could
rule but not lead; they could wield power but not
authority.
The judiciary has almost always justified military
take-overs under the dubious ‘law of necessity’.
Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad’s summary
dismissal of the parliament as far back as 1953,
was found valid by the apex court on the basis of
this law. That verdict has served as a precedent
to justify all subsequent military coups.
The above factors have contributed historically
towards the ascendance of the men in uniform to
the top of the ruling combine. That does not however
mean that the parliamentary tradition was permanently
thrown out of the window.
The politicians, from Mohammed Ali Bogra to Nawaz
Sharif did get opportunities to assert their authority.
The fall of Dacca provided the best opportunity
to Z.A. Bhutto to cut down the military in proportion
to the reduced size of the state. But, surprisingly
he increased the defense budget three fold.
No doubt, he was a man of outstanding talents and
caliber. His domineering personality was marred
by an unmitigated arrogance which affronted the
army (he called the army chief ‘my monkey
General’) and invited the annoyance of the
West (he gave a call for a Third World conference,
launched the atomic program, and tore in public
the letter of the US ambassador).
He was, however, the only populist leader who could
have done a lot for his people. His excessive arrogance
and his bid for a role far bigger than the size
of his state admitted, led him instead to the gallows.
Pakistan got involved in the decade-long Afghan
war. The deleterious effects of this war are too
well-known to merit mention here. The army had served
the purpose for which it had been receiving Western
aid. That source dried up with the collapse of the
Soviet Union. The vast war machine, one of the best
in the world, became the total responsibility of
the indigenous tax payers. The politicians in the
decade after Zia, lacked the guts or the vision
to adroitly tackle the situation by subjugating
military security to economic security.
Benazir and Nawaz Sharif focused, instead, on feathering
their own nests. They went on borrowing from all
foreign sources till the country’s credit
worthiness became questionable.
Nawaz Sharif, in his obsessive compulsion to concentrate
power, thought that he could domesticate the military
as he had done with the other pillars of government.
He sacked the naval chief, Comdr. Fasih Bukhari,
and then the army chief, Gen. Jehangir Karamat.
Then he went to replace Gen. Pervez Musharraf with
a family friend, Gen. Ziauddin. He ignored the corporate
personality of the army and its special identity
and standing in the polity.
The past 7 ½ years of Musharraf regime have
witnessed laudable socio-economic developments.
The country has moved from the brink of bankruptcy
to a thriving economy and a progressive society.
One hopes that saner councils would prevail among
the political hopefuls and they would restrain their
urge to grab power through street agitations instead
of participating in the elections which are just
a few months away. Street agitations, in any case,
will merely cause a change of face in the uniform
with the promise of elections within 90 days. It
may be just a replay of the familiar drama.
(The writer may be reached by e-mail at: arifhussaini@hotmail.com
)
