| 05 July 2004 | Monday | 16 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
MMA's tricky politics
Fahrenheit 9/11
Pitfalls in dialogue
What led to Mr. Jamali's exit as the prime minister on June 26, 2004? The nation can speculate endlessly, but may not know, or even understand the reason, for quite some time.
There were no constitutional, political or personal reasons according to the known democratic or parliamentary principles. He did not differ, or misbehave, with any one because he could not do so temperamentally, intellectually or politically.
He did not lose confidence of the house. The treasury benches passed the budget two days ago, and the opposition vowed to support (even save him) only four days earlier. He repeatedly and emphatically denied all reports about his resignation till one day before making a show of submitting it to the party.
Moreover, he was not facing any charge sheet, nor was down with weak health. What then caused his political demise? We feel bewildered, because we look for the right reason in the wrong place i.e. in the parliament or in the folds of democratic conventions. The real reason lies elsewhere.
It lies embedded in our system, labelled as "democracy" by those who devised it, even if such a "democracy" does not exist in the known political theory. We are having the first taste of this system, so skilfully spun round the newly acquired permanent role of the army in our politics since the LFO accord in December 2003.
Starting with a uniform-clad defence minister in 1954, every subsequent military presence on our political stage, assisted by backstage activity of its intelligence agencies, has been persistently enlarging, inch by inch, the physical and constitutional size of the military barracks.
Over a span of fifty years it has finally expanded to include the entire civil society. Jamali's appointment, tenure and ouster are the early glimpses of the price tag of this system plus warranty of insurance against future military intrusions.
It has many permanent features. Unless we understand these features we cannot understand the reasons for the fall of Mr. Jamali. The most striking feature is that, henceforth, the system's problems and the peoples' problems stand permanently divorced.
The former not only has a priority over the latter, but also seeks solutions at its cost. Without becoming a problem for the people, or their so-called representatives, Mr. Jamali was somehow perceived as a problem for the system. Since the threat perception was a closely guarded secret of a few, he had to be suddenly removed by a major surgery under the stunned gaze of the people.
The message was loud and clear that the security of the system ranked higher than the security of the insecure people, whose assigned role is to live with their accumulated problems, and go on speculating about their future. The divorced relationship does not permit transparency of decisions, but sustains a one-valve umbilical cord that makes the people accountable to the system, but forbids the system to be accountable to the people.
The second feature is that the system is based on quite a few presumptions, some of which were later upgraded to guiding principles. The list is long but a few obvious examples are enumerated below.
(a) The performance of defence duties creates a divine right to demand a total subservience of the entire civil society.
(b) The soul and loyalty of the Pakistani politicians is freely available in abundance for a price.
(c) The civil society in Pakistan has no capacity to change, or challenge, the two foregoing assumptions.
(d) Those with less than one hundred per cent loyalty to the shifting demands of the system are deemed to be opposed to it.
(e) The system draws its progressive strength from the constant manipulations and distortion of all the state organs (legislature, executive, judiciary, and press) and other institutions to serve its own objectives.
(f) For the success of the system, ends justify the means. Consequently, everything (Constitution, ethics, morality, and legality) can be flouted, broken or torn without qualms.
(g) When the continued success of the system proves it to be right for the rulers, then the ruled do not matter.
The third feature is a determined action plan to control, engineer, and influence the civil society to appear to conform to their presumptions, and look eager to invite their intervention. For lack of space only one example is being briefly cited in outline. It suits the system to have a dirty political culture in the country. Each military dictator, therefore, deliberately enhanced the pollution, instead of cleaning the mess, so that after his imminent exit the re-entry may be facilitated in future.
During their collective rule of 28 years not a single martial law order was effectively passed to improve the political culture, comprising undemocratic structure of political parties, rigged elections, horse trading, floor crossing, political bribes of development funds to legislators and many other political crimes. On the other hand, they openly practised these very irregularities with far greater vigour and impunity, particularly in setting up the king's party. They demanded, and got, indemnity for all their wrongdoings at the end of each inning.
They manufactured new leaders (Bhutto by Ayub and Nawaz Sharif by Zia), only to be removed from the scene by their successors, because their growing size could make them independent. This posed a threat to the system, which prefers to have pygmies and puppets as political figures to ensure their availability for a price.
The fourth feature pertains to the style of governance of this system. Its broad parameters have been demonstrably revealed during the last four years e.g. fake referendum, rigged elections, reckless reforms in the face of public opposition (police and devolution), freedom of crime for the supporters, and corruption as an instrument of state policy in pushing constitutional changes and manipulating the legislators. This style is target-oriented, regardless of the damage on the way to target.
This single-minded battle approach is indiscriminately applied to the multi-dimension civil society in peacetime regardless of the visible damage on the spot and invisible harm in the ever-expanding ripple effect. In the name of pragmatism the governance can be weak, strong or ruthless in the interest of the system, but seldom so in public interest.
The foregoing features depict an incomplete but realistic picture of the new system, which is tuned to exploit the baser and evil elements in the civil society, instead of focussing on the sublime in human nature. Its operational efficiency, therefore, requires dummies and puppets in civil society, instead of enlightened and dynamic citizens with confidence and vision. Simultaneously, new meaning have to be assigned to the old constitutional diction. New system required a new dictionary. As a result "democracy", "parliament", "judiciary", "civil servant" and "independence" mean different things in today's Pakistan. Even "hypocrisy" appears as a high virtue in this dictionary, standing almost equal to "pragmatism".
The faces in the PML house meeting on June 26, 2004 should be scanned in this light. Thanks to the TV coverage, we saw a grand puppet show in real life. The "resignation" was not as voluntary as is traditionally defined in the democratic jargon. The "sovereign" MNAs were not sovereign while waiting with open mouths for a new name to be dropped on behalf of the oracles. The cheers were devoid of spontaneous exuberance of democratic decision- makers.
Simultaneous birth of two prime ministers was unprecedented, if not unnatural. No one in the hall was his real self. The faces did not speak for themselves, but for the ears of the system. The "sovereign decision-makers" were confused, bewildered, curious, even sad for having been left out, but they pragmatically swallowed it all.
That is how the system works. Having known, it should not be difficult for us to guess the reason of Mr. Jamali's exit. Any political prime minister is not allowed to complete his tenure, so that he does not grow bigger in size, or steal a single ray of limelight, or intend to be another power centre. (Z. A.Bhutto's full tenure before 1977 elections was the only exception due to preceding surrender in Dhaka in 1971). Mr. Jamali does not appear to have caused any of these offences during his 19 months in office. But this is what the people think.
The perception of a small group behind closed doors with curtains drawn is different from that of a vast and open civil society, especially when the interests of that group are being carved out of the interests of the people. The perceptions are bound to differ with the intended size of the share. The nation does not know (a) the expectations about the size of the share, and (b) how Mr. Jamali appeared to be serving from behind those curtains.
Maybe, there is some respite for a loyal technocrat for some time, but in today's fast changing world even the demands of loyalty can change drastically.
MMA's tricky politics
The western analysts living in this country and not familiar with the fact of a political party being founded on the basis of theological tenets are naturally a little intrigued at the power and influence the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal continues to wield in the political affairs of Pakistan.
In fact, the association of six political parties has been, and is likely to remain, something of an enigma, especially since the president has watched with weary resignation, how the United Action Council continues to frustrate his every move and still emerge unscathed, strong and united.
Recently President Musharraf appeared on television and pointed accusing fingers at Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a key figure of the MMA and leader of the opposition in the national assembly.
He accused the latter of first giving his assent for the formation of the newly formed national security council, and then with characteristic aplomb, refusing to attend, along with the chief minister of the NWFP, its first session. But this apparent display of political ambivalence has a background, and a peak into the recent past, however cursory, will demonstrate that the refusal was not really a sudden display of defiance, but part of a larger and well thought out plan to frustrate a president who is now being caught in a web of apparent contradictions, and is desperately trying to avoid having to cross further constitutional hurdles.
Both Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the hardliner in the MMA, and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a more amiable and reasonable negotiator, have displayed considerable sophistication, political maturity and a little of what Sir Charles Napier would have probably referred to as native cunning, when handling all contentious political issues.
Initially, the religious leaders kept opposing the government on the LFO issue, throwing up smokescreens but ensuring that the public regarded the MMA, rather than the ARD parties, as being in the forefront of the insurrection against the establishment, until they finally got the president to agree, albeit reluctantly, on a date when he would finally remove his battle fatigues.
It was the same with the NSC. The MMA's terms for acceptance were simple. The NSC was to be constituted through parliament. This allowed the bill to be passed through the two assemblies by a simple majority, without pushing them into a situation where they had to vote. But even before the NSC was jostled into position, much to the discomfort of the ARD parties, the die had been cast. The MMA had adopted a position of uncompromising hostility towards the establishment, caused no doubt by among other things, the foreign policy adopted by the government.
However, if one looks a little deeper into the stand-off, one would come to the inevitable conclusion that the president and his advisers have nobody but themselves to blame for the peculiar state of affairs which subsequently developed.
Somebody had to pay a price for denying the PPP the political space to grow so they could play a responsible role in the affairs of the country. Ever since the MMA mustered enough support to emerge as the third largest political party in the country by bagging 60 seats, or 16 per cent of the total votes cast in the elections, their importance had been enhanced far beyond their party's electoral significance.
In the initial stages after the October election, the MMA was wooed by both the PPP and the PML-Q, two parties though diametrically opposed to the clerics' fundamentalist stand, desperately needed their support to form a government. But as it turned out, the clerics had ideas of their own.
Behind a pervasive cloud of nostalgic reference, stood the non-negotiable prime ministerial candidate of the MMA, Maulana Fazlur Rahman. This was, of course, wholly unacceptable to the president and the superpower that is orchestrating the war on terror, and so, much against his will and better judgement, the president was reportedly persuaded to enter into a brief understanding with the PPP.
The president's messengers, in a spirit of accommodation and bonhomie, offered the premiership to Makhdoom Amin Fahim, leader of the PPP's parliamentary delegation. There were, however, two conditions. Fahim had to agree to the president's five-year constitutional term. And he had to agree to turn a blind eye to his sweeping constitutional powers. There was also some confection at the bottom of the wicker basket. As prime minister he could always relocate Asif Zardari to an address in Sao Paolo and dismiss all charges of corruption against his spouse.
What a preposterous suggestion. Benazir Bhutto wouldn't hear of it. She found it more than a little incongruous that Fahim should be made prime minister while she, the leader of the party, was still in exile.
Besides, Musharraf should be the one to absolve her of all charges - not Fahim. It was around this time, or perhaps a little later that one of the Muslim League turncoats whispered to the president that there was this portly, hirsute, reactionary tribal chief from Balochistan, who used to be Miss Fatima Jinnah's bodyguard, who might be the very man he was looking for.
The MMA leaders haven't made it to the top slot. But they have discovered that by sitting on the fence and playing a game of wait-and-see, they can accomplish considerably more than by throwing in their lot with the parties of the two exiled leaders, or with the party of the turncoats who recently forged a coalition of other retrogressive, reactionary branches of the League that took its name from the party that brought this country into being. But in spite of some of the decisions party stalwarts have taken which might have given the impression that they had switched sides, the MMA has always tried to adopt the posture of a responsible opposition party.
This has been the case whether negotiating a tricky legal subtlety with the late chief of the ARD, who thrived on political intrigue and whose importance has been wilfully exaggerated. Or with the former prime minister who had regrettably been turned into a marginal figure.
Or even when telling the Americans that Pakistan is willing to cooperate with the US in the war against terror, but the Americans should not expect support from Pakistan in a war against Islam or Muslims.
As long as US relations with the Muslim world remain at a crossroads, and Washington believes it can afford the yawning chasm between pronouncements promoting democracy, while their policies promote dictatorships, the MMA will thrive in Pakistan. Currently, it is the only political party in the country that is giving the president and the PML-Q a king-sized headache.
There is a growing awareness, not only among politicians in the PPP and other smaller opposition groups, but also among the citizenry, that the MMA is the only party that is "keeping the president in check", and is, in its own peculiar way, serving the cause of democracy.
This is what makes the whole business so tragic. The majority of people in this blighted land do not support the men of the cloth. Nor do they want to live under a theocracy. But they nevertheless watch fascinated as the mullahs steal the thunder from the very people who have been sidelined and who should have been incensed, but are doing precious little about it.
The president is still seen as a secular, liberal and progressive leader, and he still has support in the country at the grassroots level. But after the recent palace intrigue, some of the old gemuetlichkeit has disappeared. One wonders what will happen in December when the deadline for taking off his uniform arrives.
If he refuses for whatever reason, as is now becoming increasingly likely, he will not only lose face and the moral argument, but the MMA will be able to score another triumph. This will not bode well for the future of the country.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Moore's blockbuster film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' is the surprise hit of the summer. Americans are lining up to see this controversial film which is the most deadly attack to date on the Bush administration.
'Fahrenheit' may not be an epochal political film, like 'Battleship Potempkin,' or 'The Battle of Algiers,' but it certainly ranks as the most exciting and searing American political movie since the superb, eerily prophetic 'Wag the Dog,' a brilliant film about how a phony war is concocted and marketed by White House political operatives.
'Wag the Dog' and 'Fahrenheit' make perfect bookends encompassing the fraud, dishonesty, and Orwellian manipulation of George W. Bush's failed presidency. With dazzling speed, elan, and razor-sharp editing, Moore keeps turning over Washington rocks, exposing a squirming, slithering underside of deceit and illicit dealings that will outrage thoughtful, educated viewers.
However, those fundamentalist Christian core supporters of George W (I call them American Taliban) who study world affairs through Chuck Norris movies, old Ronald Reagan World War II films, and the Bible, are unlikely to rush to see 'Fahrenheit.'
No one will ever accuse the angry Michael Moore of finesse or subtly. He attacks George W. and his White House cronies with a cinematographic shovel. Moore's Bush comes out looking dim-witted and befuddled.
This column has made no secret of its low opinion of the president's intellect, but it's hard to believe that Bush, who, after all, won the presidency, is as dense as the film unfairly portrays him. Taking film clips and parts of speeches out of context, as Gov. Howard Dean can sadly attest, can make anyone look rabid or stupid. Nor does this column buy Moore's contention Bush is merely the tool of evil big business, and the Iraq war a money grab by Halliburton and Washington's influence-peddling Carlyle Group.
Political life in Washington is far more complex and diffuse than this simplistic view. Big business certainly takes advantage of every opportunity, and buys legislators, Republicans and Democrats. But the Second Iraq War was not started by Enron or the board of Chevron Petroleum. Moore is rehashing old, anti-capitalist dogma from the Democratic Party's left wing.
By contrast, Moore did a smashing job in capturing the Bush administration's fear-mongering that terrorized unworldly Americans into believing they were in mortal peril from Iraq and Osama bin Laden - and only the president could save them.
Moore clearly smells the first rank whiffs of proto-fascist behaviour coming from the White House. I wish he made the disturbing contrast between 9/11 and the ensuing anti-democratic Patriot Act curtailing American's liberties, and the Reichstag burning of 1933 that led to the Emergency and Enabling Acts ending Germany's civil liberties.
Unfortunately, Moore's sweeping attack on the self-proclaimed 'war president' totally ignores the 900-lb gorilla at the tea party: the neo-conservative conspiracy to push America into the disastrous Iraq war.
The entire phony Iraq crisis - weapons of mass destruction, germ labs, dire threats to America - were all concocted by pro-Israel neo-conservatives as part of their long-term campaign to push America into a Mideast war to destroy all of Israel's enemies. That, and the lust to control oil, were the two driving forces behind the war.
Moore's spotlight should have pointed at the administration neocon cabal, led by VP Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle and their media allies who fed false information to the White House and public. And at their mouthpiece Ahmed Chalabi.
This column was also disappointed Moore didn't spend more time pounding the US national media. He took only a few shots at the big networks for parroting administration war propaganda. Yet the neocon conspiracy and its manipulation of national media is the most shocking story of the Iraq War.
Instead, Moore allows the final third of 'Fahrenheit' to drag and get bogged down in maudlin personal stories instead of keep up the first part's furious pace and shocking revelations.
The film is heavy-handed and occasionally unfair. But a powerful counterbalance to all the propaganda shamefully force-fed to the American public by the national media was overdue and desperately needed.
Until recently, Americans have heard only one side of the story, which, we are discovering, was a tapestry of lies worthy of Nazi propaganda chief, Dr Goebbels. Kudos to Moore for helping bring some bright light into the propaganda darkness. -Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2004
Pitfalls in dialogue
The recent statements and measures taken by the leaders of both Pakistan and India are indicative of a desire to usher in an era of peace and amity between the two countries. Since the experience of the last over half a century has seen several ups and down, Pakistanis are keeping their fingers crossed on the question of the future of peace prospects.
Whether the process initiated on January 6, 2004 at Islamabad jointly by both India and Pakistan under the leadership of Mr Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf will continue to progress? Whether sustained dialogue, as visualized by Vajpayee on the issue of Kashmir will be held? Whether the new government would be in a position to take bold decisions side-tracking their stated position? Will they be sincere in the solution of Kashmir or will they allow it to linger on, as has been the case in the past?
Apparently it looks that the dialogue will continue since a suitable climate has been created. The mindset of the establishment as well as the civil society and general public is for peace.
Sonia Gandhi the president of the Congress was for negotiations when she was in opposition and continues to be consistent when she has won the elections. But the difference is of personalities heading the government in India.
Vajpayee, a very senior leader with unquestioned popularity and stature as an Indian nationalist, was in a position to take a bold decision and could traverse unchartered path.
Recently he is on record having said that his lifetime mission is to have good relations with neighbours. Such remarks by the leader of the opposition will provide substantial strength to those in power if they chose to pursue the path of peace and reconciliation.
Has Manmohan Singh a similar lifetime mission? Can he be bold enough to deviate from the beaten tracks? Can he, being from a minority community in India, be able to assert his views on the majority community as forcefully as Vajpayee perhaps was able to do?
The elections in India have demonstrated that the common people there were not disillusioned by the slogan "shining India" but are more concerned about poverty and unemployment. So are the people in Pakistan. Will this mindset make the leaders move in the positive direction of sustainable peace?
Perhaps, yes on almost all bilateral issues. But the stumbling block remains the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been complicated over the past 57 years. It is not easy to resolve.
All political parties in India want a solution of Kashmir within the framework of the Constitution of India. During their rule lasting for almost half a century successive Congress governments did not effectively tackle this problem.
Can we hope that the changed ground realities will make them change their stance? The Communist Party of India, which is supporting the present government, is for solution of Kashmir but within the four corners of the Indian Constitution.
On the other hand Pakistan, in the light of the UN resolutions, dose not recognize the legitimacy of Indian occupation of Kashmir and could not fail to support the wishes of the people of Kashmir, who have sacrificed so much since partition, especially during the last fourteen years, as to whether they wish to accede to India or Pakistan.
Can there be a way forward on Kashmir? Yes, if all the parties to the dispute show flexibility, i.e., Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir. President Musharraf's four-step mechanism may be considered.
First step is to keep alive sustained dialogue between the leaders of two countries. Step two is the acceptance of Kashmir as the issue that must be resolved. Step three would be to look at all possible solutions to the Kashmir problem and agree on which ones could be mutually discarded as unworkable.
The fourth step would be to go on to further discussion in involving the people of Kashmir from both sides of the Line of Control with a view to arriving at some reasonable solution acceptable to all parties concerned.
The Chinese approach is also being suggested. They are patiently waiting for the resolution of Taiwan at an appropriate time. Their experience is that Taiwan would come to them under one China policy, as has been the case with Hong Kong earlier.
They have adopted a similar attitude about their border dispute with India. But it should be realized that it is the dispute over the demarcation of Himalayan border between New Delhi and Beijing. It should not be equated with the Kashmir dispute where the future of millions of human beings is involved.
It must be realized that the option for use of force by both India and Pakistan has not resolved the issue and it should be discarded permanently. It should also be known that Kashmir couldn't be presented to the other side on a platter. Nor the line of control is acceptable to Pakistan or perhaps to the people of Kashmir.
A sane approach and the only course open is the sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two friendly neighbours, giving due weight to the views of the people of Kashmir.
It seems that the process will persist, since there is the pressure of the people and intelligentsia in both countries as well as of the international community. The Track-2 diplomacy is also active and seems to enjoy the patronage of the respective governments.
It will be worthwhile, in the meantime, to allow the people of both countries to move across the Line of Control as well as the international border so as to develop further understanding and friendship with a view to effectively exercising positive influence on their respective governments.
Accordingly, both governments should, with all sincerity and seriousness, show progress on all bilateral issues raised by either side including the hitherto intractable problem of Kashmir.
Like its predecessor, the new Indian government has expressed its willingness to continue the talks. India's UPA government has recently issued "six basic principles of governance" which it would adhere clearly state: "dialogue with Pakistan on all issues will be pursued systematically and on a sustained basis." About Kashmir the document states:
"The UPA government is pledged to respecting the letter and spirit of Article 370 of the Constitution that accords a special status to J&K. Dialogue with all groups and with different shades of opinion in J&K will be pursued on a sustained basis, in consultation with the democratically-elected state government...." Congress policy as spelt in party manifesto and document on "security, defence and foreign policy, indicates that the Congress agenda" visualizes "a stable, working, cooperative relationship with Pakistan under the framework of Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and confidence-building measures initiated by later Congress Governments up to 1996."
At the same time J.N. Dixit, a former Indian foreign secretary and an ambassador to Pakistan, who will exercise great influence on Indian policy making, views its ties with Pakistan differently.
In his recent book "India and Regional Developments - Through the Prism of Indo-Pak Relations" thinks that a solution to the Kashmir problem "could be sought with some adjustment in the delineation of the Line of Control" and "the bottom line is: no territorial alienation of Jammu and Kashmir, which is a part of India, to any country."
At another place he even advocates limited "pre-emptive strikes" against Pakistan. He also mentions that at "some point Musharraf's bluff would have to be called." This thinking read in conjunction with the recent statement of Musharraf that the line of control is not acceptable presents an unpredictable scenario.
While it is obvious that the dialogue will continue, the approach of the two sides is likely to be different. It has been said that whatever progress was made at Lahore, Agra and Islamabad should be set aside and the process should restart from Shimla Agreement of 1972 and other CBMs undertaken by the earlier Congress governments.
Experience tells us that no Congress government has made any progress on Kashmir issue after the signing of the Simla Agreement. If we have to retrace our steps Pakistan may also go back to the UN resolutions of 1949.
Fortunately, the President of India has stated that the new government will honour international agreements of the previous BJP-led government, which also includes Islamabad declaration of January 6.
It should not be lost sight of that the world is fast becoming a 'global village', promoting the emergence of regional blocs for survival in ever increasing competitive world. We have the European Union, Asean, etc. etc. South Asia is a cohesive geographical bloc and requires unity of effort.
The practical approach should be forward looking instead of traversing the beaten path, should display a spirit of flexibility instead of stubbornness, and accommodation instead of rigidity, if problems are to be resolved, the Saarc is to be strengthened and a bright future for one-fifth of humanity is to be ensured.