TWO hundred years ago, America caught the imagination of the world because of the ideals which it stood for. For decades it has played a unique role in the world, because it was viewed as a society committed to certain ideals, which the Americans were prepared to practise at home and defend abroad.

Today they seem to have forgotten America as a source of optimism and as a beacon of liberty and are only talking about who they are going to invade, topple or “democratize”.

Eighty-three years ago Woodrow Wilson took America into the 20th century with a challenge to make the world safe for democracy. In the 21st century Bush asserts a sovereign right to dominate the planet. For the first time America’s commitment to idealism, democracy and liberty, worldwide, sounds hollow and hypocritical. Today the United States is self-centred, preoccupied only with itself, and subordinating everything else in the world to an exaggerated sense of its insecurity.

The White House has recently begun shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq. “A new regime in Iraq”, Bush said in a recent speech, “would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region”.

He talked about the deficit of liberty in the Middle East and its terrible consequences. “These are”, he said, “the failures of political and economic doctrines”. He made only a passing reference to the role played by western nations who had taken the political destinies of the Middle Eastern peoples in their hand and had virtually consigned the Middle East to the Middle ages.

The 20th century began with western powers seeking to impose a new order on the Middle East. The 21st century has begun in a similar fashion. The European powers believed they could change Middle East in the very fundamentals of its existence — the basis of political life in the Middle East — religion was replaced by nationalism and dynastic loyalties. Having destroyed the old order in the region, and having deployed troops, armoured cars and military aircraft everywhere from Egypt to Iraq, the British policymakers imposed an arbitrary settlement on the Middle East.

They created many countries, nominated rulers and demarcated frontiers. The rulers imposed on the people are corrupt, autocratic, and totally subservient to their handlers. They sacrifice national interest and make deals with western nations to ensure their survival. Against this background, the people in the Islamic world feel indignant, powerless, manipulated and deceived both by their own rulers and western imperialists.

It is now Bush who is challenging Islam in the Middle East which he wants to remake in the light of his own vision. It is a clash between American imperialism masquerading as democracy and Islam as the motor of history and the basis of political life in the Islamic world. As I listened to President Bush’s sermon on democracy and freedom in Iraq and the Middle East, I was reminded of Churchill who once said, “democracy is no harlot to be picked up by a man with a Tommy gun.” That is exactly what Bush is doing today.

America should also heed Robespierre’s warning about: “Armed Missionaries” bringing democracy to Islamic countries on the tip of precision — guided missiles. Today the dominant view in the Islamic world is that the Americans are in Iraq not to spread democracy but to steal Iraqi oil and make the Middle East safe for Israel.

“Our commitment to democracy”, Bush said in a speech on November 6, “is tested in Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, China and the Middle East”. For the people in Pakistan, living under a thinly veiled military dictatorship, the speech was a bucket of iced water in the face. Why did Bush make no reference to Pakistan which started as a modern, progressive democratic state 53 years ago but is drifting away from the democratic path and sliding into darkness?

Today it has a dysfunctional political system that people describe as sham democracy. The substance of power vests in the president who is also the Chief of Army Staff. He is not elected constitution ally, is not accountable to the parliament or any other organ of state, refuses to vacate his office as Army Chief and doff his uniform.

Bush’s democracy agenda must not begin with Afghanistan and end with Iraq which he invaded on the “wings of a lie”. If Bush is truly interested in promoting democracy in the Islamic world, why doesn’t he make a beginning with Pakistan?

America does not care for democracy in the Islamic world and has no intention of bringing about radical, political, social and economic changes in the region. No wonder, Bush’s speech about bringing democracy and freedom to the Islamic world, as expected, has fallen on deaf ears and left people cold. It is now abundantly clear that no country in the Islamic world will ever be allowed by the United States to be truly democratic for the simple reason: were free, fair and impartial elections, the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non, held tomorrow in the Islamic world, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamic. Today America is playing with fire and acting like Conrad’s puffing gunboat in The Heart of Darkness, shelling indiscriminately at the opaque darkness. The enemy has no country, no address and no flag, wears no uniform, stages no parades, marches to his own martial music. He could be on the next treadmill at the gym, or the next table at the sports bar. He requires no tanks or submarines. He does not fear death. He can operate with a rental car and a box cutter. He may be in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Germany, or the next motel room anywhere in the United States. He is not in any hurry. For him the soup of revenge is best served cold.

Americans have no idea of the rage that men and women around the world feel towards America today. They celebrate when coalition soldiers are attacked and killed. They pray for America’s downfall. Bush has lit the match and set off an Islamic prairie fire that will soon set the whole region ablaze. He is obviously going through a period of insanity that is worsening everyday.

Today Bush has placed America on the wrong side of history. In the eyes of billions of Muslims, he is the greatest threat to the Islamic world since the 13th century. No wonder, most people in Iraq want Saddam back and the “liberators” out. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London went a step further. He denounced Bush during his visit to London and said: “I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we have most probably ever seen”.

PRESIDENT Musharraf’s recent assurance, in a meeting with the editors, that the issue of LFO would be resolved soon, followed by similar optimistic remarks by Prime Minister Jamali, has raised a glimmer of hope in an otherwise despairing political scenario.

Protracted confrontation between the government and the opposition has taken a severe toll of the nation’s patience. Besides, by affecting the functioning of critical democratic institutions it is undermining the capacity of the government to effectively respond to the economic and social challenges facing the people. Since its inception, the parliament has remained practically paralyzed, and the president, despite being all-powerful, has to defer his constitutional obligation to address the parliament for fear of being hackled. Parliamentary committees that are supposed to oversee the performance of various branches of the executive and provide legislative guidance are still non-functional.

The opposition that has yet to officially elect a leader in the parliament has refused to fully participate in the proceedings of the house until the legitimacy or otherwise of the LFO is resolved. The MMA and the ARD, independently and together, have also kept pressure on the government by threatening to galvanize public opinion through protest marches and demonstrations. To forestall this eventuality the government has been manipulating the opposition and sowing seeds of dissensions among them to disunite them and weaken their political support.

And apart from the robust and independent media — for which the credit should go to the president — the institutions of accountability remain weak.

Meanwhile, power remains concentrated in the hands of the military-dominated regime, which so far has been hesitant to put it before the parliament, or refer it to the judiciary or directly to the people. If this negative political behaviour on the part of both sides persists, it will weaken the political system of the country, affect the image of the army and undermine the interests of the people. There is thus an urgent need for the political and military leadership to show flexibility in resolving this core domestic issue.

Given the ground realities, no one expects that the resolution of this knotty problem would soon bring about a qualitative change in the quality of democracy in Pakistan, but at least the process of democratic evolution can earnestly begin and the polarization between political parties and the military elite come to on end.

Unfortunately, all the main political parties are going through an internal crisis. The ruling party, PML (Q), with weak and divided leadership and without any well-defined national vision, has failed to emerge as a cohesive party. Nor is the coalition, put together by the establishment, providing effective governance.

The record of the mainstream opposition parties — PPP and PML (N), with their leaders Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in exile — is equally dismal and cause for public concern. Their second-tier leadership, under constant pressure from the government, is struggling hard to hold the two parties together and offers no powerful alternative that would appeal to the people. The MMA, which initially displayed some political dynamism, does not have much to its credit despite one year in office in the Frontier and Baluchistan.

Lack of experience in governance, limited educational base and a narrow worldview have been their major drawbacks. Besides, there are indications that the coalition of religious parties is suffering from internal dissensions. Truly, politics in Pakistan could go into a free fall, unless politicians of all shades do not take appropriate measures to strengthen their individual and institutional capacities.

It would, however, be shortsighted on the part of the military leadership to consider the current situation favourable for prolonging the hold on the country’s political power structure.

In fact, prudence demands that once the question of the LFO is settled, leaders across the political spectrum and the military must move towards developing a joint strategy of strengthening the political institutions, bureaucratic structure and the judiciary and developing a consensus on major national and international issues.

President Musharraf’s vision of transforming Pakistan into a modern, moderate and enlightened Islamic state will only be attainable if he pursues democratic evolution and development of an efficient bureaucratic structure as part of his broader strategy.

How can Pakistan aspire to be a modern state if major organs of it remain outside the orbit of public accountability? Furthermore, Pakistan will be much better equipped to combat extremism if its democratic institutions are strong and functional as it would provide avenues for participation of the public in policy making and help in addressing their grievances.

If Pakistan were to develop as a pluralistic polity, then the political space that has been taken over by militant groups will have to revert to the mainstream parties. A return to a genuine democracy will further integrate the politico-religious parties with mainstream politics and also help lessen sectarianism and a feeling of deprivation among the smaller provinces.

Recent history bears witness to the fact that authoritarian states have fared poorly and even collapsed when caught in a protracted crisis. This phenomenon was witnessed in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. On the other hand, democracy has helped consolidate Poland, Czech Republic and other countries of Eastern Europe. In Africa too, we find that democratic South Africa and Botswana are stable and are maintaining steady economic growth rates whereas authoritarian regimes of Zimbabwe and Niger are on the brink of collapse.

China as a communist country and one-party state may be an exception, but its communist party has a comprehensive political structure that goes deep down to the grass roots level and is responsive to the people’s needs and expectations. It has adjusted to the winds of change by liberalizing its economy and opening up its society and it is only a matter of strategic prudence that it wants to move gradually towards pluralistic democracy.

A return to unalloyed civilian rule would facilitate improvement of relations with India and in turn should encourage the consolidation of democracy in Pakistan, for it will allow the diversion of resources to development and economic growth and reduce the role of the military in politics.

It is only natural that so long as our politics remains dominated by the military, our international image will remain sullied and the conduct of our foreign policy will always be handicapped. It is a different matter that because of our deep involvement in the war against terrorism, the international dimension of democracy was temporarily put on the backburner.

But once again there is a renewed emphasis on democratic values by the US and western countries, as it is widely perceived that lack of democracy is a major factor in the spread of terrorism.

Even in comparison with the small states of South Asia like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh our democratic credentials are poor. The international community would be more tolerant of Pakistan as a nuclear power if it moves towards genuine democracy. Without sound political institutions a country’s future remains uncertain and provides opportunity to the adversaries to play up on the fears of Islamic radicalism.

The road to democracy is a long and difficult one, and no country is democratically perfect but sensible nations have learnt the value of remaining within its fold. Let Pakistan be no exception.

A NEWSPAPER published the other day a cartoon showing President Pervez Musharraf in the UN building lobby and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee at some distance with his aide whispering in his ear, “Sir, hide behind this pillar; he is coming this way.”

New Delhi had reduced the stance of not meeting Musharraf to a farce. Elaborate arrangements were made when the two were staying at the same hotel in New York to ensure that Vajpayee would not come face to face with Musharraf even accidentally. What would have happened if Vajpayee had run into the Pakistan President and even greeted him?

Such gimmicks are understandable from the rulers who have no popular base, but not from the leaders who are chosen by a free electorate. I do not know who is to blame — the prime minister’s office or the foreign office. But the entire exercise was ridiculous from A to Z. Vajpayee should assert himself at least on points which lower his stock.

Even the observation, which Vajpayee made at Lucknow that he would meet “everybody in Pakistan,” gave the impression as if he did not want to mention Musharraf by name. That may well be the reason why Musharraf said during a BBC programme that he had no objection to meeting the Indian prime minister on the sidelines of the Saarc summit.

I hope Pakistan is not contemplating having prime minister, Mir Zafarullah Jamali, to attend the summit. This will mean that Islamabad is not serious about the Saarc. Technically, it may be correct for Jamali to represent since he is the prime minister. But he does not enjoy the powers which a prime minister normally does.

Some in India are, in fact, seeing in such a situation an opportunity of building up Jamali against Musharraf. They do not know even the ABC of Pakistan. Jamali has publicly acknowledged that Musharraf is “his boss.” Let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind on one count: the military rules Pakistan and there is nothing in the offing to challenge it.

Musharraf is a fact that New Delhi cannot wish away.

True, it would like a democratically elected government to rule Pakistan. But, unfortunately, the armed forces are so entrenched there that it would be a long wait if India wants the people’s representatives to sit across the negotiating table.

That Musharraf himself announced the resumption of overflight facilities shows that the army commanders have given their blessings to the process of normalization. The lobby of fanatics within the army seems to have grown weak. America’s pressure may be working. But credit is also due to Musharraf who has not been deterred by religious and anti-India elements, characterizing his response to India’s initiative as “humiliating.”

The tragic part is that India is still not clear what it wants to do. It was clear that it wanted to restore the status quo ante prevailing before the attack on the parliament house on December 13 two years ago. That has been more or less achieved. The only important point left is when do the two countries meet formally. India does not seem to be yet ready for that.

Realizing that Vajpayee cannot avoid meeting Musharraf at Islamabad, New Delhi has already begun arguing that there is a difference between meeting and negotiations. But why should New Delhi attempt to sabotage the possibility of a meeting between the two during the Saarc summit? Once again it shows the mindset of hawks on the Indian side.

The temerity of the officials appals me. They do not want any formal contact between Vajpayee and Musharraf. When they are together, probably seated next to each other, it would look odd if Musharraf were to make some remark and Vajpayee were to keep quiet lest his response be construed more than a meeting. It would be foolish on the part of anyone outside the government to draw the line and decide how far Vajpayee should go. Is he expected to conduct a monosyllable dialogue with Musharraf so that the talks do not transcend the limits of meeting? Is there some way to determine how a meeting stays a meeting and does not take the shape of negotiations?

Vajpayee too knows that the ceasefire on the Kashmir border is incomplete without the stoppage of infiltration. That he has repeated this even after Islamabad’s response shows that he is averse to talking to Musharraf as long as terrorism continues. The message could not have been lost on Islamabad.

India is not trying to run away from the talks on Kashmir. Islamabad should recall Vajpayee’s visit as a Janata government’s foreign minister in 1978. At that meeting the Pakistan leaders accosted him, asking for talks on Kashmir. He turned the tables on them by saying, “let us sit here and discuss Kashmir right now.” The Pakistan government was so flabbergasted that it fumbled for a reply. Kashmir was not mentioned again during his entire stay.

I believe Pakistan is willing to allow trade and relax visa restrictions if India accepts Kashmir as a disputed territory. Islamabad is again wasting its energy over technicalities. When New Delhi says it is prepared to discuss Kashmir, it concedes that it is a dispute of sorts. After all, it has never said that it will discuss Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh or Punjab. It means Kashmir is a pending matter. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi too agreed at Shimla in 1972 that the question of “a final settlement on Jammu and Kashmir” would be taken up later. The word “dispute” has not been used. But when a matter is kept pending, how do you describe it?

The real question is that of cross-border terrorism which Islamabad has to tackle seriously. It does not seem to be doing so because the Pakistan spokesman is saying practically every day that his country was committed to support Kashmir morally and diplomatically. But Pakistan’s involvement in cross-border terrorism is known all over the world.

Musharraf has to find an answer to that. When India recalls December 13 incident, terrorism will be uppermost in people’s mind. Islamabad’s reaction cannot be that it has tried its best to stall cross-border terrorism. It will have to translate its statement into action. The jihadis will have to be shackled and training camps closed. In fact, the opposite is happening. According to Pakistani newspapers, there are posters in the NWFP for fresh recruitment and for a three-week training.

Musharraf will have to do more to punish the jihadis and others to convince New Delhi that he really wants to make up with India. His offer to withdraw troops from Kashmir under Pakistan if India reciprocates in its part of Kashmir will sound more credible if he stops cross-border terrorism.

Yet I have not been able to understand the logic of not engaging Pakistan in some kind of a dialogue after the guns have fallen silent on the Kashmir border. Vajpayee himself has said, one cannot refuse to talk to neighbours. Officials of the two countries can sit across a table straightaway to discuss steps to stop cross-border terrorism. One thing will lead to another.

Sooner or later, both countries have to sit together to sort out their differences. Ultimately, the two will reach the conclusion that they have a great deal to learn about peace.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.