BinZiad
18-11-2002, 23:32
Dictatorship goes on
Abid Ullah Jan
What’s in a name? Plenty when it comes to ruling a country with brute force.
Leaders with exciting titles, such as President and Prime Minister, sell
better than leaders with “dictator” kind of scary title. Two years after
Musharraf had ousted the prime minister in a coup, The Economist summed up
world opinion of him with damning brevity: “a useless dictator.” Three years
later, on November 16, 2002 he turned himself into an “elected President”
without removing his military uniform and without any endorsement from the
parliament.
The same day 324 opportunistic MNAs swore to remain subordinate to five more
years of his military control. They heralded the dawn of the
military-tailored democracy in Pakistan. Soon we will have an impotent,
spineless Parliament, which could only be steered from the Presidency. All
the rest is rhetoric and misleading slogans for democracy, some for local
and the rest for foreign consumption.
Interestingly, the newly elected members of national assembly are not only
fooling the nation but also themselves into believing that they are taking
oath under the 1973 constitution as it existed before the 1999 coup. The
General has however made them to take oath under a constitution that
incorporates the controversial Legal Framework Order (LFO) decreed by the
junta.
So, we have the blaring headlines: “the dawn of democracy” in Pakistan.
Whereas the General has, in fact, been empowered to sack the future prime
ministers, dissolve parliament and set up overseeing National Security
Council to permanently keep armed forces in the governance mechanism.
We are now living under a “democratic” set up in which our civilian leaders
have accepted the supremacy of armed forces in all decision making simply
because they are too focused on wheeling and dealing for different positions
in the future set up. The all empowered General-cum-President has the
previously prime ministerial powers to appoint armed forces’ chiefs and
provincial governors, who in turn will be empowered to sack provincial chief
ministers and dissolve provincial assemblies with the dictatorial assent
from the “President.”
Restoration of national assembly and putting on the label of elected
president doesn’t change the reality that Musharraf is no different than
Saddam Hussein, Hosnie Mubarak, Bashar-ul-Asad, etc. All of these win with a
margin no less than 95% of the vote in single candidate elections or
referendums. Despite all such games, the question of legitimacy would keep
haunting the General as much as it haunts his compatriot dictators elsewhere
in the world.
Elections are an easy way to legitimising power seized in the name of law
and order and national security. The recent elections and restoration of
assemblies would not win Musharraf a reputation as a democrat because the
facts are so obvious to hide with fig leaf of his sham democracy.
As far as strengthening democratic institutions is concerned, a consensus
among masses is now emerging that the whole election process was an exercise
in futility. The new assemblies would prove no different than the assemblies
gathered under General Zia to endorse his brand of democracy. The objective
in both cases was only to silence the politicians and hide the junta behind
the shield of being properly elected and inducted in the government.
Those who remember previous dictatorships would agree that introduction of a
new drama after regular intervals is part of the dictatorial game and a way
to prolong the illegitimate rule. The latest drama might look too real and
it may also work for a while, but only for a while before Washington
decides, in collusion with India, to put its foot down and teach the
Pakistan’s Army a lesson. We have failed but an Indo-US alliance will not.
That would be the end of Army’s role both in politics and in defending our
territorial integrity. It could well mean an end to Pakistan’s nuclear
deterrence and capability. They world would witness a disarmed Pakistan
after a disarmed Iraq.
Those of us who ignore the real intentions of General Musharraf and his
mentors’ in Washington must keep in mind that saving Pakistan from the US
attack in October 2001 is not a big deal. The US could not attack Pakistan
at that time any way. Similarly, increase in foreign reserves is not a great
achievement because any one could perform this feat by selling his brothers
and sisters. Furthermore, our unconditional cooperation in the US-led “war
on terrorism” has not improved our image in our own eyes -- among Muslim
masses, who are destined to overthrow the sell outs in the not too distant
future.
Musharraf’s decision to house US forces in Pakistan has not strengthened but
miserably weakened our national security. Contrary to his claims of a
“hopeful future” and “devolution of power,” Musharraf’s LFO and other
measures have actually weakened our governing mechanism. In the background
of “decentralization” from Islamabad, centralization towards military
headquarters – headquarterisation -- took place, under which the Junta in
the GHQ has been empowered to interfere and make a final decision about
every matter under the sun in Pakistan.
Interestingly all this happened in the name of democracy. The person who
took oath on November 16, 2002 is no different than the person who overthrow
an elected government on October 12, 1999: The same uniform, the same
intentions and the same powers to rule and speak from the barrel of a gun.
Titles and labels are irrelevant. The dictatorship goes on and on.
Concluded
November 18, 2002
Abid Ullah Jan
What’s in a name? Plenty when it comes to ruling a country with brute force.
Leaders with exciting titles, such as President and Prime Minister, sell
better than leaders with “dictator” kind of scary title. Two years after
Musharraf had ousted the prime minister in a coup, The Economist summed up
world opinion of him with damning brevity: “a useless dictator.” Three years
later, on November 16, 2002 he turned himself into an “elected President”
without removing his military uniform and without any endorsement from the
parliament.
The same day 324 opportunistic MNAs swore to remain subordinate to five more
years of his military control. They heralded the dawn of the
military-tailored democracy in Pakistan. Soon we will have an impotent,
spineless Parliament, which could only be steered from the Presidency. All
the rest is rhetoric and misleading slogans for democracy, some for local
and the rest for foreign consumption.
Interestingly, the newly elected members of national assembly are not only
fooling the nation but also themselves into believing that they are taking
oath under the 1973 constitution as it existed before the 1999 coup. The
General has however made them to take oath under a constitution that
incorporates the controversial Legal Framework Order (LFO) decreed by the
junta.
So, we have the blaring headlines: “the dawn of democracy” in Pakistan.
Whereas the General has, in fact, been empowered to sack the future prime
ministers, dissolve parliament and set up overseeing National Security
Council to permanently keep armed forces in the governance mechanism.
We are now living under a “democratic” set up in which our civilian leaders
have accepted the supremacy of armed forces in all decision making simply
because they are too focused on wheeling and dealing for different positions
in the future set up. The all empowered General-cum-President has the
previously prime ministerial powers to appoint armed forces’ chiefs and
provincial governors, who in turn will be empowered to sack provincial chief
ministers and dissolve provincial assemblies with the dictatorial assent
from the “President.”
Restoration of national assembly and putting on the label of elected
president doesn’t change the reality that Musharraf is no different than
Saddam Hussein, Hosnie Mubarak, Bashar-ul-Asad, etc. All of these win with a
margin no less than 95% of the vote in single candidate elections or
referendums. Despite all such games, the question of legitimacy would keep
haunting the General as much as it haunts his compatriot dictators elsewhere
in the world.
Elections are an easy way to legitimising power seized in the name of law
and order and national security. The recent elections and restoration of
assemblies would not win Musharraf a reputation as a democrat because the
facts are so obvious to hide with fig leaf of his sham democracy.
As far as strengthening democratic institutions is concerned, a consensus
among masses is now emerging that the whole election process was an exercise
in futility. The new assemblies would prove no different than the assemblies
gathered under General Zia to endorse his brand of democracy. The objective
in both cases was only to silence the politicians and hide the junta behind
the shield of being properly elected and inducted in the government.
Those who remember previous dictatorships would agree that introduction of a
new drama after regular intervals is part of the dictatorial game and a way
to prolong the illegitimate rule. The latest drama might look too real and
it may also work for a while, but only for a while before Washington
decides, in collusion with India, to put its foot down and teach the
Pakistan’s Army a lesson. We have failed but an Indo-US alliance will not.
That would be the end of Army’s role both in politics and in defending our
territorial integrity. It could well mean an end to Pakistan’s nuclear
deterrence and capability. They world would witness a disarmed Pakistan
after a disarmed Iraq.
Those of us who ignore the real intentions of General Musharraf and his
mentors’ in Washington must keep in mind that saving Pakistan from the US
attack in October 2001 is not a big deal. The US could not attack Pakistan
at that time any way. Similarly, increase in foreign reserves is not a great
achievement because any one could perform this feat by selling his brothers
and sisters. Furthermore, our unconditional cooperation in the US-led “war
on terrorism” has not improved our image in our own eyes -- among Muslim
masses, who are destined to overthrow the sell outs in the not too distant
future.
Musharraf’s decision to house US forces in Pakistan has not strengthened but
miserably weakened our national security. Contrary to his claims of a
“hopeful future” and “devolution of power,” Musharraf’s LFO and other
measures have actually weakened our governing mechanism. In the background
of “decentralization” from Islamabad, centralization towards military
headquarters – headquarterisation -- took place, under which the Junta in
the GHQ has been empowered to interfere and make a final decision about
every matter under the sun in Pakistan.
Interestingly all this happened in the name of democracy. The person who
took oath on November 16, 2002 is no different than the person who overthrow
an elected government on October 12, 1999: The same uniform, the same
intentions and the same powers to rule and speak from the barrel of a gun.
Titles and labels are irrelevant. The dictatorship goes on and on.
Concluded
November 18, 2002