www.civilsocietyonline.com

February 2008 Edition

Comment on this story

 

 

Riaz Quadir
Versailles

ONE of the key elements of the democratic process is the rule of law. Without it democratic institutions cannot take root. The dismal state of civil society in Pakistan is a perfect case in point. NGOs in Pakistan in general have a disconnect with society at large because in the absence of the rule of law the feudal structure of the ruling class, irrespective of which political party or army echelon they come from, have the same elitist goals and a common stranglehold over the country.

Having said that, one can see the gradual emergence of an independent judiciary and media. Pervez Musharraf tried to take Dick the butcher’s advice to dictators: "The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers." (Henry VI, Shakespeare) and failed, but not for lack of trying. The recent show of unity among the nation’s judiciary has greatly weakened Musharraf’s position and given hope to the people.

A sizable number of middle class, educated professionals are waiting in the wings to help turn the tide. Women are fed up with being sent back to the pre- Islamic era by being used as fodder in the war between fundamentalists and the USA, and have put in place enough grassroots organisations that will bloom in no time once the rule of law has been established. True, that in the recent past, these voices have been silenced by the din of angry Islamic fundamentalists tearing down posters of women, burning music and video discs, and shouting slogans demanding Sharia law. Since America is seen as a common oppressor one does not visibly see much protest against the fundamentalists. But Pakistan is not Afghanistan.

Nor will the marketplace allow it. The slow but sure absorption of the female workforce into the labour market will not permit a reversal. Positive trends in education and health for women are also a fact in Pakistan, however marginal, despite the surrounding political chaos. In brief, civil society is woven into the fabric of Pakistani society and with time (and minimum interference from America and its Western allies) will emerge into full view. India will play a major role in Pakistan’s future. By reversing the caricature role of enemies India stands to gain. In effect, if not in form, the original unity of the Indian sub-continent can be regained. The European Union is a finemodel for warring nations seeking that kind of unity. India and Pakistan have far more in common than France and Germany or England and Spain.

Independence from colonial rule in 1947 was but a beginning. Healing the divide would be the ultimate victory. The September 1947 edition of Time magazine described the birth of Pakistan with the words: a geographic monstrosity is born. Surely, the colonial principle of divide and rule had been carried to such ridiculous extremes that a country with two wings, separated by over a 1,000 miles of the very country from which it was being sliced off, was, to say the least, a disfiguration. That the two wings, East and West Pakistan, split under very bitter conditions after cohabiting for less than 25 years was proof enough of the absurdity of its raison d’etre.That India with its vast intellectual heritage and forceful leadership couldn’t be turned into a puppet state did not prevent the Imperial powers from trying their hands on fledgling Pakistan next door. Sharing a 5,000 year old cultural heritage with the rest of the South Asian sub-continent made it similar to India in so many ways, and yet religion - the basis of its separation from India - made it so distinct.

In any case, the ideals of democracy had surely taken root in what was to become Pakistan at the same time as it did inthe rest of South Asia during the long struggle to overthrow the colonial yoke that had kept it in chains for centuries. For the first decade after independence Pakistan struggled as a nascent democracy. History was stacked against it, however. Its leaders were, in fact, really Indians, and like millions of its citizens, migrants (mujahirs) themselves; strangers in a strange land trying to fashion a nation out of a meagre Muslim intellectual diaspora. Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, died with 13 months of its birth and its first Prime Minister and co-founder, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated three years later (in precisely the same Municipal Park in Karachi where 57 years later another politician, the late Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated).

The struggle for power between the natives and the newcomers was the underlying reality that would shape the politics of Pakistan. Perfectly positioned for the machinations of the Cold War warriors, the Sandhurst trained Army General, Ayub Khan, ended the short- ived aspirations of people’s rule, starting a legacy of martial law and army dictatorship that was to become the future of Pakistan. A country rich in human and material resources and strategically positioned for global domino politics, it had like so many others, become the target of American foreign policy. Which of course meant putting a halt to the growth of democracy. American foreign policy was quite simple: it was easier and more expedient to prop up and control a small coterie of decision-mak-ers who would do their bidding than export the principles of democracy on which their own nation was built. Such proxy rule had worked for the English and the French when they had been forced to quit their colonies.

The seeds of democratic institutions which had been planted and nurtured during the long struggle for freedom were being throttled and swamped. But would they die? Perhaps not. Despite the US supported dictatorships and the irreligious use of religion in the past 60 years, the aspirations of the people who had glimpsed freedom, however occasionally, continued to simmer. The rule of law which has been cabined, cribbed and confined never ceased to raise its head whenever the slightest opportunity offered itself. Religion has always been a double-edged sword when it came to statecraft and politics. Religion in itself rarely interfered with the truly democratic values of public life. Yet, religion has always been used by kings and later day national leaders as a weapon of blackmail against the people. In Pakistan, the religion on which its creation was based continued to be used to whip the people to frenzy each time they sought accountability of those in power.

Three wars, interspersed with numerous skirmishes have been fought to maintain that minimum level of enmity with India, enough to keep the people distracted and off balance. One could easily imagine that the Kashmir issue was solely created by the departing British as permanent blight on sub-continental politics. India, no stranger to playing politics, kept its end of the bargain by complying each time; that is till both nations had acquired nuclear weapons. Scapegoating for both nations has now become harder. Internet blogs and better communication in general, have opened the eyes of the people and given rise to a new scepticism. This may have given us some hope of banishing the religious weapon for good, had it not been further reshaped and perfected by the Americans fighting a proxy war with the Soviet Union in the 80’s. The fundamentalism of the peripheral tribal regions was made powerful enough by the USA to swamp a large portion of the country long before the Americans themselves attacked Afghanistan.

Once sentiments turned against the Americans the whole region of the northwest – and gradually the majority of the populace inPakistan have become ambivalent to the fundamentalist religious sentiments that gives them a sense of unity with other Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, all of whom are oppressed by the same oppressor. The fragile situation has been made even more volatile by the USA holding a sword over General Musharaf’s head. Bush’s “You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror...” applied to Pakistan more than any other State. In all probability the majority of Pakistan’s population is against the USA. Thus,declaring that he is fully allied to Bush’s War against terror actually puts Musharaf squarely fighting his own countrymen – not an unusual scenario for a large number of dictators from the Shah of Iran to Marcos to Saddam Hussein… who were installed, supported and eventually let down by the Americans, each believing that they were backed by the most powerful country in the world.

 

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society

.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )