World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Ray · 03-28-2006, 15:49 PM

Some more of the tiring that the Aazadi of Pakistan is doing to their citizen.

Though this one is not so vociferous and more tongue in cheek!

Quote:

Tasks before the president

By Anwer Mooraj

PRESIDENT Musharraf has another 19 months to put his house in order, before the nation decides whether or not it should continue to be saddled with a head of state that insists on wearing two hats, and tries to exhibit the same gubernatorial longevity which was displayed by his two military predecessors. (Very sardonic!)

During this time, he will have to successfully tackle a number of thorny issues, the most pressing of which is the revolts (no these are no revolts. They are celebrations I presume!) in the tribal belt in the Frontier and in Balochistan which are threatening to Balkanize the country. The conflict is currently occupying centre stage, and the stand-off is being seen as a victory for the insurgents. But there is also this other issue which is irking the opposition — the nagging business of promising the nation on television about taking off his uniform, and then going back on his word. (nothing usual, Just a fallout of Takiya?) It has been brought up on a regular basis by the chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami, which must be producing a festering sore in the government camp.

Four overarching issues nevertheless remain. The first relates to the appropriate economic strategy for an economy which in spite of setbacks has shown a healthy growth. The second is the clash between the requirements of political stability and the growing demand for greater openness. The third relates to bad governance and the rising crime rate in the country. And the fourth is how the government of Pakistan will in future relate to the incessant demands of the United States to fight its battles overseas. (Really? Pakistan is being repeatedly asked? It just shows that the US cannot do without Pakistan and then hectors them as if they were erring snotty school kids!! ) It is this issue which continues to give President Musharraf a king-sized headache.

On the diplomatic front Pakistan’s options are limited. In spite of President Musharraf’s brief flirtation with Russia in 2003, and his continuing friendship with China, the war on terror has pushed the country into a position from which it cannot easily extricate itself. When President George Bush arrived in Pakistan amid heavy security and a series of anti-US protests in cities across the country, ostensibly to help shore up what is now seen abroad as a shaky regime, one wonders how many members of the Muslim League government in Islamabad recognized the fact that it is the Bush administration that is directly responsible for much of the political turmoil confronting the Pakistani military strongman (Really? Bush founded AQ, right? Who did? ).

Having been forced by Washington to back its ‘war on terror’ (Forced? Or bribed by shoring up the economy and the rag tag Airforce and defence?)in 2001 and to help topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, President Musharraf has increasingly been viewed by broad layers of the Pakistani population as a US stooge.(Pakistan is famour for its stooges i.e. military Presidents. Stooges of the US or China or both?) Throughout the past month, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the anti-Muslim cartoons published in European and US newspapers. The protesters then turned their anger on the Musharraf regime for its subservience to the US for ‘enslaving the Pakistani nation’ and for his ‘patriotism to America’.

Far from alleviating the political crisis facing Musharraf, Bush’s visit intensified it by demanding that he take more action to prevent anti-US insurgents infiltrating into neighbouring Afghanistan. At Washington’s insistence, the Pakistani military has already deployed some 70,000 troops in tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan to hunt down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. These operations, as well as covert attacks by US forces inside Pakistan, continue to generate widespread resentment and hostility towards the Pakistani president.

For his part, Musharraf is acutely aware of his dependence on Washington’s continuing patronage, and it is likely the Bush administration will continue to give its public backing for the regime and completely hypocritical praise for its so-called steps towards democracy. Bush regards Musharraf as a key ally in assisting US ambitions for dominance in the resource-rich Middle East and Central Asia, particularly in helping the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Coming back to the four overarching issues, not a great deal is happening on the economic front. The repeated failure of the government to address the economic and social crises facing millions of Pakistanis impaled on rampant unemployment and poverty is well known. The prime minister, however, feels that there is no undue cause for alarm, especially when the economy is growing at around six per cent. However, things are very different on the political front.

The clash between the requirements of political stability and the growing demand for greater openness and representation is an issue that threatens the very fabric of society. So far, the country appears to have favoured a strong, unelected leadership. And the old cliche that the political history of Pakistan can be summed up as one long extension of military rule, interrupted by occasional bouts of what passes for democracy in this part of the world, is borne out not only by the considerably long innings that the two former military dictators spent at the crease, but also by what is now seen as an attempt by the present head of state to emulate their example. (and Asim talks of Aazadi! Hrmph!)

Leadership will, nevertheless, remain a critical variable in the current political equation. What is interesting, but by no means unexpected, is that for the majority of the electorate the choice of leader appears to be extremely limited. (Anything unusual in a madrassa oriented country?)The question that often pops up in articles and private discussions whenever it is suggested that it was high time the president stepped down and allowed somebody else to take over, is: ‘Do we really want Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto back in the saddle? Both politicians have had two bites at the national cherry, and we all know what happened. The possibility of the nation throwing up a nationalist leader like Nasser or Allende or Castro just does not exist.

The dispute over his wearing two hats notwithstanding, President Musharraf has displayed considerable maturity in his dealings, both with local politicians and foreign heads of state. He has also tackled the nagging issue of India’s insistence on the prerogatives of a major state in South Asia, which remains a constant irritant to policymakers in this country.

In recent months, however, the rose has shown distinct signs of wilting. Whenever the soldier president has appeared on television, which has now become a regular feature, he has begun to demonstrate increasing signs of weariness and fatigue. Some of the old buoyancy has disappeared and has on occasion been replaced by flashes of irritation and anger, especially when addressing large crowds in the hinterland on the pressing need to step up efforts in stamping out terrorism.

Even in more sophisticated settings the exasperation and vexation has seeped through. Detractors still remember the way he handled a question posed by an American woman of Pakistani descent who had journeyed from another city to attend his press conference in New York. The belligerence he displayed will certainly not win him many friends among members of the Pakistani community in the United States.

The degree of openness that can be expected in Pakistan in the future must take into consideration certain factors which have remained decisive and which are likely to retain their hold on the population for at least another hundred years. The clergy, the army, the civilian bureaucracy and the feudal aristocracy have collectively conspired to ensure that the illiterate masses remained virtually disenfranchised. The two well entrenched institutions of the establishment, the military and civilian bureaucracy, which form part of the hierarchical system established in Pakistan, benefit from their close relations with their benefactor, the United States. Both are closely related and inter-connected in their ideological and political properties.

Pakistan has a strong growth record with current estimates hovering around the eight per cent figure, though there are major regional disparities. But in contrast to India’s secularism, Pakistan has a powerful religious foundation, and a bent towards authoritarianism is, therefore, inevitable. Moreover, embedded in the tribal culture is a pervasive military tradition — one which the British found useful to cultivate. Nevertheless the contest between military rule and openness, authoritarianism and parliamentarianism continues ceaselessly with fluctuating trends.

In Pakistan, as elsewhere, military leaders pledge greater democracy, and on occasion try to ‘civilianize’ themselves, thereby contributing to a course they continue to regard with ambivalence. But while they orchestrate their tirade against unscrupulous politicians, they continue to swallow up top jobs reserved essentially for civilians, and subtly and almost subliminally impose their presence through banking, industry, insurance and landmarks which betray warlike themes. It is this paradox that so graphically epitomizes the quasi-authoritarian state, and does not bode well for the future.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/28/op.htm

Aazadi of the military, for the military and of the military!