Democratic imperatives

IT IS encouraging to know that many political parties have begun preparing for the October general election and that special attention is being paid to election manifestos. With political activity scheduled to begin in August, the parties are obviously using the time available to take stock of the situation and devise election strategies. If the past is any pointer, the manifestos generally tend to be ambitious — radical in some cases. While the religious parties invariably pledge to work for the enforcement of the shariat, their manifestos, too, show an awareness of the people’s socio-economic problems and contain a pledge to solve them. The so-called secular parties, however, put greater emphasis on economic development and social justice, besides promising to promote and protect basic freedoms and human rights, especially those relating to women and minority groups.

What characterizes the political parties, however, is the stark difference between promises and performance once in power. Manifestos are more or less forgotten once safely ensconced in power, in the process causing frustration and despondency among the people. This is not to deny, however, that some parties did indeed fulfil, if only partly, the promises made during an election. But many of the points contained in the manifestos remained unimplemented. This failure to implement election promises can be traced to several flaws and shortcomings rooted in political and party systems as they exist in Pakistan. More often than not, ruling parties spend more time on consolidating their hold on power and hounding the opposition than on pursuing policies they had promised to the electorate. The opposition, too, seldom behaves in a manner that could strengthen the democratic process. Instead, it focuses all its attention and efforts on de-stabilizing the government. There were also occasions in the past when appeals were made to the army and to the president to “do their duty” and throw out the government. The result has been chronic political chaos and instability, periodic military interventions and a continuing sense of drift and uncertainty. It is a measure of our political parties’ lack of commitment to constitutionalism that not one government elected since 1988 was able to complete its five-year term. The appeal to the army to “intervene” was first heard in 1977 during the PNA movement. The result was the long and dark night of Ziaul Haq’s obscurantist autocracy. One aspect of the troubled national situation since 1988 is that there are no democratic institutions in Pakistan and democracy has failed to take root. The parties would do well to realize that their sole concern should not be to come to power by any means, and that one need not be in power to serve the people. In fact, a strong opposition can better serve the cause of democracy and the people’s wellbeing by upholding democratic norms and principles, criticizing the government where criticism is due and behaving responsibly. Our parties also fail to realize that while governments come and go, parties go on for over. The stronger the party and greater the discipline in its ranks, the greater the possibility that it will keep its government in check. Such a role for the party would be possible, only when the offices of prime minister and the party chief are not held by the same person. Where a person holds the two offices, the party becomes not only lifeless but also serves as the prime minister’s hand-maiden. It, thus, finds itself in no position to keep a watchful eye on the conduct of ministers, much less the prime minister, and correct them when and where they go wrong.

Yet another weakness of our party organizational structure is the absence of internal elections. With one or two exceptions, most political parties have office-bearers nominated by the party chief. The party chief, too, remains there by virtue of his or her being the founder of the party or the founder’s son or daughter. In most cases, he or she retains party chieftaincy for life, thus destroying the elective principle. There is now a demand in some quarters that parties which have not held their elections should not be eligible for taking part in the October polls. The demand is unrealistic. Such a move would mean that most political parties, including those which have roots among the masses and have won elections in the past, will be out of the electoral race. Instead, it is for the parties themselves to realize the importance of reorganizing party structures and running them on democratic lines. The absence of inner party democracy makes it possible for the Bonapartists to argue that our political parties are unfit to work a democratic system because they themselves do not practise it within their folds.

Tales of terror

THE American media may still debate which prisoners captured in Afghanistan qualify for ‘prisoner of war’ status, but there is now little doubt left that these prisoners and their families have been ill-treated by the US troops. At least three leading American newspapers have recently broken stories of excesses by the US troops rounding up suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban men in Afghanistan, before flying them off to the US base in Cuba. These stories also speak of ‘bits of skin, bone and hair’ scattered at the numerous bombarded sites around Afghanistan. These are being collected by the ground forces and sent for DNA analysis — a clear indication that the US action in Afghanistan had all the horrors of a war fought with a vengeance, and away from the scrutiny of the media and human rights groups.

In view of these revelations, the Pentagon is finding it hard to defend its stand on the treatment of prisoners. On Monday, the US defence secretary was forced to order an inquiry into a January 24 US raid in central Afghanistan. UN sources in Kabul say excesses committed by the US troops included tying up of village women and collecting their hair samples for DNA testing, and killing of civilian men on suspicion of being linked to Al Qaeda. Some 27 prisoners, recently set free, turned out to be cases of mistaken identity, while families of those killed mistakenly are now being compensated with a measly sum of $1,000 per person killed. Most of the killed civilians were simple country people who had never been involved with the activities of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

These disturbing revelations lend more credibility to earlier reports that most of the several thousand Afghans killed during the American action were innocent civilians. All this, while the most wanted Taliban and Al Qaeda bigwigs remain elusive. No wonder then that now most US allies are thinking twice before lending support to any further US action in another country. The death and destruction wrought on Afghanistan under the cover of ‘enduring freedom’ can only be likened to the massacre of civilians in Chechnya by the Russian action there three years ago. Will the western human rights groups now initiate an independent inquiry into what really happened in Afghanistan?