[This is the second and concluding part of Shahid Javed Burki’s article on constitutional reform. The first part appeared in this space in yesterday’s issue.]

WILL General Pervez Musharraf go the way of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif? These four leaders in Pakistan’s recent history were given the opportunity to provide Pakistan with a durable political system. Unfortunately all four failed. Or will Musharraf live up to see his own dream come true — to walk in the footsteps of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father?

What distinguishes Jinnah from all the leaders that followed him was his passionate commitment to the principles of democracy. He could have reached for the moon in 1947 when, almost single handedly, he was able to get the British administration and the Congress party to create Pakistan — a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India. A grateful community of his followers would have given him the moon had he asked for it. He didn’t. Instead, although close to death with a debilitating disease, he went about laying the foundation of a democratic state in the country he had created.

None of Jinnah’s successors followed his example. They were interested more in furthering their narrow interests or the interests of the groups and communities to which they belonged. For 51 years — from 1948 when Jinnah died to 1999 when General Musharraf took command of the country as its chief executive — the story of Pakistan is a story of endless conspiracies forged by narrow-minded leaders to operate the political and economic system for their own benefit. President Ayub Khan sought to follow a different course initially. But even he was brought back to the familiar road by the vested interests who then so thoroughly dominated Pakistani society and whose grip remained tight until very recently.

With this unhappy record, what are the options available to Pakistan as it tries once again to move towards democracy? Or, will the country fail once again? Will the leaders let this opportunity to fashion a workable system slip away one more time?

The Supreme Court, in sanctioning the military takeover in October 1999, required General Musharraf to restore democracy within three years. He was given this time to stabilize the economy — which he has done — and to bring about changes in the political system that would make it durable and sustainable over time. This is what the general is attempting to do now.

The two constitutional packages announced by General Pervez Musharraf have several innovative features. Six of these are worth some mention. They combine some of the elements from the previous constitutions while introducing some new ones in order to achieve the regime’s objectives.

What is the regime’s stated objective? Relying on the many pronouncements made by General Musharraf over the last several months, what he and his administration is attempting to do is to create a structure that will serve Pakistan’s common citizens. Only time will tell whether that is the true intention of General Musharraf and his colleagues.

Without losing the right to be extremely watchful over the way the regime proceeds in the weeks and months ahead, it would be useful to suspend suspicion for a while and give General Musharraf the benefit of the doubt. Let us see what his government is attempting to accomplish.

The regime has incorporated six important elements into the new structure that were not present in the Constitution of 1973. One, it plans to check the power of the elected prime minister by creating a strong presidency. The president, presumably elected by the national and provincial legislatures, will have the right to dismiss the prime minister on the grounds specified in the amended Constitution.

However, the president’s power to dismiss the chief executive will be constrained by the need to get the approval of the National Security Council. The president will have to make a reference to the NSC and get its approval to remove the prime minister. Since the prime minister will be a member of the NSC he (or she) will have the opportunity to defend himself (or herself) against the levied charges. The NSC’s decision, presumably, will be taken by a vote and — presumably once again — if the president does not receive the majority vote, he may have to resign.

If this is a correct interpretation of the “dismissal clause,” it comes with a number of safeguards that were not available in Section 58.2(b) of the Constitution as amended by President Ziaul Haq. The four dismissals of prime minister under that provision were based on the decisions taken in great secrecy. They were sprung on an unsuspecting prime minister in the equivalent of a “mid-night knock” on the door.

The second innovation in the proposed constitutional packages concerns the creation of an NSC of eleven members, seven of whom will be politicians and four will come from the military. During General Musharraf’s tenure the distribution will still be in favour of the civilians — there will be six politicians and five military men, including the president. Most of the critical commentary in the press has focused on this provision of the proposed constitutional arrangement.

Why should a non-elected body of people have the authority to dismiss an elected prime minister, critics have asked. “Non-elected state functionaries have no business to interfere in political affairs,” wrote Dawn in an editorial (“Defending the package,” July 14, 2002). “Their job is to carry out their duties as assigned by the elected leadership. What the NSC proposes to do, however, is to subordinate Pakistan’s elected leadership to a cabal of Bonapartists in disguise. This is hardly the road to take the nation to ‘real democracy.’”

This is a valid criticism but it places a great deal of faith in the elected leaders who have failed the people so often in the past. Is this faith warranted? Will they behave this time around and carry out the wishes of the people? Will they manage to resist the temptation and not use the state — its institutions and its resources — to enrich themselves and their families and friends? Will they use their time in office to strengthen the institutions of democracy and not bring them to general ridicule once again? Given our record, it is not easy to assume that we will see good behaviour this time around. Some checks are needed and that appears to be the main motive behind the creation of the NSC.

The NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold. Most of the time, it is likely to work as an institution where the two important components of the Pakistani ruling class interact with one another and exchange information. There is a precedence for this. I was a member of the Council for Defence and National Security, the CDNS, created by President Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari in 1996. This was a nine-member body chaired by the president with the four service chiefs and four central ministers (defence, finance, external affairs, interior) as members. It met three times and my recollection of the role of the military members was that of interested listeners and not active participants. I don’t recall any major decision taken in those meetings. The emphasis was on exchanging information.

The third innovation is to bring in a large number of women in the legislature. This can only help broaden the representative character of the assemblies. Giving women a voice in these chambers will begin to address the acute problem of their overall backwardness. With women present in such large numbers, it should be possible to get some laws on the books that would protect them.

The trend, unfortunately, has been in the opposite direction. It should also be possible to introduce women as active participants in the economy. Today, Pakistan has a very low female participation rates in the workforce, one of the lowest in the world. Getting women more actively engaged will add to the dynamics of the economy.

The fourth element is also aimed at expanding the representative character of the assemblies. The number of seats has been increased in the legislature, thus reducing the size of the constituencies elected members were called upon to represent. Under the previous arrangement, the average size of a constituency was 700,000. Under the new arrangement, a constituency will have less than half a million people. Also the elections of October 2002 will use voter lists based on the Census of 1998. These changes will shift the centre of gravity of the Pakistani political system away from the countryside and towards the country’s towns and cities. It is in the urban areas that Pakistan must create the dynamic centres for its economy.

This shift should help to accomplish that objective.

The fifth element is to restrict representation in the legislative assemblies to only those who have college degrees. This provision has been interpreted, perhaps correctly, as an attempt to cleanse the political system of those elements in society who wield power for hereditary reasons — the legendary pirs, maliks and landlords who have dominated politics for so long. If that is the reason, it could have been achieved by exposing the performance of these individuals in the legislature by allowing legislative proceedings to be broadcast on television and radio. Restricting participation, no matter for what reason, creates distortions in a system. Total openness is always to be preferred.

The sixth element in the new constitutional structure is aimed at creating a three-level federal system with most of the responsibility for providing basic services to the people assigned to local governments. For the first time in Pakistan’s history, local administration is to be the responsibility of elected rather than appointed officials. This is a good but an unpopular move. It has drawn howls of protest from the members of the elite civil services who have seen the base of their power taken away from them. It is also not sitting well with the political establishment which will now have to share power with local leaders.

If Pakistan can make this three-tier system work, it will contribute enormously to the country’s political and economic development. It has been shown over and over again that development programmes have a better chance of success when people are directly involved with determining the priorities of the communities in which they live.

The much condemned — and also the much misunderstood — system of Basic Democracies succeeded in promoting local economic development. A system directed by the nazims, elected representatives of the people, has an even greater chance of succeeding.

* A RETIRED admiral of the country, arrested second time by the government for accepting kickbacks in defence deals, has requested the court for A-class accommodation in jail; his request has been honoured.

* While talking to reporters, the chief justice of Pakistan has said that the judiciary is independent and is working without any pressure.

* A woman committed suicide in Mandi Bahau-ud-Din a few days back after burning to death her three-year old son and a 45-days’ old daughter.

These three incidents have taken place in a predominantly Muslim country, a harbinger of the unity of Islamic Ummah to face the challenges posed by the 21st century. From the mullas to the heads of the state, all have been preaching to the nation to pursue this cause until daisy-cutter bombs were showered in our immediate neighbourhood.

We didn’t learn any lesson when we lost East Pakistan; rather than facing the present we kept on looking towards the past; instead of equipping ourselves with scientific knowledge, we kept on believing that all of our woes will be automatically addressed with the destruction of the ‘Satanic powers’ of the world.

We saw Salah-ud-Din in Saddam; he met a tragic defeat in Gulf War II. We attached hopes with Osama; God knows better about his whereabouts after Americans showered bombs and bread over Afghanistan. Though we have been under martial law regimes for the two-third part of our history, we have been talking about tearing our neighbouring democracy into pieces for it does not grant Kashmiris the right of self-determination.

Look at the front pages of the national dailies. They mostly carry the pictures of Palestinians with tearful eyes. The reports of incidents like that of Mandi find their place somewhere else. The incident of Meerwali was actually carried by our national dailies after a week. We are interested in American politics; our newspapers carry the editorials, reports and columns from Washington Post, NY Times, The Guardians etc., and help convey to the readers the images of the English press!

It matters a lot for our correspondents in America what a professor of a university or a senate member, who has never visited our country, says about it. So, our rulers spend most of their time in trying to improve their image in the eyes of British and American public rather than their own. Does our nation know how America has been helping us during our economic crises? Do the mullas, frenzied over America’s unjustified policies towards Pakistan, have told their followers the amount it poured in Pakistan during the cold war era? Do they realize that the Americans respect Yahud and Hanud for they practise democracy in their country and don’t knock their doors for alms?

Do the rulers of this nation realize that they have been de- educating their masses at state expenses through projecting irrational approaches to national problems? Have they not pushed the masses deep and deep in ignorance in the name of the religion that holds knowledge in so much esteem?

The bureaucracy-military-mulla triangle has led the country to a destructive path; the loss of morality seems irreparable for the time being. It seems that it will go beyond the loss to our economy. Though the present military government is doing enough to break the triangle and distancing itself from its allies of the past, the damage has been done and it will require a lot to compensate the loss.

If the present regime is sincere in serving ‘the best interests of the nation,’ it will have to take U-turns on its domestic policies as well. And it will not do any good to the nation by stopping half the way: the process of deregulation of economy and decentralization of power must be completed in the earnest; none has to sacrifice other than the military itself though.

Economy and only economy must be its top priority to restore the confidence of the nation. The government will have to tread this path not only to shed the burden of foreign debt but also to improve the image of Pakistan as a sovereign nation. The government does not need to indulge in the controversies like provincial autonomy; it will be a matter of wasting time to tear down the myth of provincialism. District system of government, if implemented in its true spirit, will ultimately make the issue die its own death. Sectarianism is breathing its last due to the defeat of the Taliban in our neighbourhood and the government’s crackdown on militant organizations countrywide.

Many of the rigidities of the society have their roots in the economic policies of the state; economy is the core area that must get priority over anything else: General Musharraf is absolutely right in saying that employment opportunities rather than subsidies will alleviate poverty that is touching the alarming levels now.

Economic liberalization will liberate the people from the yoke of fundamentalism as well; it simply means increasing the choices for both businessmen and consumers. To progress in this area, the government will not only have to confront monopolists sucking the blood of the nation for the last half a century but also the intelligentsia with a misguided notion of nationalism.

If the economic policies of the past have pushed us in demoralizing poverty, there is need to abandon them once for all. Not only the businessmen and the industrialists must be free in making optimal choices in terms of the import and export of goods, the consumers must also enjoy the same freedom.

Morality flows from the rulers down to the masses. Given the domineering role of the government in the economic affairs of the people, the irrational attitude and behaviour of the rulers in resolving the national problems rightly makes its manifestation in the role of generals, admirals, judges, bureaucrats, politicians and industrialists as citizens of the state.

If the state can legislate on morality, why not a mulla or a neighbour? Why the state must suffer due to the lust of some officials? Why consumers must pay for the luxuries of the bureaucrats and the industrialists? Why the ‘doctrine of necessity’ must make its face appear in the decision of the Meerwali panchayat? If ‘Pakistan comes first,’ its people and their poverty must come first.

Our peoples are sober and nice for they have suffered so silently. They must be liberated from the clutches of the custodians of morality; it must be remembered that morality is directly related to the freedom of choice.

We don’t need too much funds to alleviate poverty; we only need to open up economic opportunities to the people by liberalizing trade and investment policies of the state and by removing all the barriers in this regard. Granting economic sovereignty to the people will make us ultimately a sovereign nation and will resolve our moral dilemmas as well.

WITH Nurpur Shahan in the east and Golra due west, Islamabad can be said to be in the grip of two saintly figures, one who lived hundreds of years ago and the other, a comparatively modern, who commands the spiritual allegiance of lakhs of citizens in the twin city.

Most of the capital’s bureaucrats, too, have faith in either Pir Barri Imam or in the pir family of Golra (Sharif) who are of recent origin but seem to have captured the imagination of the people who believe in this sort of thing.

I have never subscribed to piri-mureedi (as I wrote not so long ago) but, twice a year, the twin cities of Rawalpindi-Islamabad go mad with veneration bordering on hysteria for the two “darbars” when the respective “urs” are held. A local holiday is declared by the Deputy Commissioner of Pindi, while large crowds can be seen walking, wheeling and riding towards the darbar in question.

Golra of course is a private affair, but Barri Imam was taken over by the Auqaf Department long ago. In 1976, as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Religious Affairs, I happened to be overall in-charge of the mazar, and, for me, whom pirs and their idiosyncratic behaviour leave cold, it was a curious experience to witness the uninhibited expression of faith of most, and the chicanery and crookedness of some, that combine to create the general atmosphere at the mausoleums of saints.

If one forgets for a moment the good man buried on the premises and ignores the tomb, the ambience at the place is the best example of a rural-cum-urban mela that you can have in the country. The trinket shops, the innumerable eating marts, the drug addicts posing as holy men in green, the incessant sound of qawwali music, the dhamaal that makes you want to join in — all these are facets that pure entertainment is made of. Which goes to show that, for the common man, the indulgence in so-called spirituality can be downright boring without the lowbrow spice of patently unspiritual amusement.

I must tell you what is now past history. Before Auqaf took over Barri Imam, its urs was the biggest occasion for gambling in Punjab and the Frontier. In a hundred tents, games of chance went on and women singers and prostitutes came from all over the country to share in the takings. Those who won paid generous monetary homage to the pir while the losers are said to have used a typical phrase, “There’s no pir in this tomb, its only a green parrot.” So, spirituality is not all piety.

There is an aspect of the mazar phenomenon to which I have given considerable thought. I have come to the conclusion that the number of people visiting the graves of saints and seeking intercession for the grant of worldly favours by the Almighty, keeps going up and coming down, depending on how much suffering and corruption there is in society.

A few years ago there was hardly anyone affected by the collapse of the Taj Company, the cooperatives scandal and the finance companies’ scandal who was not a regular Thursday visitor to the mazars, or even went daily, if the loss incurred had been too much for them to bear. This is one type whose panic and agitated mind it is easy to understand. They seek some solace, some hope in their distress.

The other type, which is on the increase in Pakistan as time passes, is that of coming into easy money, persons for whom a million rupees is chicken feed. They are mostly unscrupulous politicians, crooked businessmen and industrialists and bank loan defaulters. Howsoever full of self-confidence they may appear to be, there is the underlying feeling of wrongdoing in their mind which their bravado is not able to hide — the consciousness that all is not right with the money they are playing with.

An element of superstition does creep into the psyche of such people, and you can tell them at the mazars from their worried expressions. Funnily enough (although they don’t see anything funny in it) the visits to mazars of such people in times like the present military rule when there is imminent fear of accountability and even of going to prison becomes more frequent. Since the military regime is not sympathetic, who else can they go to except the invisible saint who, they think, will recommend their case to God for leniency, if not total mercy.

I can’t say what the pirs in Golra Sharif do with all the millions that they get in the form of tribute and “nazrana”. Of course the expense too is enormous— the constantly maintained langar (free kitchen) and the feeding and housing of thousands and thousands of devoted pilgrims at the time of the urs, but the fact remains that nobody can quiz them about it. Needless to say, they don’t pay any income tax. The income tax officers, among others, themselves pay them tax.

But at Barri Imam the collection in the steel boxes in which the devotees put their nazranas goes into the public exchequer, so the income is not questionable. One can only conjecture whether the Auqaf Department spends the money judiciously or not. I can tell you about the ten months that I was Auqaf chief there. The department was as good or as bad as any other government agency. Here is a bizarre incident that occurred in my time.

The sealed collection boxes were opened as usual by the Auqaf staff, and officials of the bank concerned, and the money counted and attested by both. It was, say, a lakh and 20,000 rupees. On the way from Nurpur to the Aabpara branch of the bank, the party was waylaid by dacoits who decamped with the money. A police report was immediately made.

Fortunately for the department, but unfortunately for the counting people, the dacoits were caught within a couple of hours and the money bags recovered intact. The cash turned out to be a lakh and 50,000. It transpired that the less counting was the normal thing and the extra money was equally shared by the two parties while sitting at the bank.

This incident of defalcation apart, the two mazars in Islamabad, like all mazars of saints in the country, are very interesting places, and would be more so for foreigners, if the visitor is not spiritually involved. For the tourist from outside they would be something memorable, especially at urs time which would be an unforgettable experience, and the easiest and first-hand contact with people’s culture.

NARENDRA MODI has made his first mistake. He has apologized. When your politics is brazen you must live with its logic. But, in an uncharacteristic departure from the language of revenge, Narendra Modi has sought the “forgiveness of the people with folded hands” for any mistakes committed either by him or his colleagues.

Which “mistakes” could Mr Modi be talking about? Can you think of any? He surely could not be apologizing for letting loose communal havoc, could he? In any case, that was not a mistake; that was official state government policy. But were there any other “mistakes” that he might be referring to? I cannot think of any. Actually Narendra Modi was chief minister for too short a while to make more than one mistake, and that, as we have noted, was not a mistake at all.

We could mark down such penitential sentiments to that well-known disease called pre-poll humility. Politicians tend to recover their manners just before they have to revisit the people for their periodic stress test. It is part of the comedy of elections. They start the electoral process oozing humility and by the time polling day arrives many of them have disappeared in their own ooze. However, the moment the result is announced a transformation takes place.

The defeated, of course, have little recourse except to continue being humble. The winner glows with the special pride of power that quickly and surely replaces the initial relief. Five years of privilege, comfort and virtually unquestioned authority. All the ooze becomes worth it.

But were Narendra Modi’s folded hands as he begged forgiveness for mistakes of commission and omission also smeared with unacknowledged, and perhaps even unrecognized, guilt? That would probably be too much to ask for. Guilt is the problem of an Othello, not an Iago. In suitable circumstances, guilt can be a powerful inspiration and a motivator for reform. But guilt assumes that one has a conscience. We can consequently rule out guilt.

We can rule in calculation. Narendra Modi has a sharp political mind and a perceptive eye, as capable of provoking a flow as it is of controlling an ebb. He inherited Gujarat from Keshubhai Patel, who was an unremarkable chief minister but a strong leader of his own, dominant, caste. Keshubhai was replaced because the BJP saw little chance of victory under Keshubhai. Whether Godhra was an accident waiting to happen, or a happening waiting to be exploited is probably irrelevant. Narendra Modi achieved his political purpose of divide-and-hope-to-rule.

Mercurial politics however has its limitations. Time is a major one. Mercury is not stable. It can shoot up, if you raise the temperature of the environment; but it will also begin to fall, imperceptibly, with time. Arguably if elections had been held at the peak of riot fever Narendra Modi would have swept the field in most, but not all, urban areas, sufficient to keep him in Gandhinagar till 2007. But the mercury has begun to show the first signs of a dip. Narendra Modi wants an election before the dip becomes a trend. Timing, rather than time, is of the essence.

Timing remains the primary weakness of the Congress. Sonia Gandhi’s uncertainty about both the language and persona of Indian politics is repeatedly reflected in her management of the party. If she says anything that is not carefully vetted she tends to sound either a jarring or counterproductive note. Her “cleared” speeches are cold, as second-wisdom always tends to be. Her knowledge about the history of our country is patchy and picked up from conversation.

Very few leaders do any serious reading, but others compensate by grasp of detail and the simple fact that they have been participants in the turmoil of the last two decades. With more experience, Sonia Gandhi would have probably welcomed Narendra Modi in Gujarat by making Shankersinh Vaghela, her provincial chief, instead of leaving this decision so late that it is unlikely to do much good. Modi has simply denied Vaghela the time needed for thrust and parry that can help change the mind of the electorate.

One of the great weaknesses of Congress strategy is the extraordinary faith in inertia. Sonia Gandhi spent most of the summer sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of her Delhi bungalow. In fact more could have been done even from that cool and spacious environment. Only the very naive would have presumed that the Gujarat elections would wait till their due date early next year.

Indeed, a more concerned Sonia Gandhi would have treated each day as precious irrespective of whether they were held four months before schedule or not. But there has been delay to the point of indifference in her attitude towards the party leadership in Gujarat, which in turn has suited Narendra Modi extremely well. The months that Sonia Gandhi wasted in dithering over Gujarat will prove to be expensive for her as well for the Congress. The failure to win Goa could have been a blip. It could become a blot that spreads.

Think of the sequence. Congress loses badly in Gujarat. It is in a hopeless position in Rajasthan. This increases the wobble in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh... Within a year you have a radically different scenario. Politics is a demanding and tense business, with each minute demanding attention. Whenever she is out of depth, which is more often than not, Sonia Gandhi simply postpones a decision in the hope that time will find an answer. Time serves you far better as a servant; as a master it is a tyrant.

If Sonia Gandhi had the language or the political skills to answer the pseudo-rhetoric of Narendra Modi (as Indira Gandhi would have done, effectively, employing both her individual credibility and understanding of emotional nuance) then her self-destructive dithering might not have mattered so much. But Sonia Gandhi’s sole weapon is the cliche and that does not travel very far.

It is vital for her, therefore, to keep generals in place who know how to fight on her behalf, since she is not interested in surrendering the leadership to anyone else. Gujarat has been the most crucial battlefield of recent times, and in more than just the electoral sense. It is obvious that far larger issues are in conflict there than just the name of the next chief minister. The size of the BJP victory will have repercussions on the party’s policy and on national politics; perhaps not immediately and dramatically, but slowly and certainly.

It is astonishing that the Congress leadership — or, more accurately, Sonia Gandhi, since the rest of the Congress leadership is emasculated — did not seem to appreciate what for any political observer would be a simple and obvious truth. How the party could leave Gujarat rudderless and leaderless for so long defies one’s sense of reality. Vaghela has provided a glimpse of what he could have done, energising new caste equations and infusing a personal dynamism into a decayed and dormant party structure. He also has a tongue that was born sharp and has been further honed by human nature. But he has not been given enough time.

One theory, which seems reasonable, is that Narendra Modi decided that he could not wait much longer once Vaghela’s name was finally cleared. Vaghela could have exploited the unhappiness of the Patels with the BJP for dumping their man, and he has the tact to keep his ego aside and pull together the factions in the Congress. As a former BJP leader, Vaghela also understands the local Hindu sentiment that is Modi’s trump, and there is no one else who could have spun off some of it at least into a different direction. He understands both Gujarat and the BJP better than Modi, for he has spent more time in both the state and the party than Modi.

Narendra Modi began his election campaign with an apology. He should end it with a thank you note. I hope he has written that letter already. It should be addressed, naturally, to Sonia Gandhi, for playing such a large part in his coming victory.

Narendra Modi could add a postscript, on behalf of the national government. India has for the first time in its democracy a government without an opposition. Well, more accurately: the only opposition to the BJP is in the BJP itself.

The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi.