3rd November 07 - Military Rule Imposed In Pakistan, Musharraf Assumes Absolute Power - Page 3

Ray · 11-05-2007, 03:04 AM

The Emergency in Pakistan raises two issues:

1. the end of the democratic process coming into place.

2. the chances of Talibanisation.

One need not shed tears about Pakistan being a democratic nation. It never was after the assassination of Liaquat Ali. Musharaff’s book is categorical with historical footnotes to indicate that the Army was always behind all major political and foreign policy decisions. Indeed, if that be right, then one could call it “Guided Democracy”. Hardly a democracy in its true sense.

Like Musharraf or not, he did bring in a whiff of democratic changes and he did try to take Pakistan out of its obscurantist past given to it by Zia. He did bring Pakistan back into the comity of nations from the state of being declared a failed state. He also, with the help of the US, WB and IMF did salvage Pakistan from the state of nearly becoming an international breadbasket case and raise it to an economic revival worth note.

It is also true that he got the majority of Pakistani riled against him because he made Pakistan, what they believe, a client state of the US. But then that is the narrow mindedness bequeathed upon them by religious imperatives wherein Moslems cannot go against Moslem, no matter how criminal their activities are or so it appears. Criminals like the Taliban are not taken to be criminals by Pakistanis and instead are taken to be the sword arm of Islam! That is what has put Musharraf in a bind - Secular Musahrraf vs obscurantist Pakistanis!

Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, the only two alternatives to Musharraf, have been tested and have been total failures in either organising the democratic credentials of Pakistan or making Pakistan a responsible state. Benazir may shout from the rooftop of how she will fight the fundamentalists, but in actuality, she is the founder member of the Taliban. Therefore, to believe her is a bit difficult. She is only for power!

Nawaz Sharif is an ineffective person as was observed when he wailed that the Pakistani Army, on its own, perpetuated Kargil and he had no role to play. A person who has no control over his own army is hardly the person to trust.

What is the option?

Imran Khan? His thoughts are no better than Osama. The only difference is that one can understand him without translation since he can speak English!

If the chaos continues in Pakistan, is there a possibility that it simply disintegrates because there are too man sub-national power centres that are also at play?

That will be the most dangerous of situations!

devgupt · 11-05-2007, 03:54 AM

But the question is can Musharraff fight the jehadis on his own? Wouldnt it would have been better to bring the democratic forces together with him.Now everyone is against him, and consequently he is making everyone turn away from his agenda. How can he make Pakistan stable by marginalising its two most popular leaders? The oppostion space is now there for taking by jehadis.Since democracy is dead, there is only one channel left to show dissent is the path of jehadis. In the coming days extremism will be getting a boost.

Tronic · 11-05-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Are they going to get a fair trial? Or be held in prison indefinetly without trial to make sure they don't do it again? Consider that a state of emergency has just been declared.

Who cares? As long as they're in jail, they have been checked out of action. Fair trial? I don't care the slightest whether terrorists and their supporters get a free trial or not; as the people they killed or would've killed didn't get any trials either!

Tronic · 11-05-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devgupt

But the question is can Musharraff fight the jehadis on his own? Wouldnt it would have been better to bring the democratic forces together with him.Now everyone is against him, and consequently he is making everyone turn away from his agenda. How can he make Pakistan stable by marginalising its two most popular leaders? The oppostion space is now there for taking by jehadis.Since democracy is dead, there is only one channel left to show dissent is the path of jehadis. In the coming days extremism will be getting a boost.

Democracy tends to allow bending over, even to Jehadis!

HistoricalDavid · 11-05-2007, 11:26 AM

I don't see how, in the long term, this can do anything but promote extremism. It would be better to defuse it now by perhaps writing new Army-backed secularist clauses into the constitution and restoring it. Staying in full dictatorial power can only increase lawlessness, which doesn't help with the fight in Afghanistan.

devgupt · 11-05-2007, 11:32 AM

Exactly
Musharaff is not the only voice against growing extremism in Pakistan.There are people who are against the increasing venom.At this moment the need is to bring all these forces together. I think much of Pakistani media is concerned with the growing jehadi violence. But instead of using all such sections of society musharaff has gagged them .Impression which has beenn created is that he is a power hungry man who just want to stay in power. I dont think with this image he can stabilise pakistan

Feanor · 11-05-2007, 13:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tronic

Who cares? As long as they're in jail, they have been checked out of action. Fair trial? I don't care the slightest whether terrorists and their supporters get a free trial or not; as the people they killed or would've killed didn't get any trials either!

Hence the funeral service. You just murdered democracy before it was even born. You know, like an abortion

Tronic · 11-05-2007, 21:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Hence the funeral service. You just murdered democracy before it was even born. You know, like an abortion

Not really. Its not like this is the first time such events have taken place in Pakistan, it has actually been worse before; like General Zia hanging Pakistan's Prime Minister, Bhutto, in '79. Either democracy will pop back, or it has already been killed in Pakistan ages ago, I would say back in the early 50s after Jinnah's death.

Ray · 11-05-2007, 23:00 PM

Quote:

The Governance and Democracy in Pakistan

by Syed Atiq ul Hassan
(Sunday, September 12, 2004)

"...opportunities for a fair governance, true democracy and civil society in Pakistan can only flourish when democratic practices are allowed to prevail under the supremacy of unchanged constitution."

To understand the shortcomings in the governance and the democracy in Pakistan, one must find explanations for the weaknesses in political tolerance and identity. Analytically, there appear to be sets of reasonably autonomous and enduring beliefs and values within Pakistan that have important consequences in the societal and ultimately political spheres. Popular expectations of authority, in particular toward those who govern, must be understood and presumably altered if Pakistan is to realize the kind of system that permits a sustainable democracy. Legal provisions and better people seeking public office are important, but progress in building civic virtue or civic spirit will also have to occur. In the absence of such a culture, factional anarchy and authoritarian rule remain thrive.

Historically, the political culture in Pakistan is a strong product of its past that links to the pre-partition British Rule. What Pakistan's leaders knew best from this inheritance was the so-called viceregal system that made little or no provision for popular awareness or involvement. The system was designed to rule over a subjected population and intended to keep order and collect taxes. In fact, what the British bequeathed was often a contradiction between theories of governance and their practices. Ideals of representative government and equality before the law were incomplete transformations. The territorial issues and border conflicts with India, the socio-cultural differences within the country, struggle for a share of power between the states and the early death of the founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah are those realities which not only politicized the policy-making elites and their willingness in introducing the fair democratic procedures but also encouraged the non-democratic elements including the army. Consequently, even after half a century the country could not get cleaned from the feudal, tribal and punchayat systems and sectarian segregations and the public has been left untutored in the kind of vigilance usually needed to hold political leaders accountable.

Pakistan was without a formal, written constitution until 1956. The democratic myths that so often sustain a system were thus only weakly instilled, and precedents were created that undermined those few parliamentary and democratic norms that could be drawn upon. It did not help that in the early years non-party prime ministers were appointed by the head of state rather than by those who had to appeal to an electorate. Mass involvement in politics, if defined by rallies and periodic opportunities to vote, certainly increased over the years. Street demonstrations helped to bring down governments, namely Ayub's in 1968, Yahya Khan's in 1971, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's in 1977. Yet while these actions strengthen feelings of efficacy, none can be easily equated with democratic processes.

The weakness of democratic practices in Pakistan can be explained in many ways. Some observers stress constitutional and electoral provisions among institutional factors said to have undermined responsible and responsive government. Others point to the quality of Pakistan's leadership over most of Pakistan’s history, namely, that Pakistan has been let down by unprincipled political figures motivated by raw ambition, material gain and vested interests.

The subsequent education of people to accept democracy through meaningful participation in their political affairs is minimal. Without wide public awareness and an effective public opinion, the political system gives wide berth to ambitious and corrupts political leaders. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, the two times democratically elected prime ministers, are the perfect examples of the corruptions at the leadership level. Instead of including a broad citizenry in the political process, power is concentrated in the hands of an elitist bureaucracy and over-ambitious military. The country's semi-feudal system with its sets of obligations and hierarchy provided similarly inhospitable soil for building a democracy. The traditional power brokers, the wealthy, large land-holding families, are prepared to give their allegiance to anyone who promised to protect their material interests and way of life.

The civilian government succumbed to military rule that sought to legitimize itself with the public by attacks on democratic ideals and political institutions in hopes of leaving them in disrepute as well as decay. Despite the revival of democracy from time to time, it is predictably held in suspicion. One of the tenets of civil society, the concept of a legitimate opposition, naturally won little acceptance among competing political elites or within the larger public. These outpourings marked a breakdown in law and order, and reflected above all an absence of trust in authority. Such anomic movements may have heralded demands for better representation but in themselves were more the signs of frustration and anger than of belief in a more pluralistic, tolerant political system.

The election of 1970, the first to be held on the basis of universal suffrage, appeared to be a watershed for democracy. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto -who was the creation of a military ruler, Ayub Khan - provided the strongest hope for a politics that would involve the masses and socialize them to democratic and socialist ideals. The mass mobilization of the electorate by his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) succeeded in communicating with many rural voters. People listened to Bhutto and other political leaders not only at rallies but over radio and television. The issues of the day were articulated forcefully and clearly, such that voters had meaningful choices to make. And these masses demonstrated that they could throw off, if it really served their interests - the feudal assumptions that usually shaped their attitudes and actions. Yet rather than build up his popular movement on the democratic ideals of supremacy of the people, in power Bhutto shed much of the regime's populist ideology and strongly personalized his rule rather than working through participatory institutions and educating the public to their value. By his 1977 re-election campaign, he had come to rely on feudals and discarded many of the political allies who had stood with him earlier. Above all, Bhutto had failed to deliver the fair governance and a true democracy. While he had opened up for the future the possibility of more participatory politics, the civic virtues that would be needed to buttress it were in the end discredited.

Pakistan could indeed become a crucible for determining whether extensions of democratic practice are likely to provide a successful means of accommodating militant Islamic political movements. The country's experiences suggest that militant Islamic parties may be moderated when given a democratic option - an honest opportunity to compete. The popularity of Islamic parties in many cities and towns, according to this reasoning, is largely of a protest variety, coming from the denial of a more open political process. However, many analysts also seriously question the compatibility of Islamic doctrines with more liberal conceptions of democracy. Very likely the best reason to insist on the appropriateness of democratic values and institutions is that, from an ideological-constitutional standpoint, democracy does not represent an alien goal. Pakistan was founded on many of these precepts, and as ideals they continue to resonate widely. Such basic ideas as representative government and rule of law remain part of the Pakistani society's aspirations for itself. To be sure, there has been a rejection at the emotional level of some aspects of western culture and disgust with secular political institutions. Replacement with authentic Islamic institutions is the widely accepted ultimate objective. The kind of civil society and underlying culture appropriate for Pakistan should not be expected to mimic western experiences. Any democracy in Pakistan will have to take into account certain Islamic prescriptions and other legacies. Experiencing and mixing western democratic system with Islamic laws will continue to create more loopholes in the ruling mechanism.

In general, opportunities for a fair governance, true democracy and civil society in Pakistan can only flourish when democratic practices are allowed to prevail under the supremacy of unchanged constitution. The repeated dismissal or overthrow of elected regimes, alterations in the constitutions that suit to existing ruler, leaves no positive memory and little chance for institutions to adapt and supportive values to root.

Though the elections sometime are tainted by design or overzealous officials, the regular elections will ultimately provide democratic practices to the contestants in which losers accept defeat and winners are magnanimous in victory, the greater the chances for an electoral process capable of surviving inevitable challenges. The inefficient and incapable politicians may continue to participate and seek power but the people of Pakistan will also learn and understand better the democratic values and responsibilities over the period.

Home / Headlines / The Governance and Democracy in Pakistan - Media Monitors Network (MMN)

A dated article but hope it helps understand Pakistan and democracy!

A view and no more.

JAD_333 · 11-05-2007, 23:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

A dated article but hope it helps understand Pakistan and democracy!

A view and no more.

What I found interesting is the idea that Pakistan's approach to government is a legacy of British rule, or rather still contains the summary elements of Brisitsh rule.

You mentioned earlier that you believed Musarref was on the path to strengthening democratic institutions. I assume you were referring to the elections scheduled for next January. Where do you think the elections stand now that emergency rule i sin effect? It does not seem that emergency rule was imposed to torpedo the elections.

Ray · 11-06-2007, 00:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What I found interesting is the idea that Pakistan's approach to government is a legacy of British rule, or rather still contains the summary elements of Brisitsh rule.

You mentioned earlier that you believed Musarref was on the path to strengthening democratic institutions. I assume you were referring to the elections scheduled for next January. Where do you think the elections stand now that emergency rule i sin effect? It does not seem that emergency rule was imposed to torpedo the elections.

Yes, there is much of British legacy applicable to the colonies of Britain. Some of it is good and some debatable.

As far as Musharraf is concerned, he was a far more liberal military 'dictator' than any of his predecessors i.e. the military dictators Pakistan has seen. The media was far more free than ever before and he allowed private TV channels for the first time in Pak history and also allowed it to go berserk in what they thought was 'freedom of speech'. He gave the Judiciary a long rope and they hung him with it. He could have imposed martial law long back, but he did not. He has tried to check the illiterate education spawned by the madrassas and have got most of them registered. He allowed free business and liberalised the economy. In all, he was a benevolent dictator unlike his predecessors or even the political hacks who are the 'democratic face' of Pakistan.

I don't think that he imposed the Emergency to sabotage the elections. The event overtook him - Red Mosque, bomb blast close to his office, rebellion within the armed forces in NWFP wherein the surrendered to the Taliban and also crossed over, the CJ acting like a political hack and so on. The delay in deciding his case of re-election was apparently orchestrated to test the waters by the CJ.

The last two issues is what broke the camel's back. No military mind can be at rest if there is a rebellion within the uniformed ranks. It is a catastrophe and nothing less. The CJ was thinking that he is an extra constitutional authority and was cocking the snoot once too often!

Anyone in Musharraf's place would have done what he did.

If the situation does not spin out of control, the elections will be held, even if a wee bit late. It is Musharraf's salvation - handing over to a democratically elected govt that is favourable to the US and anti Taliban (Benazir) while he remote controls from the rear - the unseen power behind the throne!

JAD_333 · 11-06-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

He gave the Judiciary a long rope and they hung him with it.

Yes, it seemed curious that the CJ pushed the envelope past the breaking point. I would expect that with the penchant of Pakistan's leaders to reacting with a heavy hand to internal political threats, the CJ would have not gone so far. But as you say, he is a political hack. Political hacks are none too subtle or sensitive to limits.

Quote:

If the situation does not spin out of control, the elections will be held, even if a wee bit late. It is Musharraf's salvation - handing over to a democratically elected govt that is favourable to the US and anti Taliban (Benazir) while he remote controls from the rear - the unseen power behind the throne!

I would expect it will depend on how chaotic events are in the next few months.

Do you think BB is being particularly vociferous in her criticism of Musharref's move? I can see that she has to be critical for political reasons--defense of democracy and so on--but is she out of bounds by Pakistani standards? Or is that normal?

Ray · 11-06-2007, 05:59 AM

It will be a Benazir democratic face of Pakistan with the iron hand of Musharaf behind the throne!

We are seeing Act I.

Neo · 11-06-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

What is the popular opinion on this?

Business as usual Sir, comon man wants these bombings and terrorist attacks to stop doesn't matter how its done.
Democracy was never an issue for majority of Pakistani's. Earlier today I spoke to Sparten and he said 'we' just want to be left alone.
I second that.

Neo · 11-06-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Neo, as I said before, I consider the fracturing of the army if Musharraf continues fighting in the NWFP likely, am I being overly pessimistic?

Sir, there is no fracturing just a little support for taliban and that too is due US dealings with Pakistan over the years, some just dont trust US nor do they believe that something positive is gonna come out of this alliance in WoT and want US to leave Afghanistan once again.

We should not confuse armed tribes with army, they are fighting the army since FATA is constitutionally protected and forbidden territory for PA.

Orakzai is a Mush supporter and army respects him and so do the tribes since he's a local.

I personally suggest we annex FATA and end the militancy and bring it under central rule like the rest of Pakistan. Orakzai is the guy to do the job.

11-05-2007, 03:04 AM	#31 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,246 Country:	The Emergency in Pakistan raises two issues: 1. the end of the democratic process coming into place. 2. the chances of Talibanisation. One need not shed tears about Pakistan being a democratic nation. It never was after the assassination of Liaquat Ali. Musharaff’s book is categorical with historical footnotes to indicate that the Army was always behind all major political and foreign policy decisions. Indeed, if that be right, then one could call it “Guided Democracy”. Hardly a democracy in its true sense. Like Musharraf or not, he did bring in a whiff of democratic changes and he did try to take Pakistan out of its obscurantist past given to it by Zia. He did bring Pakistan back into the comity of nations from the state of being declared a failed state. He also, with the help of the US, WB and IMF did salvage Pakistan from the state of nearly becoming an international breadbasket case and raise it to an economic revival worth note. It is also true that he got the majority of Pakistani riled against him because he made Pakistan, what they believe, a client state of the US. But then that is the narrow mindedness bequeathed upon them by religious imperatives wherein Moslems cannot go against Moslem, no matter how criminal their activities are or so it appears. Criminals like the Taliban are not taken to be criminals by Pakistanis and instead are taken to be the sword arm of Islam! That is what has put Musharraf in a bind - Secular Musahrraf vs obscurantist Pakistanis! Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, the only two alternatives to Musharraf, have been tested and have been total failures in either organising the democratic credentials of Pakistan or making Pakistan a responsible state. Benazir may shout from the rooftop of how she will fight the fundamentalists, but in actuality, she is the founder member of the Taliban. Therefore, to believe her is a bit difficult. She is only for power! Nawaz Sharif is an ineffective person as was observed when he wailed that the Pakistani Army, on its own, perpetuated Kargil and he had no role to play. A person who has no control over his own army is hardly the person to trust. What is the option? Imran Khan? His thoughts are no better than Osama. The only difference is that one can understand him without translation since he can speak English! If the chaos continues in Pakistan, is there a possibility that it simply disintegrates because there are too man sub-national power centres that are also at play? That will be the most dangerous of situations! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA Last edited by Ray : 11-05-2007 at 03:09 AM.

11-05-2007, 11:26 AM	#35 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,100 Country:	I don't see how, in the long term, this can do anything but promote extremism. It would be better to defuse it now by perhaps writing new Army-backed secularist clauses into the constitution and restoring it. Staying in full dictatorial power can only increase lawlessness, which doesn't help with the fight in Afghanistan. __________________ HD Ready?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lessons from 1965 and 1971 wars	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	22	09-10-2007 21:53 PM
Tribal Pakistan: Complexity, fragility	Ray	International Politics	6	05-09-2007 13:19 PM
US-Pakistan Relations: The Way Forward	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	16	01-25-2007 03:23 AM
So who moved the WMD? Someone did...	Anon	The War in Iraq	53	03-16-2006 11:54 AM
Doctrine: Total Peoples Defense	troung	Land Forces	17	07-02-2005 01:46 AM

11-05-2007, 03:54 AM	#32 (permalink)
devgupt Regular Join Date: 06-02-07 Posts: 125 Country:	But the question is can Musharraff fight the jehadis on his own? Wouldnt it would have been better to bring the democratic forces together with him.Now everyone is against him, and consequently he is making everyone turn away from his agenda. How can he make Pakistan stable by marginalising its two most popular leaders? The oppostion space is now there for taking by jehadis.Since democracy is dead, there is only one channel left to show dissent is the path of jehadis. In the coming days extremism will be getting a boost.

11-05-2007, 11:32 AM	#36 (permalink)
devgupt Regular Join Date: 06-02-07 Posts: 125 Country:	Exactly Musharaff is not the only voice against growing extremism in Pakistan.There are people who are against the increasing venom.At this moment the need is to bring all these forces together. I think much of Pakistani media is concerned with the growing jehadi violence. But instead of using all such sections of society musharaff has gagged them .Impression which has beenn created is that he is a power hungry man who just want to stay in power. I dont think with this image he can stabilise pakistan

11-06-2007, 05:59 AM	#43 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,246 Country:	It will be a Benazir democratic face of Pakistan with the iron hand of Musharaf behind the throne! We are seeing Act I.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)