Politics Begins at 60

In its 60 years of independence, Pakistan has never changed its government through an election. Monday’s election results offer an opportunity for Pakistanis to change that aspect of their history. Notwithstanding considerable manipulation beforehand, the people voted overwhelmingly against Pervez Musharraf.

Almost every candidate who served in Musharraf’s government lost. So did all major leaders of the King’s Party Musharraf cobbled together soon after taking power in a 1999 military coup. The Islamists used by Musharraf as bogeymen to garner western support were also trounced.
Pakistan’s all powerful army, now under the command of General Ashfaq Kayani, is beginning to distance itself from politics. The army’s refusal to side with Musharraf’s political allies sealed their fate. Now, the army must help Pakistan back on the constitutional path by undoing the arbitrary constitutional amendments decreed by Musharraf as army chief a few days before relinquishing his command.

The depth of opposition to Musharraf, coupled with his tendency to change or break rules to stay in power, had raised serious doubts that Musharraf would manipulate the election results in favour of his allies. In the end, international pressure and a tendency to overestimate his own ability stayed Musharraf’s hand.

That does not mean, however, that Musharraf would not try now and manipulate the situation again to cling to power. That would be a terrible and disastrous mistake. Some members of the Bush administration have repeatedly described Musharraf as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism. Economic and military assistance from the US and other western countries has been crucial for Musharraf’s political survival thus far and has probably contributed to his arrogance and hubris.

This might be the moment for Musharraf’s western backers to help him understand that annulment or alteration of the election results will only plunge Pakistan deeper into chaos.

Pakistan already faces an Al-Qaeda backed insurgency along its border with Afghanistan, which is spilling into other parts of the country. Any attempt by Musharraf to insist on retaining absolute power, rather than allowing opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari to return Pakistan to normal constitutional governance would only anger the vast majority of Pakistanis who have just voted for moderate anti-terrorist parties. The ensuing chaos could strengthen the violent Islamist insurgents.

Musharraf was not on the ballot on Monday but the election was all about his fate, and that of Pakistan. Last year, he had got himself ‘elected’ president by Pakistan’s outgoing parliament, itself chosen through a dubious election in 2002, and fired 60 per cent of superior court judges to forestall judicial review of the presidential election.

Election results show that Pakistan’s two major opposition parties, the pro-western centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), together have secured an outright majority in the National Assembly and Musharraf’s allies have been wiped out. Even if he remains president, he would no longer remain the most powerful man in Pakistan.

Apart from failing in combating terrorism, Musharraf’s government has squandered goodwill through its arbitrary actions against the political opposition and judiciary. The economic achievements of the last eight years have benefitted only a small sliver of the country’s 160 million people.

The election campaign was marred by violence, which the government blames on terrorists. But the targets of violence have been the secular opposition parties — the most notable victim being Benazir Bhutto. Opposition politicians justifiably expressed doubts as to why the terrorists have not attacked pro-Musharraf groups given that he is the man supposedly fighting them.

Musharraf would have damaged his diminishing credibility further if he had rigged the results and then suppressed likely protests by force. Losing the election might actually be better for him — and Pakistan. Now he must work out an honourable exit.

The two parties that have emerged with popular support from this election should get full support from the international community. Democracy might prove more effective in combating terrorism than the propping up of a discredited and despised dictator.

This article appeared in Indian Express on February 20, 2008

Pakistanis have Spoken

In 60 years as an independent country, Pakistan has never changed its government through an election. Monday’s election results offer an opportunity for Pakistanis to change that aspect of history. Notwithstanding considerable manipulation beforehand, the people voted overwhelmingly against their highly unpopular ruler Pervez Musharraf. Almost every candidate who served in Musharraf’s government lost. So did all major leaders of the King’s Party Musharraf cobbled together with the help of his security services soon after taking power in a 1999 military coup. The Islamists used by Musharraf as bogeymen to garner western support were also trounced.

Pakistan’s all powerful army, now under the command of General Ashfaq Kiyani, is beginning to distance itself from politics. The army’s refusal to side with Musharraf’s political allies sealed their fate. Now, the army must help Pakistan back on the constitutional path by undoing the arbitrary constitutional amendments decreed by Musharraf as army chief a few days before relinquishing his command.

The depth of opposition to Musharraf, coupled with his tendency to change or break rules to stay in power, had raised serious doubts that Musharraf would manipulate the election results in favour of his allies. In the end, international pressure and a tendency to over-estimate his own ability stayed Musharraf’s hand.

That does not mean, however, that Musharraf would not try now and manipulate the situation again to cling to power. That would be a terrible and disastrous mistake. Some members of the Bush administration have repeatedly described Musharraf as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism. Economic and military assistance from the United States and other western countries has been crucial for Musharraf’s political survival thus far and has probably contributed to his arrogance and hubris.

This might be the moment for Musharraf’s western backers to help him understand that annulment or alteration of the election results will only plunge Pakistan deeper into chaos.

Pakistan already faces an Al Qaida backed insurgency along its border with Afghanistan, which is spilling over into other parts of the country. Any attempt by Musharraf to insist on retaining absolute power, rather than allowing opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari to return Pakistan to normal constitutional governance would only anger the vast majority of Pakistanis who have just voted for moderate anti-terrorist parties. The ensuing chaos could strengthen the violent insurgents.

Musharraf was not on the ballot on Monday but the election was all about his fate, and that of Pakistan. Late last year, he had himself “elected” president by Pakistan’s outgoing parliament, which was itself chosen through a dubious election in 2002, and fired 60 per cent of superior court judges to forestall judicial review of the presidential election.

Majority

Election results show that Pakistan’s two major opposition parties, the pro-western centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), together have secured a majority in the 342 seat National Assembly and Musharraf’s allies have been virtually wiped out.

Even if he remains president, he would no longer remain the most powerful man in Pakistan.

Musharraf has said in the past that he would rather step down than face the ignominy of being impeached by the newly elected parliament, which would be possible if the anti-Musharraf parties’ tally of seats in parliament reaches two-thirds of the total membership.

The election was marred by violence, which the government blames on terrorists. But the targets of violence have been the secular opposition parties – the most notable victim being Benazir Bhutto who became an icon of democracy for Pakistanis after her assassination on December 27. Opposition politicians justifiably expressed doubts as to why the terrorists have not attacked pro-Musharraf groups given that he is the man supposedly fighting them.

He would have damaged his diminishing credibility further if he had rigged the results and then proceeded to suppress likely protests by force. Losing the election might actually be better for him – and Pakistan. Now he must accept the consequence of defeat and work out an honourable exit.

The two parties that have emerged with popular support from this election should get full support from the international community in restoring democracy to Pakistan, which might prove more effective in combating terrorism than continuing to prop up a discredited and despised dictator.

This article appeared in Gulf News  on February 20, 2008

Beyond Musharraf

Pakistan has never voted a military ruler out of office. That could change following Monday’s parliamentary elections. Though President Pervez Musharraf was not on the ballot, the election was about his fate.

The people voted overwhelmingly against Mr. Musharraf. Even though the election was held under rules that favored his political allies, almost every candidate who served in his government lost. So did all major leaders of the Kings Party that Mr. Musharraf cobbled together with the help of his security services soon after taking power in a 1999 military coup. The Islamists, who Mr. Musharraf used as bogeymen to garner Western support, were trounced. This is good news for everyone worried about an Islamist takeover of the world’s only nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority nation.

The result was a posthumous victory for former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. This victory vindicated the sacrifice of every Pakistani who was imprisoned or exiled during eight years of autocratic rule but continued demanding freedom. Bhutto returned to the country seeking its return to democracy, only to be assassinated by terrorists on Dec. 27.

Pakistan’s powerful army, now under the command of Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, is beginning to distance itself from politics. The army’s refusal to side with Mr. Musharraf’s political allies sealed their fate. Now, the army must help put Pakistan back on the constitutional path by undoing the arbitrary constitutional amendments decreed by Mr. Musharraf as army chief a few days before he relinquished his command.

The depth of opposition to Mr. Musharraf, coupled with his tendency to change or break rules to stay in power, had raised serious concerns that Mr. Musharraf would manipulate the election results in favor of his allies. In the end, international pressure, represented by the presence of three prominent U.S. senators — John Kerry (D., Mass.), Joe Biden (D., Del.) and Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) — on Election Day helped stay Mr. Musharraf’s hand. Mr. Musharraf also seemed to think that tilting the rules in his party’s favor would be enough for victory, and thus fraud on polling day would be unnecessary.

That does not mean, however, that Mr. Musharraf might not still try to manipulate the situation to cling to power. He could try and create rifts between the various opposition parties by negotiating separately with them, and by using his intelligence services to bribe or blackmail individual politicians. Late last year, Mr. Musharraf had himself “elected” president by Pakistan’s outgoing parliament, which was itself chosen through a dubious election in 2002. He then fired 60% of superior court judges to forestall judicial review of the presidential election.

Trying such antics again would be a disastrous mistake. Some members of the Bush administration have repeatedly described Mr. Musharraf as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism. Economic and military assistance from the U.S. and other Western countries has been crucial for Mr. Musharraf’s political survival thus far, and has probably contributed to his arrogance.

This might be the moment for Mr. Musharraf’s Western backers to help him understand that annulment or alteration of the election results would plunge Pakistan deeper into chaos. Mr. Musharraf should not only abide by the verdict of his people but also recognize that Pakistan — not he — is the crucial ally the world needs to defeat terrorists.

Pakistan faces an al-Qaeda-backed insurgency along its border with Afghanistan, which is spilling over into other parts of the country. Any attempt by Mr. Musharraf to insist on retaining absolute power — rather than allowing opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari to return Pakistan to normal constitutional governance — would only anger the vast majority of Pakistanis who have just voted for moderate, antiterrorist parties. The ensuing chaos could strengthen the violent Islamist insurgents.

Pakistan’s two major opposition parties — the pro-Western, center-left Pakistan Peoples Party now led by Bhutto’s widower Asif Zardari, and the center-right Pakistan Muslim League — together could have a two-thirds majority in the 342-seat National Assembly. Mr. Musharraf’s allies have been virtually wiped out. The opposition can now form a government that is no longer subservient to Mr. Musharraf.

Even if he remains president, Mr. Musharraf will no longer remain the most powerful man in Pakistan. He has said in the past that he would rather step down than face the ignominy of being impeached by the newly elected parliament, which is now possible. The opposition would be well advised to exercise restraint. At the same time, Mr. Musharraf would have to reverse many of his arbitrary decisions in order to qualify for the opposition’s minimal cooperation.

Since 9/11, Mr. Musharraf has marketed himself to the West as the man most capable of saving Pakistan from a radical Islamist takeover. But under his rule Pakistan has become more vulnerable to terrorists than before. Mr. Musharraf’s government has squandered good will through its arbitrary actions against the political opposition and judiciary. Furthermore, only a small sliver of the country’s 160 million people have benefited from the economic achievements of the past eight years.

The recent election campaign was marred by violence, which the government blames on terrorists. But the targets of violence have been the secular opposition parties — the most notable victim being Bhutto, who became an icon of democracy for Pakistanis after her assassination. Opposition politicians justifiably questioned why the terrorists have not attacked pro-Musharraf groups, if he was the one fighting terror.

Mr. Musharraf must now accept the consequence of defeat, and work out an honorable exit or a workable compromise with the opposition. The two parties that have emerged with popular support from this election should get full backing from the international community in restoring democracy to Pakistan. This might prove more effective in combating terrorism than continuing to prop up a discredited and despised dictator.

This article appeared in Wall Street Journal on February 20, 2008

Musharraf’s Indira Moment

Here is a quiz question for all readers. Who told London’s Sunday Times, “It is wholly wrong to say that I resorted to Emergency to keep myself in office. The extra-constitutional challenge was constitutionally met.” The “emergency was declared to save the country from disruption and collapse”; it had “enabled us to put through the new economic programme” and led to “a new sense of national confidence.”

If you guessed General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, you guessed wrong. It was Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. She also told the Saturday Review of New York, “What has been done… is not an abrogation of democracy but an effort to safeguard it.”

Although she came from a democratic dynasty, Mrs Gandhi fell into the authoritarian temptation when on June 26, 1975 she imposed Emergency in India. Most observers thought she was acting to avoid the consequences of the judgement by the Allahabad High Court annulling her election to parliament from Rae Bareilly in 1971.

Mrs Gandhi, who considered herself indispensable for her country, explained the imposition of emergency as an opportunity to clean up accumulated mess and lay the foundations of a bold new order. India was not a strategic ally of the US and Britain and, therefore, international public opinion was not a consideration.

Still she had to explain her action to India and the world. Her statements from that period strongly resemble the recent pronouncements of General Musharraf and his henchmen.

Mrs Gandhi said, “The president has declared emergency. There is nothing to panic about.” She claimed, “This was a necessary response to the deep and widespread conspiracy which has been brewing ever since I began to introduce certain progressive measures of benefit to the common man and woman of India.”

Mrs Gandhi’s explanation of the Emergency reads uncannily similar to Musharraf’s recent statements though, given his general aversion to extensive reading, it is unlikely that he had read Mrs Gandhi’s statements before making his own.

After administering what she described as ‘bitter medicine’ necessary for the good of a sick ‘child’, Mrs Gandhi decided to secure a mandate from what she expected to be a grateful Indian populace.

Elections were held in the third week of March 1977 and when results were announced on March 20, the ruling Congress party had been routed by an unusual alliance of all anti-Indira forces joined under the banner of the Janata Party. Indira Gandhi lost her own seat in parliament from Rae Bareilly.

For all her authoritarian disposition, Mrs Gandhi did not have it in her to try and rig a general election. India’s strong democratic tradition and its independent Election Commission and judiciary would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to thwart the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

Over the next three years, Mrs Gandhi reorganised her party and apologised to the Indian people for the excesses under Emergency rule. The Janata Party’s internal cracks led to the collapse of its government and in the subsequent election, a chastened Mrs Gandhi and Congress returned to power.

In Pakistan’s case, General Musharraf is not a politician willing to lose power for a few years to return to office in a subsequent election. Pakistan’s Election Commission and post-Emergency judiciary are mere instruments in the hands of the executive branch of government, which is firmly controlled by Musharraf.

Public opinion polls indicate that 70 per cent of Pakistanis want Musharraf to quit. The latest poll by US-based Terror Free Tomorrow shows 38 per cent support for PPP, 25 per cent for PML-N and only 12 per cent for PML-Q.

In the 2002 election, Pakistan’s poll manipulators gave the religious alliance MMA almost 21 per cent of seats in the National Assembly with only 11 per cent of the popular vote in a low turnout election.

This time, efforts are under way to depress the turnout with attacks on opposition rallies. Every opposition party has had some of its members killed in mysterious terrorist attacks that, for some strange reason, have not targeted the ruling PML-Q or its major ally, the MQM.

Will Musharraf learn from Indira Gandhi and let the people vote him out by letting the opposition win a two-thirds majority on election day as the polls clearly indicate or will he compound Pakistan’s misery by rigging the polls and creating a new round of confrontation? The future of Pakistan hinges on the answer to that question.

This article appeared in Indian Express on February 13, 2008

Will Musharraf Learn from Indira

Here is a quiz question for all readers. Who told London’s Sunday Times, “It is wholly wrong to say that I resorted to Emergency to keep myself in office… The extra-constitutional challenge was constitutionally met.”

The “emergency was declared to save the country from disruption and collapse;” it had “enabled us to put through the new economic programme” and led to “a new sense of national confidence”.

If you guessed General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, you guessed wrong. It was Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. She also told the Saturday Review, “What has been done… is not an abrogation of democracy but an effort to safeguard it”.

Although she came from a democratic dynasty, Indira Gandhi fell into the authoritarian temptation when on June 26, 1975 she imposed Emergency in India.

Most observers thought she was acting to avoid the consequences of the judgement by the Allahabad High Court annulling her election to parliament from Rae Bareilly in 1971.

Gandhi’s explanation of the Emergency reads uncannily similar to Musharraf’s recent statements though, given his general aversion to extensive reading, it is unlikely that he had read Gandhi’s statements before making his own. Quite clearly all rulers in authoritarian mode think alike instinctively and do not need to read the other’s words to be influenced by them.

After administering what she described as “bitter medicine” necessary for the good of a sick “child”, Gandhi decided to secure a mandate from what she expected to be a grateful Indian populace.

Routed

Elections were held in the third week of March 1977 and when results were announced on March 20, the ruling Congress party was routed by an unusual alliance of all anti-Indira forces joined under the banner of the Janata Party. Indira Gandhi lost her own seat in parliament from Rae Bareilly.

For all her authoritarian disposition, Gandhi did not have it in her to try and rig a general election. India’s strong democratic tradition and its independent Election Commission and judiciary would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to thwart the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

Over the next three years, Gandhi reorganised her party and apologised to the Indian people for the excesses under Emergency rule and in the subsequent election, a chastened Gandhi and Congress were returned to power.

In Pakistan’s case, Musharraf is not a politician willing to lose power for a few years to return to office in a subsequent election.

Pakistan’s Election Commission and post-Emergency judiciary are mere instruments in the hands of the Executive branch of government, which is firmly controlled by Musharraf.

Public opinion polls indicate that 70 per cent of Pakistanis want Musharraf to quit.

Will Musharraf learn from Indira Gandhi and let the people vote him out by letting the opposition win a two-thirds majority on election day as the polls clearly indicate or will he compound Pakistan’s misery by rigging the polls and creating a new round of confrontation? The future of Pakistan hinges on the answer to that question.

The article was published in Gulf News on February 13, 2008

A Battle Between State and Nation

The recent reminders by the Pakistani authorities that the media should stay “within limits” reflect the mindset of an authoritarian regime. As the legitimacy of the regime erodes further in the eyes of Pakistanis and the international community, the more its henchmen are likely to question the patriotism of those criticising it.

In case of General (retired) Pervez Musharraf the tendency to equate national interest with his opinions or interests is not new. Soon after the 1999 coup that brought him to power, Musharraf addressed newspaper editors in Islamabad and urged them to promote the national interest.

He could not understand the question when an editor asked, “But what if you and I have different ideas about what constitutes national interest?”

In a constitutional democracy, national interest is defined by elected representatives of the people who debate every domestic and foreign policy issue. Out of different views of national interest emerges the view of the majority.

Take the debate that has raged in the United States and Europe over the war in Iraq for several years. President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair went to the war with reasonable levels of public support within their respective countries.

As elected officials, leaders of democracies owe their jobs to voters, not to the armies or secret services they command. Having been elected, they also have the constitutional right to go ahead with unpopular policies until the next election.

Blair stepped down amid declining popularity because his Labour Party wanted a fresh face to lead it in the next election.

Bush’s Republican Party paid a price for his unpopularity during Congressional elections in 2006 and might suffer a setback again in this year’s polls.

The ability to remove unpopular rulers without bloodshed and debating alternative visions of what is good for the country is the beauty of constitutional democracy.

The authoritarian mindset is very different. It assumes that there is only one valid course that serves the interest of the State and those advocating an alternative course can only be deemed as enemies of the State. But the State and nation are two different concepts.

Before independence, the State in what is today Pakistan, India and Bangladesh was controlled by a foreign nation, Great Britain. The aspirations of the nation were articulated by Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah who wanted to radically alter the State by expelling its British masters.

Point of view

From the point of view of the British State, leaders of the independence movements were acting against the national interest but in the nation’s opinion they were the only true voice of the nation’s interest.

In case of Pakistan, representative political leaders were eliminated from the process of post-independence governance by the permanent employees of the State machinery.

But the first generation of Pakistan’s generals, civil servants and intelligence officials had joined the service of the British-run State and, therefore, could not be legitimate definers of the interest of an independent Pakistani nation.

As the State inherited from the British insisted on shaping the Pakistani nation, rather than the Pakistani nation being allowed to mold the Pakistani State, a battle between State and nation began that continues to this day.

But Pakistan would be better off if constitutional and political mechanisms are allowed to run their course. To make that possible an absolutely free and fair election and reversing arbitrary amendments to the constitution are necessary.

Imposition of a narrowly defined view of national interest by permanent employees of the State has done incalculable harm to Pakistan’s evolution as a nation.

It is a positive sign that serving and retired military officers are now recognising the value of political processes and respecting the right of dissent.

Given that Musharraf’s claim to power rested on his command of the military perhaps the institution also has a responsibility to help undo the harm done by his – and earlier authoritarian rulers’ – mindset.

The article was published in Gulf News on February 6, 2008

State versus Nation

Recent reminders by the Pakistani authorities that the media should stay ‘within limits’ reflect the mindset of an authoritarian regime. The more the legitimacy of the regime erodes in the eyes of Pakistanis and the international community, the more its henchmen are likely to question the patriotism of those criticising it.

In the case of General (retired) Pervez Musharraf the tendency to equate the national interest with his opinions or interests is not new. Soon after the 1999 coup that brought him to power, Musharraf addressed newspaper editors in Islamabad and urged them to promote the national interest. He could not understand the question when an editor asked, “But what if you and I have different ideas about what constitutes national interest?”

In a constitutional democracy, national interest is defined by elected representatives of the people who debate every domestic and foreign policy issue. Out of different views of national interest emerges the view of the majority.

Take the debate that has raged in the US and Europe over the war in Iraq for several years. President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair went into the war with reasonable levels of public support within their countries.

As elected officials, leaders of democracies owe their jobs to voters, not to the armies or secret services they command. Having been elected, they also have the constitutional right to go ahead with unpopular policies until the next election.

Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi lost their jobs because of their support for the Iraq war. Tony Blair stepped down amid declining popularity because his Labour Party wanted a fresh face to lead it in the next election. President Bush’s Republican Party paid a price for his unpopularity during Congressional elections in 2006 and might suffer a setback again in this year’s polls.

The ability to remove unpopular rulers without bloodshed and debating alternative visions of what is good for the country is the beauty of constitutional democracy. Irrespective of the outcome of the debate, the real victor in each political contest is the process that allows disagreement.

The authoritarian mindset is very different. It assumes that there is only one valid course that serves the interest of the state and those advocating an alternative course can only be deemed as enemies of the state. But the state and nation are two different concepts. Before independence, the state in what is today Pakistan, India and Bangladesh was controlled by a foreign nation, the British. The aspirations of the nation were articulated by Gandhi and Jinnah who wanted to radically alter the state by expelling its British masters.

From the point of view of the British state, leaders of the independence movements were acting against the national interest, but in the nation’s opinion they were the only true voice of the nation’s interest.

In case of Pakistan, representative political leaders were eliminated from the process of post-Independence governance by the permanent employees of the state machinery. But the first generation of Pakistan’s generals, civil servants and intelligence officials had joined the service of the British-run state and, therefore, could not be legitimate definers of the interest of an independent Pakistani nation.

In the eyes of the British generation of Pakistan’s civil and military leaders, the state’s interests were no different after independence than they were before. Representatives of the people, reflecting different visions of Pakistan, saw national interest very differently from the narrow definitions offered by those who had been on the wrong side of the independence struggle. As the state inherited from the British insisted on shaping the Pakistani nation, rather than the Pakistani nation being allowed to mould the Pakistani state, a battle between state and nation began that continues to this day.

It is a positive sign that serving and retired military officers are now recognising the value of political processes and respecting the right of dissent.

Given that Musharraf’s claim to power rested on his command of the military perhaps the institution also has a responsibility to help undo the harm done by his — and earlier authoritarian rulers’ — mindset.

The article was Published in The Indian Express on 6 Feb 2008. The writer is director of Boston University’s Centre for International Relations haqqani@bu.edu