A question of democracy
By Husain Haqqani
Gulf News, May 23, 2006
Recent developments in Nepal and Nigeria serve as examples for how nations
can overcome entrenched authoritarian structures through popular mobilisation
and thoughtful political action.
Nepal's parliament, restored by King Gyanendra after massive street protests,
has voted to strip the king of all substantive powers. That paves the way for
the country's transition, hopefully on a more stable basis, towards constitutional
democracy under a titular monarch.
King Gyanendra's effort to use his nation's difficulties, including the brutal
Maoist insurgency that plagues the countryside, to concentrate power in his
own hands appears to have been thwarted.
It took a combination of international pressure, manifestation of the people's
opposition to the king in the streets of Katmandu and cooperation among Nepal's
various political parties to ensure the diminution of the king's authority.
Nepal still has a long way to go in its transition to democracy but its political
leaders have clearly agreed on a roadmap for that transition.
In Nigeria, the Senate threw out a proposed constitutional amendment that would
have allowed retired General Olusegun Obasanjo to seek a third term as the country's
president. Like Pakistan, Nigeria has also had a chequered history of intermittent
civilian and military rule.
General Obasanjo had been Nigeria's military ruler from 1976 to 1979. Then,
he handed over power to an elected civilian government that was subsequently
overthrown by the military. Obasanjo entered politics and was elected president
in 1999 as a popular civilian politician after a round of disastrous military
dictators.
Nigeria's constitution limits elected presidents to two terms of office. But
Obasanjo's colleagues campaigned hard to change the constitution to enable their
leader to secure the presidency again. The decision of the Nigerian parliament
to reject the proposition is likely to strengthen democracy in Africa's most
populous country.
Educated Pakistanis who are equally disillusioned with the country's military
and political leaderships must look at the experiences of Nepal and Nigeria
to identify prospects for change within their own country.
King Gyanendra had justified his own power grab on grounds of the ineffectiveness
and ineptitude of Nepal's civilian politicians. But the politicians turned to
the masses and were eventually able to demonstrate greater popular support for
their messy democracy than for King Gyanendra's "efficient autocracy".
Pakistan's politicians, too, would have to do the same.
Waning support
Once Nepal's people took to the streets, Gyanendra's international support vapourised.
The international community backed the demand for restoration of parliamentary
government and it is unlikely that the cantankerous nature of Nepal's politics
will change the world's commitment to constitutional democratic rule in Nepal.
The "Charter for Democracy" recently signed by Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif offers hope that the still popular exiled politicians might return
to Pakistan in time for the 2007 parliamentary elections.
People power is more easily manifested in countries where the commercial centre,
political and cultural hub and state capital are all in one city or close to
each other.
In Pakistan's case, the federal capital (Islamabad) is a city mostly of diplomats
and civil servants while centres of commercial and political activity are widely
dispersed. Unless an agitation campaign is organised in several Pakistani cities
simultaneously, it is unlikely to be effective.
The last such campaign, in 1977, succeeded because it was encouraged by the
refusal of the military-intelligence complex to put it down with force. Since
then, Pakistan's military and intelligence services have ensured through manipulation
that each of Pakistan's major cities is controlled by a different political
faction.
Since the 1999 coup d'etat, General Pervez Musharraf has benefited from disagreements
within opposition ranks and the lack of sufficient organisation of Pakistan's
mainstream political parties.
The military regime has, through the political wings of the intelligence services,
exacerbated dissension among opposition ranks and aggravated the relatively
weak organisation of Benazir Bhutto's PPP and Nawaz Sharif's PML(N). It is difficult
to be fully organised as a political party while being hounded by the state
apparatus.
The "Charter for Democracy" marks the end of acrimony between the
major parties, which was accentuated by the military-intelligence combine between
1988 and 1999 and then cited as justification for the military's continuous
meddling in politics.
The supporters of the two mainstream parties would be encouraged to mobilise
by the return to the country of their leaders. That would make it difficult
for the Musharraf regime to stage-manage the results of the 2007 election.
If Pakistan's parliament acts like the Nigerian Senate and turns down any attempt
by Musharraf to change the rules of the game, Pakistan might also get another
chance at becoming a democracy.