Submissions on the ‘Democratic’ process in Pakistan
In the peak of the ‘Democracy’ season in Pakistan, Mr. Altaf Hussein has
sounded a discordant note with his latest statement, implying that he would
support ‘Patriotic Generals’ if they use their military prowess to eradicate
corruption and feudalism from Pakistan. Some prominent politicians and civil
society luminaries have already reacted with horror to Mr. Altaf Hussein’s political
hand grenade. As a concerned student of our history and an outsider to the
present centre stage of our politics, I would like to respond to this occasion by
examining some of the implications arising out of Mr. Altaf Hussein’s statement.
I am unable to equate democracy with elections and the politics of elections
alone. The political history of the Third World during the last sixty years is full of
instances in which this paradigm of democracy has produced the messy
stagnation which has taken hold of many of these countries for a long time, and
has served to deny three generations of a brighter future which could and should
have been their fate. And let us not forget the modern instances of the election
politics and process in Germany in 1930s and about the same time in the Soviet
Union. They produced disastrous social formations and sad endings. The point is
that elections by themselves are only the mechanics of a political process. They
are not the substance of democracy. Democracy is a massive movement of the
common people against an oppressive and obstructive social order and for its
replacement by another social order which enables the people to restructure their
society and therewith establish an appropriate political and legal order which
opens the doors for civilized progress. And the process of democracy can last
only as long as that movement of the people continues with dynamic vigor.
These events occur and become real and turning points in their history.
I am unable to see when such events and turning points occurred in our history
since 14th August 1947, nor do I recall of when they occurred prior to 1947.
Neither do I find any literature which documents and demonstrates that we have
in fact gone through this process, and developed a vigorous consensus of the
common people, which could have produced such events. A consensus
mushroomed in 1945 and 1946 to grasp Pakistan as a huge opportunity for a
large number of the upper and middle classes for their personal betterment. And
so in fact it happened. The British withdrew their sovereignty over Pakistan by an
act of their Parliament and left Pakistani society intact as they had made it. There
was no operative vision of a social change at all. Even the Foreign Minister, and
the Finance Minister and the first two Army Chiefs came from the British stable
and were not even members of the Muslim League Party. I walked with Jinnah’s
funeral to his resting place and clearly recall that the marriage of Islam and
politics in Pakistan took place quite some time after his burial. It was manifest
that conferring the title of Islam on Pakistan later was a substitute devise for the
total absence of a social vision arising out of a popular consensus and its
leadership. This was obvious because neither the Quaid-e-Azam, nor the Quran
had prescribed Islam or any other religion for the State of Pakistan. Both were
categorical that religion was a matter of choice between an individual and his
God. The Quran even more so, because the entry to Islam could only be made
by an individual who believed in God and declared his option to adopt the Islamic
path leading to God by pronouncing the Kalima, promising to bear witness to it in
deed and thought. If it is suggested that ‘Democracy’ means a legal continuity
then this notion was negated by the highest court in Pakistan supported by the
practical approval and consensus of the people of Pakistan. The first Martial Law
was still to come four years later and that too after having been mid-wifed by the
civilian administration.
All Martial Laws hitherto of General Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan, General
Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharraf share the same fundamental character
together with all the intervening civilian governments of preserving and standing
guard over a pre-democratic social formation preferred so far by the people of
Pakistan. I am unable therefore to make a qualitative political distinction between
the civilian and military administrations in this country for the last 62 years. It is
true that there have been many interesting changes in political personalities and
devises but that is all.
The extent of parallel economy in Pakistan is well recognized and researched,
and where its ratio is one of the highest in the world. Parallel economy by
definition means economic transactions which are in violation of law. So a
fundamental feature of our social reality is that the bulk of the economic
transactions we are all engaged in and which probably are the larger source of
our real incomes and profits are based upon a consensus to arrange illegalities
as far as practically possible. Whereas democracy by definition means that laws
are made by the people and for the people. It is logically inconsistent that we can
simultaneously have a mind-set committed to a parallel economy and at the
same time have a consensus in support of democracy. You can have only one or
the other at a time. In Pakistan it is obvious if we take a closer look at ourselves
that we have not yet preferred democracy. As a social reality it has not yet
begun.
Today a regular Pakistani politician Mr. Altaf Hussein has chosen to make a very
irregular and out of character statement in making a novel classification among
the armed forces i.e. those Generals who are patriotic and opposed to corruption
and to feudalism and those who are dissimilar to them. And by promising the
support of his party it seems that some Pakistani political elements are exploring
new territory. The question is, are there any worthwhile realities within our reach
and available to us in this new territory? We have seen that elections and coups
so far have been mere mechanics for our people to continue marking time in fair
weather and foul with the same basic social formation which was bequeathed to
us by the Indian Independence Act of 1947 by the British Parliament.
It is becoming obvious by the day that our prevailing ideological and national
security doctrines have run out of steam. There are no more fig leaves left. We
have no international opportunities left to exploit as in the past and no semblance
of credibility left. As a motley crowd marching towards greater anarchy by the day
we have no future left as a country and as a society. And when the inevitable
reckoning comes if we persist as we have done there will be hell to pay as the
Indian Muslims had to when their rotten feudal power came to a final end in
1857. The writing on the wall is becoming clearer for more and more of us
virtually with every passing day. So it would not be unnatural for living human
beings to react against their own embedded nature when confronted with the
issue of survival.
Therefore there cannot possibly be a fifth Martial Law which belongs to the family
of the four we have already had. If there has to be a dramatic redeeming event in
the near future it will have to be in substance and reality radically different from
our past history. It is equally clear, if there is to be a turning of a page in our
history it will have to be by the common Will, intention and consensus of the
people. That is a sine qua non. We cannot build a future comprehensively
different and substantially better without it. And that would be the beginning of
our democracy. The mobilization and emergence of such a consensus of the
common people which produces a qualitatively different mind-set and a different
culture is what alone can produce a real democracy. And of course elections will
be a part of its mechanics. Equally any mechanics whatsoever employed by a
moribund colonial society cannot possibly produce democracy.
To give birth to a contemporary democracy we have to have a human agency
within us to generate that social substance out of which a democratic leadership
and governance can come into being. I believe we are all agreed minus a few
that the existing political parties and civil society have again and again proved to
be inherently incapable of producing such an agency of historic proportions. They
are too stuck in their old ways and too fragmented in their minds and hearts, with
a personal agenda dominating both. There is also no doubt that our armed forces
have all along been ours and a product of our society such as it has been. The
civilians and the soldiers share the same mothers. So we do not have existing
ready-made agencies of change. Certainly there would be someone here or
someone there who is different but one swallow here or there does not make a
spring. The real potential for agency which can be the midwife of change can
only lie in the core of our human nature, our survival instinct, in the face of an
impending catastrophe. But when a whole country and a whole society is at stake
then the saving instinct must have a magnitude sufficient to overcome the
prevailing inertia and generate a model which can attract more and more
adherents to it. So that it becomes the survival instinct of the majority of the
common people.
I have been clear in my mind since 1973 that we have already reached that stage
where the civilian political process in Pakistan has become hopelessly bankrupt.
And it is only if and when the armed forces decide to undertake the responsibility
of playing the role of the midwife will it be possible to produce real change and
real democracy. Later in 1981 when I spent a few months with 45 stalwarts of the
MRD movement in Kot Lakhpat jail, I had the opportunity to argue my case at
length with them. While accepting most of my thesis my friends insisted that I
should come up with a practical plan which will bring them back to power within
five years or so. Then in 1984, I spent two long days with General Akhtar Abdur
Rehman as his prisoner, I argued the same case once again and for my labors I
had to accept his hospitality for the next 19 months. In my last meeting with
General Musharraf along with eminent members of Lahore’s Intelligentsia we
spent the better part of the night discussing at length his concept and proposals
for ‘reconciliation and consensus’. I was in the minority of one, with my
submission that the objective basis for a democracy does not exist with or
without reconciliation and consensus and the only consensus that was possible
was for the welfare of the individual and not society.
When I read Mr. Altaf Hussein’s statement a couple of days ago I felt that I
should once again express my views, of course hoping their expression will not
be visited by similar consequences this time.
Ideological matters aside, I believe I understand most of the practical issues and
concerns which confront an organized armed force like ours when it comes to a
fork in the road ahead, as perhaps it has come to now. But there is one feature of
the present time which is in favor of change. And that is that China and the
United States and a few others should in their own national interest be in mutual
agreement to commit their overall support for a credible effort by Pakistanis
themselves to turn this country around, thus increasing greatly the chances of
success in our endeavor.
To sum up, I think it is common ground that the overwhelming majority is not
shedding any tears over Pervez Musharraf or his seven years of rule as Martial
Law Administrator, and nor are we looking for his return under a different name
plate. As I feel the pulse of our people in the present, in the prevailing situation
my understanding is that the general crisis of Pakistani society and system or
lack of it has deepened to a precarious point where our previous faith in the
Pakistani system, as we have known it, is lost. There is an emerging consensus
that there is hardly any sense of expectation or optimism in the visible future, and
there is a growing fear about the future of the country’s existence and structure
with or without Indian aggression. The haunting precedence of 1971 is silently
coming to the back of our minds. There is a growing and pervasive sense of
apprehension and uncertainty which is compounded by the fact that immigration
visas for Pakistanis are more and more difficult to come by.
In this context the real issue is not in terms of the personalities of Mr. Asif Zardari
and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, etc. There is nothing in our living memory to make us pick
and choose between the ruling personalities that we have had in Pakistan
whether they were civilian or military, ‘democratic’ or ‘dictatorial’. We have had
good times and bad times which in retrospect seem to arise out of the ups and
downs of our relations with foreign countries, primarily the United States. I do not
recall the common people having ever been inspired by or idealized any
leadership or party or platform that we have had. There had been a predictable
unspoken understanding that Pakistan is a God gifted space in which the rulers
are free to do their thing and have their share of Christmas cake, and the people
are free to pursue their personal agendas by various devises. There has been an
assumption underlying it all that for some irrational reason this state of affairs will
continue permanently.
Today this consensus about our reality seems to be breaking up and losing its
force over our minds. So we have lived through four generations of an embedded
consensus filled with dynamic cynicism, where the sense of stability was based
upon the perception that all sections and departments of society shared a
consensus of our surreal reality. We seem to have discovered a balance
between the pursuit of individual goals and the appearance of nationhood. Today
all this appears to be coming to an end. I think there is a general realization today
that the Pakistani consensus is no longer working. There is a growing realization
that the pursuit of personal agenda can no longer be sustained within the formal
legal and political framework. And of course the personal factor is, as it has
always been, the dominant and the decisive factor, and the framework only
secondary, as a mere facilitating factor.
This is evidenced by the fact that the minimum administrative and legal process
has now been eroded to a level that the Pakistani formula is fast approaching a
break down point. Instead fissiparous trends are rapidly undoing the nuts and
bolts of stability and sustainability.
There is a clear difference between this situation as it is emerging today and that
which prevailed towards the end of 1971. The majority feeling then was one of
optimism about the future of West Pakistan, as it then was, and that the loss of
East Pakistan was a blessing in disguise for the individual futures of the people in
West Pakistan. Today that is not so. Instead there is a growing and pervasive
anxiety about the turmoil and uncertainty if we continue as we are doing.
There is very little clarity and hard information concerning the crucial facts and
their logic. There is an abundance of interesting speculation. And in these murky
times inevitably what we have to go by with regard to our internal situation is a
perception of what the people feel generally and a perception of their pulse. We
can however focus more firmly upon the underlying realities and logic of the
emerging international situation at the beginning of second decade of the 21 st
century. But there is very little discourse, debate or enquiry in that area.
Intellectually we still seem to be searching for short term or near future tactics
from the standpoint of a vested interest in the Pakistani status quo. What seems
clear to me is that we need nothing less than a paradigm shift in our prevailing
philosophy of Pakistan such as it has been. The reality of our people being what
it is, a paradigm shift is not possible without a credible leadership with a clear
vision of our future in the 21st century and a firm commitment.
In the face of our track record and overwhelming evidence there is no possibility
at present of such a leadership coming out of any section of our civil society.
Politically, it is at present a hospital case. The only possibility for making and
implementing a paradigm shift is the well organized and functioning army that we
still have, provided that it is able to reinvent itself and decisively shift from being
the army that it has been during the last four Martial Laws. For me it is impossible
to predict with any precision what the near future holds for us. All I can say is that
our army amongst other things has a healthy pragmatic sense of survival. The
army at this stage would not provide an alternate system of governance but
provide the surgical leadership required for making a paradigm shift in Pakistani
society and political process.
Raza Kazim, Director of Sanjannagar Institute of Philosophy and Arts and
Advocate
Email: rkazim13@gmail.com