ON Christmas Day 1991, the world witnessed the Red Flag coming down from the Kremlin for the last time. The Soviet Union had committed suicide, turning the world upside down, leaving smaller countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan at the mercy of the sole surviving superpower.

The skilful use of American power represented the best hope for advancing freedom and preserving peace. Many argued that the demise of Soviet communism, the triumph of liberal democracy, and the end of the cold war had buried the idea of history as represented by the armed rivalry of opposing ideologies. Many fondly believed that the United States not only had the resources to lead but also seemed to have what all the others lack — the absence of any imperialistic ambitions or designs on other nations.

The United States was perceived as benign, without territorial ambitions, uncomfortable with exercising its considerable power. All these dreams and high expectations of a new era of peace and freedom in the 21st century were dashed by a cascade of events from 9/11 to the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the imminent attack on Iraq. Hopes of a new dawn after the end of the cold war have been cruelly frustrated.

For President Musharraf, the moment of truth has arrived. “With primacy in power”, Churchill once said, “is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability”. At the summit where all decisions are reduced to yes and no; where events transcend the faculties of men; where all is inscrutable, President Musharraf alone has to give the answers. His is the function of the needle. Right or left? Advance or retreat? War or peace? Support the American war against Iraq, oppose it or abstain from voting in the Security Council?

The truth is that the responsibility for such critical decisions have ultimately to be borne by him. These are some of the tormenting dilemmas which have kept President Musharraf on his toes during the last over three years of his rule. Does he have the capacity to look out from the mountaintop, foresee the trend lines of the future and bend history to serve the interests of Pakistan?

The first test came on September 13 when Colin Powell called him from Washington and presented him with seven non-negotiable demands. General Musharraf, to Powell’s surprise, assured him that Pakistan would support the US in each of the seven actions. He then executed a U-turn, disowned the Taliban and promised ‘unstinted cooperation’ and logistic support in the war against a friendly, neighbouring Muslim country. Not surprisingly, there were no cheering crowds to applaud his decision to allow the Americans the use of our bases in sensitive areas close to the Afghan border for the sole purpose of subjecting poor Afghans to relentless day-and-night air strikes and carpet bombing.

Afghans are very good friends but they are also very bad enemies. They do not forget and do not forgive. We have enough trouble on our eastern border. Now we have a bitter enemy on our western frontier. In a crisis, a hostile Afghanistan could brew incalculable trouble for us in the “devil’s kitchen of mischief” and set the frontier ablaze.

Now that Afghanistan is under American military occupation and has ceased to be a sovereign, independent state, the full might of the United States has been turned against Iraq which is the next course on the American menu. Bush seems to have reached the banks of his own Rubicon. He is determined to unleash a totally unjust, unprovoked, unwarranted war against another Muslim country for the sole purpose of toppling its regime and capturing its oil resources. In a desperate attempt to justify this naked aggression, the Bush administration has, again and again, cited evidence that turns out to be misleading, or worthless — “garbage after garbage after garbage”, according to one UN official.

Isn’t it a fact that the last ten years have been the best behaved of Saddam’s career? Isn’t it a fact that during this period, he has committed no aggression and has threatened none? Isn’t it now recognized the world over that the system of inspections is working well and producing results? Why then go to war? Why not give the inspectors more time if that is what they need? What is the hurry?

In a similar situation, Abraham Lincoln, though pressed by zealots of every political creed, electrified the nation by playing for time and putting action off: “My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time, but no good object can be frustrated by it”. Let Bush heed these weighty words.

President Eisenhower, who led the European allies to victory in World War II and faced a similar crisis in Egypt, effectively chose containment rather than invasion, forced the invaders — France, Israel, and Britain — to retreat and resolve the crisis peacefully. President John F. Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it. President Reagan chose to contain Libya rather than invade it. Where then is the case for attacking Iraq? And why was action not taken against Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when Rumsfeld was cosying up to him and the United States was shipping him seven strains of anthrax? Why now?

It is now abundantly clear that a powerful combination of the corporation, the military and the oil lobby — the military-industrial complex as President Eisenhower described it — has created a fascistic atmosphere in America. “The dire prospect that opens is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in Americans’ lives. It will be an ever greater and greater overlay of the American system. And, before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way”. Never has one single country combined so much power and so much arrogance and lack of responsibility, so much scientific knowledge and so much contempt for the rest of the world.

Pakistan is one of the six swing votes that the Bush administration desperately needs to obtain the adoption of the American-sponsored ‘War Resolution’ in the Security Council. How can Pakistan fail to raise its voice and register its protest against an unjust war? How can Pakistan abstain from voting when the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children in a Muslim country are at stake? How can Pakistan sin by silence? How can Pakistan remain neutral between fire and the fire brigade? How can Pakistan fail to stand up in the Parliament of Man and be counted on the side of peace?

How can Pakistan fly against the wind of world opinion and the wrath of its own people? How can we bear to continue to lead our comfortable, easy lives in Pakistan, unwilling to pronounce even the word ‘No’ to a totally unjust, unprovoked war against another Muslim country? These are times that try men’s souls. One feels torn between a sense of cowardly relief and shame. Today Pakistan is undergoing all the conflicting emotions of a virtuous maiden selling herself for really handy, ready money.

One is astonished to hear how glibly responsible people talk of war against Iraq — a war that cannot be anything but a massacre, a cruel, heartrending, bloody, ruinous, one-sided affair. Isn’t it a great tragedy that the organization which the nations created at San Francisco for the preservation of peace, has become an idle name, a shield for the strong, a mockery for the weak, and a mechanism for legitimizing aggression by the strong against the weak.

Will the attack on Iraq be the last attack on a small Muslim country or will it be followed by another? Is this in fact a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force? Be that as it may, when the history of this tragic period comes to be written, let it not be said that Pakistan, under American pressure, took an unprincipled decision and failed to say ‘No’ to unprovoked aggression against a Muslim country.

A FEW weeks ago, the Punjab chief minister ordered some unidentified persons to depoliticize the provincial police department, allowing the implication that it is currently politicized. He said also that instead of bringing in recommendations for postings and transfers of police officers, the MPAs should monitor police performance in their respective areas and make proposals for improving it.

What does politicization of the police mean? Individual policemen, being equal citizens of the state, may have their own political references and, when elections come along, they may vote for candidates of their own choice. So far so good. Law and professional ethic would expect them not to let their political attachments influence their official decisions and acts. This was pretty much the case in our own police establishment during British rule.

Politicization of the police is not common in well-ordered democracies. It appears under authoritarian regimes that feel free to ignore or thwart the rule of law. This phenomenon assumes more than one form in our own society.

There is, for instance, the matter of intervention in the electoral process at the behest of the government of the day. Police officers in rural areas may ask large landowners to deliver the vote in the area of their influence to the candidate favoured by the party in power. They may intimidate his rival into withdrawing from the race, kidnap him so that he cannot file his nomination papers, annoy his family and friends, allow hired hoodlums to disrupt his meetings and manhandle his workers at polling stations.

This type of interference in elections has gone on in Pakistan since the early 1950s, starting with Punjab when Mumtaz Daultana was the chief minister, and repeated in Sindh under M.A. Khuhro and in the NWFP under Abdul Qayyum Khan. It has marred all national and provincial elections since then with the possible exception of those held in 1970 (and some observers will not make even that exception).

Another favourite way of putting the police to political work is to have them fabricate bogus criminal cases, and thus put away, with or without a trial the regime’s opponents and critics. At any given time, scores — hundreds under the harsher regimes — of such persons may be under detention. More than convicting them and sending them to jail, the government’s objective is to harass and abuse them, ruin them financially (by making them pay exorbitant fees to lawyers), and keep them from their political work.

Why would the police do the ruling politicians’ dirty work? Officers found to be cooperative get postings of their choice and sometime unmerited promotions. Those who insist on being straight and honest will likely be sent to the “doghouse” — as “officers on special duty” at the headquarters (where they will have nothing to do), as instructors in a police academy, as trainees at the Administrative Staff College or NIPA, or as serving officers at far-flung and obscure stations that offer little by way of civic amenities.

An additional word should be said about this matter of postings to more or less desirable stations. Why would an officer serving, let us say, in Shakargarh (Punjab) want to be transferred to Sialkot. The latter is a larger city with better housing, schools and colleges, shopping centres, and the likelihood of more fulfilling social interaction. But much more attractive than any of these factors is the infinitely greater possibility of making unlawful money (bribes) in the larger city than that afforded by a small place like Shakargarh.

In making these transfers as compensation for the unlawful services rendered by the officers concerned, the ruling politicians become full partners in the perpetration of police corruption and oppression. Why do they use the police for achieving their political goals? Achieving political ends by political means in a democratic context is a tedious and tiresome business.

Retaining power requires answering critics and defeating rivals in elections. Holders of political office must keep the affections, trust, and confidence of their constituents in order to get re-elected. They must remain in touch with them, be solicitous of their needs and of their views on relevant issues, and do what they can to remove any grievances that they might have. They must also show that they are performing the duties of their office competently and serving the national interest faithfully. All of this calls for a substantial investment of talent, time and energy. How much simpler to get the police to silence the critics and put away the rivals! This option has traditionally been the more popular with our ruling politicians and/or the powers that be.

It would seem to follow that those who prefer to employ the police to gain their political ends do not really have any use for democratic politics. They see politics as conflict between rival groups of musclemen. It is to be waged by resort to force, not by the arts of peace such as discussion, debate, interpretations of the national interest, stands to be taken, and good things of life for the people to be promised and delivered.

The police will not intervene to the advantage of a candidate unless they have been instructed to do so by higher political and bureaucratic officials — president, prime minister, governor, chief minister, heads of the police establishment and intelligence agencies. In other words, lawlessness and corruption in the conduct of politics filters down from the top. If the heads of government will refrain from it, the police at the district and sub-district levels may do the same. If the president and the prime minister, submitting to considerations of political expediency, will appoint men, accused of serious crimes, as governors and ministers, the police will inevitably get the message that expediency overrides the law, probity and decency.

As noted above, the Punjab chief minister has said that instead of concerning themselves with the postings and transfers of police officers, the MPAs should monitor police performance in their constituencies. This suggestion is fraught with hazards to good governance. What happens if an MPA reports that a certain police superintendent is inattentive to public grievances, incompetent, or corrupt?

The chief minister might ignore this report, indicating that his original invitation to the MPA to monitor police performance was not intended to be taken seriously. On the other hand, if he acts upon it he would, at minimum, have to order an inquiry into the MPA’s allegations. Inquiries can be a nuisance, and worse, for those being investigated. An MPA’s recognized ability to make trouble for police officers will incline them to bend before him even if his demands are not quite legitimate. It would be best simply to take the MNAs and MPAs altogether out of the business of awarding rewards and punishments to the police personnel. Leave it to citizens and organs of civil society to point out their malfeasance, and let their complaints be handled by named authorities according to prescribed procedures.

Our recommendation here raises the larger question of a legislator’s obligations to his constituents. Apart from being a contributor to the making of laws and public policy, is he also a bearer of gifts to his constituents and their deliverer from the negligence or highhandedness of police and other officials? The more common view among both the politicians and the public appears to be that he should perform both roles. We have seen that his role as an intermediary between the people and public officials opens doors to corruption and lawlessness and it is therefore best that we learn to limit him to the making of law and policy. He may ask questions about the performance of public officials in the legislature but he should be discouraged from dealing with them directly.

A relevant development should be mentioned. As the new system of district administration unfolds more fully and settles down, the citizen’s grievances against the police and other public officials will be handled by the nazims. They will share with the provincial executive the responsibility for overseeing the work of officials, rewarding the good ones and punishing the delinquent. The MPAs may not then be left with much to do in this area. In the initial stages there will be conflict between them and the nazims, but as the new local governments find their feet, legislators will have to return to their true calling and shift their concerns from specific transactions at the local level to policy-making at the provincial and national levels. This should be a welcome development. For it will substantially reduce the scope of legislative corruption in our polity.

Will our recommendation reduce the sense of efficacy on the part of our legislators? It will, if they and their constituents think that their proper function is to twist arms to get things done, whether right or wrong — for instance, to get the son of a friend or relative released from police custody and to get the case against him hushed up. But we will not think less of his efficacy if we regard him as one who represents our values and preferences in the levying of taxes, allocation of funds to various heads of expenditure, settling policies and making laws that will make our lives more fulfilling and our society nobler. If that is the role we assign him, his office will be both worthy and prestigious that good and capable men would covet.

Lastly, if our MNAs and MPAs are relieved of their role as “godfathers” or as the “wheelers and dealers” in their constituencies, and if they are limited to deliberating and debating issues of policy, our legislatures will gather enormous strength as institutions because they will then do what they are supposed to do and, given time, they will learn to do it well.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, US.

E-mail: syed.anwar@attbi.com

THE public leaders and folk singers alike keep assuring us that Pakistan is there to stay for ever. One or the other minister or legislator assures himself virtually everyday that the government will complete its five-year term. That these assertions have to be made whether there is an occasion for it or not points to the doubt and anxiety underlying both.

A government is a changing phenomenon, the present one especially so because it has more than a fair share of defectors and fugitives. But it is both sad and baffling to continue to entertain the same feeling of uncertainty about the country itself in the 56th year of its independence. To an extent it is induced by the governments changing not just frequently but drastically and getting worse with every change, to boot. That just cannot be helped and there is little prospect in sight of the governments getting better or more durable though there will always be one around.

The source of real worry, thus, is not the revolving-door political governments or long spells of military rule but certain fundamental contradictions and taboos which have dogged the national life all along and yet show no sign of relenting. The shadows they cast, in fact, are getting deeper and more ominous with every passing day.

The first and most debilitating of the controversies surrounding the country is its constitutional system. Neither the form of government nor the distribution of powers within the federation have been settled in a manner which satisfies the political aspirations of the people of all regions and yet are conducive to economic progress and good governance.

This constitutional question has arisen once again in a menacing form in the National Assembly’s very first business session. The opposition’s angry protest on the Legal Framework Order has come a bit too late in the day. The LFO was promulgated on August 21, 2002 — 50 days before the general elections. It clearly said that the “Constitution is amended to the extent and in the manner specified” in the schedule attached to the Order. It came into force at once and the purpose stated was “to provide for a smooth and orderly transition.”

It is hard to believe that the protesting parliamentarians came to know of this position only when they received the printed copies of the amended Constitution. The dissenting political elements at that time chose to acquiesce in the constitutional amendments and contested the elections. If they had threatened to boycott the elections then, General Musharraf would have been compelled either to seek a compromise settlement or, possibly, see the polls suffer the fate of his referendum.

Pressing this question to conclusion in the parliament now can result only in either the President quitting his office or he dissolving the National Assembly — very likely it will be the latter. In either case a year or more will be lost in search of a new system and government at a time when the country appears close to finding a solution to its many and long-standing economic and political problems.

It would be in national interest and also to their personal benefit if the parliamentarians were to put up with the amended Constitution for the time being. If they find the amendments arbitrary and detracting from the supremacy of the parliament, the parliamentarians must also not forget that the majority among them owe their presence in the parliament to the equally arbitrary and determined actions of General Musharraf in keeping the most potent political forces and personalities out of public life and general elections. If the ‘unwanted’ ones were left free to participate in elections, the complexion of the legislatures would have been altogether different.

The parliamentarians also must not forget that the election process and the alliances emerging out of it were scarred by low turn-out, official interference and horse-trading which have diminished the credentials of the parliament — the National Assembly and the Senate — as the seat of democratic practices in their finest tradition. They are but part of a system contrived to bridge a void created by the expulsion of a political leadership which in the judgment of the army had become corrupt and incompetent.

Five years is a long time for the members of the parliament not to feel rushed to act in anger or haste at the very inception of the tenure. It is also a long time for General Musharraf to observe and learn how a system conceived in specialist bureaus and army ops rooms works in practical life. Surely, he has learnt a great deal already from the dismal way his elections and accountability went and how extremism remains entrenched in spite of vow at one time to eradicate it. Neither the government by its inaction nor the opposition by its impatience should compel the president to dissolve the assemblies. Whether he survives the upheaval or not may be debatable, they certainly would not.

The law and order and social services have suffered because of the inadequate powers and resources assigned to the provincial governments. The military government’s devolution plan has added further stress to it by setting up the district governments as rivals to the provincial government. While the administrative merit of the new arrangement remains doubtful, the political relationship of the federation and the provinces with autonomy at its crux has come under great strain and will grow as assemblies get into the stride. Prudence demands that each province should be left to demarcate its own spheres of district and provincial jurisdictions without impairing the representative character and civic functions of the local councils. The current tussle is only causing waste and duplication at public expense.

The sentiment for Islam and Kashmir which should have fostered national unity, and indeed it did that for some time, is now surely detracting from it. Having burnt our fingers in Afghanistan and incurred the charge of terrorism for the country, the Islamic sentiment is now tending to entangle us in the Iraq crisis.

The religious alliance, MMA, led a million-strong march in Karachi which its leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad guessed had the participation of 3-1/2 million people (that is more than the total adult population of Karachi, including women, suburban peasants and fishermen in the islands). It was all sponsored by the Islamic parties in support of a regime in Baghdad which stands for the revival of socialism — for that is what Ba’ath means. There could be no bigger contradiction. Prime Minister Jamali has rightly advised his own people to stay out of this politics of hypocrisy and hegemony and instead tend their own house.

A gaggle of patriots in Lahore who are also skilled publicists have carried the emotional strain for Kashmir to a new high pitch with the catch-phrase that if we do not fight to win Kashmir we will lose Pakistan. They seem to forget that we lost half of Pakistan while fighting for Kashmir. It is this kind of bizarre mix of belligerency and cynicism which drives people to seek assurances from the political soothsayers and folk singers that Pakistan has come to stay.

A columnist belonging to the same Lahore circle, following the same refrain, pines for a Mahathir for Pakistan. Mahathir speaks to the West with an assurance bordering on disdain and the world listens not because he is head of an Islamic government but because he leads a nation which is progressive and prospering, multi-ethnic and multi-religious (the Chinese and Hindus form one-third of the population) and yet remains tolerant.