The Deeper Malaise of Pakistan’s Polity
July
01, 2005
The crux of the problem of Pakistani polity lies
in the dichotomy between the rulers and the ruled.
While the gap has kept narrowing in both India and
Bangladesh, it has been widening and solidifying
in Pakistan. The governments of the neighboring
countries have been responsive to the aspirations
of the people, who in their turn have reposed trust
in governments elected by them. Both societies have
been marching forward at a fast clip over the past
decade or two.
In the first three decades after independence, Pakistan
too had registered a laudable economic growth rate,
perhaps the highest in South Asia. Its progress
in the social sector was also quite impressive.
What went wrong, then? One has to look into the
historical factors.
The British left behind in the subcontinent a tradition
of dual forms of governance – the authoritarian
(Vice-regal) and the parliamentary.
The areas that constitute Pakistan now came under
the British Raj a century or so after the annexation
of eastern, southern and north central areas of
India. While the liberal values of British education
and rule were taking roots in UP, Bengal, Bombay,
CP and Madras etc. and the people were getting accustomed
to the rule of law, justice and the tolerance of
dissent, bulk of North-Western India continued to
be under the authoritarian rule of Raja Ranjeet
Singh – Sikha Shahi - till its annexation
by the East India Company in 1849 – over ninety
years after the fall of Bengal to the British in
the Battle of Plassey (1757).
The British found in the Northwest a strong tradition
of rule by dictat and command, and therefore an
incredible respect for authority. The Vice regal
system of rule was thus found suitable for the area.
The process of decision-making followed in this
area was largely in the descending order, while
in the other areas it was in the ascending order.
Debate and discussion of an issue was allowed in
the ascending process to commence at the desk of
a subordinate official and to continue upwards even
to the level of the Viceroy. The decision thus taken
reflected the cumulative intellect of all the concerned
functionaries –elected or part of the bureaucratic
structure.
The officers and staff who had opted to serve in
Pakistan brought this system of decision-making
to Karachi from New Delhi. It remained in operation
till the entire process was subjected to the authoritarian
system by the Martial Law regime of Ayub Khan.
“Democracy does not suit the genius of the
people”, he proclaimed. But being a moderate
person and a product of the British system, he reverted
within four years to a Constitutional government,
normal operation of the rule of law and the process
of debate and discussion. His effective advisers
were outstanding civil servants nurtured on the
ascending order of decision-making. His ten-year
rule therefore witnessed laudable progress in all
socio-economic sectors.
The first major jolt to the system, particularly
to the economy, was given by Z. A. Bhutto, who had
emerged as a populist leader but on the assumption
of power elected to don the mantel of a Martial
Law Administrator. Under the protective shield of
Martial Law, he nationalized all major industries
in the name of social justice, blunting their competitive
edge on the world market. More importantly, he destroyed
by this measure the political clout of the growing
urban-based industrialists.
The ensuing vacuum served as a political windfall
to the rural aristocracy, the feudal lords, Bhutto’s
own caste.
A narcissistic feudal lord and a dyed-in-the wool
autocrat, he exploited the pent-up emotions of the
downtrodden people calling them “the fountainhead
of all power”. He rode to power on this very
slogan. The credulous people believed him. Despite
this hypocrisy, history would not fail to credit
him with causing an awakening among the masses.
And, the people reciprocated by electing twice his
corrupt and incompetent daughter to power.
Had he practiced what he preached, Pakistan would
not be in the sorry state that it is now.
He had the best opportunity after the fall of Dacca
to cut the warrior caste to its proper size. It
was ready to accept the surgery to make up for the
disgraceful surrender. Instead of cutting it down
by at least half, as the defense of the Eastern
wing was no longer the responsibility of the rump
state, he fired a few "fat and flabby"
generals but more than doubled the defense spending!
He selected a junior, meek and ostensibly submissive
general - Ziaul Haq - as his army chief and thought
that he had thereby strengthened his control over
the army.
This was the greatest folly of Bhutto. Instead of
strengthening the civil polity, he opened the official
largesse to the warrior caste and enlarged it beyond
the possibility of control by civilian authority.
He had to pay with his life for this aberration
from his populist posture. His feudal and autocratic
proclivity overrode his commitment to the common
people. The ray of dignity and respect in the life
of the common man had disappeared!!
The nation was thrown back to the autocratic Sikha
Shahi period. A nominated Majlis-i-Shura or a parliament
drawn through non-party elections was Zia’s
facade for his military dictatorship.
He served as the American surrogate in the Afghan
war that ensured his continuance in the seat of
power for 12 long years. Economy, education and
other national issues of real significance were
put on the back burners. The fallout of the war
in the form of Klashnikov culture, smuggling, heroin
abuse and the onslaught of 3.5 million Afghan refugees
was brushed under the carpet. These became big headaches
for all subsequent governments.
The US ensured that Zia’s attention was not
diverted from the Afghan arena. IMF, World Bank
and the Paris Club were made to dole out on occasions
more loans than what Zia’s minions requested.
No wonder external debt shot up during his period
from $5 billion to $18 billion.
Unfortunately, he was too self-serving, too obsequious,
to even mention to his masters to write off the
debt for the sacrifices of his nation. Egypt got
this done at the time of the Camp David Accord.
When Zia left, the economy had already entered the
debt trap. From then onwards efforts concentrated
on borrowing more and more to pay the due installments
and the interest on earlier debts, fund the ever
increasing demands of armed forces, and cover the
gap even in the revenue budget.
Puny civilian leaders – Junejo, Benazir and
Nawaz Sharif - had neither the vision nor the courage
to take unpleasant decisions to rectify the situation.
Instead of going to the people to inspire them for
the needed sacrifices, they turned for support to
the feudal elite. The country came to be dominated
by the feudal spirit: arrogance, self-aggrandizement,
and finding a way out of any problem through harassment
or by lining the pockets of concerned high officials.
Nawaz Sharif’s release from jail and exile
in Saudi Arabia provide convincing evidence of his
family’s expertise in using money to achieve
their objectives.
Born and raised in the feudal environment, Benazir
is unwilling to return to the nation her ill-gotten
wealth or defend her innocence in a court of law.
The miasma of her and her husband’s corruption
still permeates the society. During her two stints,
she did throw some crumbs to the minions of the
PPP but did little for the common weal.
From all indications, the military domination is
likely to stay in the country far beyond the time
given to it by the Supreme Court. The military leader,
Gen. Musharraf, has taken since 9/11 decisions that
have been lauded by all sectors of the society.
He has tried to establish a rapport with the people
at all levels, and has taken them into confidence
on major decisions affecting their future. He has,
however, been taciturn on the evil spirit of feudalism
that haunts the society. There is no feudalism in
either India or in Bangladesh; both have multi-layered
elected institutions and strong bureaucracies.
Gen. Musharraf views the system of local governments
introduced by him as the panacea for the ill effects
of the hiatus between the rulers and the ruled.
The administrative and financial powers granted
to these basic institutions are expected to unleash
the creative energies of the common people. If these
institutions slip once more into the hands of feudal
oligarchies, the frustration building up within
the national pressure cooker would reach sooner
than later the point of implosion.
- arifhussaini@hotmail.com
