Replacing a dictatorship

IN an open letter to the people of Pakistan (October 9, 2006) a group of 15 eminent citizens has called upon them to stand up and wage a struggle for removing the present authoritarian regime. These gentlemen argue that Pakistan cannot survive repeated and extended periods of military rule, which are wanting in legitimacy and credibility.

A “power hungry” general, aided by a bunch of depraved politicians, has mutilated and subverted the country’s Constitution. He has made parliament, the prime minister and his cabinet, and the judiciary, each into a “fig leaf” to cover his unlawful practices. The federation is “bursting at the seams” under the weight of his misrule. They believe that free and fair elections will not be held while he is in power. They conclude that “we have no alternative but to stand up and fight. If we succeed, and God willing we shall, we may get a new Pakistan,” that is free, dynamic, progressive, stable, and master of its own destiny.

These observations are eminently sensible, and many in their audience will have no hesitation in supporting them. But I do wish their authors had told us how exactly the struggle they commend is to be organised. I assume they do not know what the mechanics of this enterprise should be. If that indeed is the case, it is so not because of an insufficiency of insightfulness on their part. It is because the enterprise of replacing a dictatorship with democracy is exceedingly complex and tedious.

Pakistan’s own experience with mass movements launched to remove an unwanted government can be recapitulated quickly. “Field Marshal” Ayub Khan handed over power to General Yahya Khan. The movement against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto opened the way for General Ziaul Haq’s military dictatorship. Movements for the restoration of democracy during his rule got nowhere. General Musharraf’s opponents have repeatedly threatened to launch movements to oust him but to date nothing of the kind has happened.

Models of successful movements are not lying around for us to pick one up. Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China, Kim Il-sung in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Franco in Spain died of old age. Hitler and Mussolini lost their lives as a result of defeat in war. An American invasion ousted Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Nasser in Egypt and Hafez al-Assad in Syria died of natural causes. A fellow Egyptian, a Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser, killed Anwar al-Sadat. Fidel Castro of Cuba will probably die in a hospital. Qadhafi in Libya and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt are still in place.

A mass movement did chase the Shah of Iran out of the country but, instead of instituting democracy in one of its customary forms, it gave rise to a quasi-democratic but essentially authoritarian rule of the Iranian clergy, which is surely not the kind of democracy the writers of the open letter under reference want.

I know of two situations, one in Chile and the other in the Philippines, where the “people power” ousted dictatorship and placed a democratic regime in its stead. It may be useful to see how it happened.

With the assistance of the American CIA, General Augusto Pinochet, chief of the Chilean army, forced his way into the presidential palace in Santiago on September 11, 1973, killed President Salvador Allende, an avowed Marxist elected to his office in 1970, and seized the government. He became president but, at the same time, retained his army post.

Soon after taking power, Pinochet unleashed his secret police to hound actual and suspected opponents. More than 5,000 persons were executed, 2,000 kidnapped, 150,000 exiled, and tens of thousands tortured. The international community condemned his regime, but he remained undeterred. The Chilean people also expressed their disapproval. In August 1983, for instance, several hundred sympathisers of the Christian Democratic Party marched in downtown Santiago, shouting slogans such as “Pinochet should go.” But this demonstration was promptly quelled

The “Assembly of Civility,” a coalition of labour unions, student groups, and civic organisations that sought General Pinochet’s ouster called a general strike on July 14, 1986. No trucks, buses, or taxis moved in Santiago and other cities. Nail-studded contraptions were spread on road surfaces to punctures the tires of those who dared bring out their vehicles. Stores closed. Leftist groups set off 30 bomb explosions across the country, blew up 12 power transmission towers, throwing half the country into darkness for many hours. Troops moved in, killed eight persons, wounded 38, and detained 180. It was all over in two days, and the general remained in power for another three to four years.

Pinochet ruled as a dictator but he had kept up a democratic facade. Congress did meet periodically, and while opposition leaders were persecuted, political parties were allowed to exist. In August 1988 he lifted the state of emergency that had been in effect for several years and, two months later, he held a referendum on whether his term, due to expire in March 1989, should be extended to 1997. Fifty-five per cent of the voters said No. He had come to power with the CIA’s help, and apparently the CIA concluded that it was now time for him to go. A presidential election, the first in 19 years, was held in December 1989, which he lost to Patricio Aylwin, the Christian Democratic nominee. Upon giving up the presidency, he announced that he would remain the army chief, which he did until 1998 when he finally retired. I am not sure how it became possible. It seems that the Chilean constitution allowed the army high command to choose their head, and they decided to stay with Pinochet.

In sum, it was not a mass movement but an election, plus American concurrence, which ended a long spell (17 years) of dictatorship in Chile. Let us now see what happened in the Philippines.

Ferdinand Marcos became president of the Philippines in 1965. He was re-elected in 1969 after which would seem to have decided that he was going to stay in power indefinitely one way or another. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1971 and imposed martial law the following year, which remained in force until 1981. He scheduled an election for June 16 of that year, which the opposition parties boycotted, allowing him an easy victory. During the preceding 10 years his administration had sent more than 30,000 politicians, journalists, and other critics to jail. On August 21, 1983, one of his security officers killed a popular opposition politician, Benigno Aquino, as he returned from exile abroad. This was to be a pivotal event in Marcos’s downfall. Two million persons came to Aquino’s funeral, making it the largest political demonstration in the country’s history.

Estimates of Marcos’s plunder of his country’s treasury vary, ranging between 100 and 350 million US dollars. In any case, there can be no doubt that he and his family lived well. After his departure from Manila, his wife’s (Imelda) closets were found to contain approximately 1,000 pairs of shoes, 900 handbags, 70 pairs of sunglasses, and 65 parasols.

In an environment of widespread disaffection with his rule, a presidential election became due in 1986, which Marcos expected once again to win by rigging it. After the polling was done on February 25, he declared himself the winner and went through an inaugural. But an independent tally declared his rival, Mrs Corazon Aquino (widow of the assassinated Benigno Aquino) as the winner, and she too got herself inaugurated the same day.

Two other rather unexpected events happened. The United States Senate passed a resolution, saying that the election in the Philippines had been marred by fraud. The country’s defence minister, Juan Ponce Enrile, took charge of the army headquarters and demanded Marcos’s resignation, whereupon the president fled to Hawaii, and Corazon Aquino, victorious and smiling, moved into the presidential palace.

Thus, in this case too, as in that of Chile, not a mass movement but an election, plus American backing, enabled the people concerned to make a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy. Does this tell us anything about the course the folks in Pakistan might take?

The general strike and the resulting paralysis of the cities in Chile in 1986 did not yield the desired result because it lasted only two days. Our own experience with the ouster of Ayub Khan and Z.A. Bhutto suggests that the revolt, including strikes, has to last several weeks if it is to be successful. The opposition parties in Pakistan do not appear to be capable of mounting and sustaining such a revolt. But, as I have argued in an earlier article, there is no assurance that any movement they launch, even if it is vigorous and extended enough, will restore democracy instead of making way for another dictator to replace the one who is ousted.

What is then to be done? I am not sure; I imagine we are limited to speculation. I suggest that we reconsider the assumption that the present regime will be able to rig the forthcoming election and get away with it. All of us (journalists, lawyers, other professionals, labour leaders, student unions, and various organs of civil society) should devote all the effort we can muster to ensuring that government functionaries will not intervene to influence electoral outcomes.

Let us stop saying that the next election will definitely be rigged; let us not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let us instead insist that this election must be honest. Let us appeal to public officials, in the name of the country’s integrity and honour, to abjure misuse of their authority and influence to advantage this or that candidate.

Let us put in place a network of groups to monitor the election. Let the people at large be aroused to insist that the election must be honest. Lastly, let us convince external forces, notably the United States, that no government in Pakistan can effectively aid their campaigns if it is perceived to be illegitimate, and if the people are not with it.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, US Email: anwarsyed@cox.net

Pakistan: a banana republic?

“PAKISTAN is no banana republic,” was General Musharraf’s irked response to American press correspondents in New York when asked to confirm or deny rumours of an attempted coup against him during his absence from the country.

The rumours were unfounded but given the frequency and variety of Pakistan’s coups, the curiosity of the correspondents need not have irritated Gen Musharraf. Indeed, he himself had to stage, as he calls it, a counter-coup to dismiss the former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who in a coup, one of its kind, had tried to relieve him of the army command.

The countries of Central America and also some of South America came to be called banana republics for their oppressive military or party dictatorships in succession, guerilla wars and counterinsurgency measures. The political turmoil in the republics was accompanied by unfavourable terms of trade, the burden of huge external debts and great disparities of income. Almost one-third of the income of the region came from banana plantations, and the trade in bananas and other farm commodities was dominated by major US companies.

The region thus presented a scene of political instability and economic exploitation. This picture has been fast changing. Most countries in that region now have elected governments and are regaining control over their economy and foreign policy. The latest expression of this change is to be found in a free and raucous election campaign now in progress in Ecuador, the largest of the banana republics. A socialist candidate of little means there is strongly challenging the “banana king” of the country for the presidency.

That we here in Pakistan, which started out as a democracy with a free economy, should be invoking the image of a banana republic 59 years later is a moment for every citizen to contemplate and rue. The people as a whole have to take up the task of reclaiming the image and future of the country. It cannot be left either to Gen Musharraf (“a dictator who is convinced that he is the best hope for democracy”) or to democrats who act like dictators when in power or to the Islamists to whom statecraft means nothing more than regimentation.

A year ahead of the next elections and these three forces are all poised to cut deals and form alliances to get a foothold in the power structure no matter what it takes — violence on the streets, rigging the ballot, bribery or even a fresh lease of life for military rule. In each case a new combine of generals and politicians will follow. After all, almost every politician — Nawaz Sharif, Raja Zafarul Haq, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, to name the prominent three — has been, or now is, a part of such combines.

A grand alliance of all parties is just one, but the surest, way of blocking the return of a civilian elected government. Confronting the government on the streets once again might enable some splinter religious groups to get ministries but would assuredly leave the mainstream and nationalists parties out in the cold for another decade.

Benazir Bhutto, therefore, is rightly wary of the grand alliance idea sponsored by the MMA. Her meeting with Nawaz Sharif in London earlier this week seems to suggest he too would go along. Another encouraging outcome of their London meeting is the emphasis the two leaders have placed on fair elections held under a government of national consensus (Nawaz Sharif’s statement that a clash with Gen Musharraf was inevitable seems more a show of personal bravado rather than a reasoned statement of party policy).

The two leaders, again encouragingly, have not demanded the abrogation of the 17th amendment which would have enabled them to take part in the elections and seek the prime minister’s office once again. All that they have asked for is to be allowed to return and be free to lead their parties.

The Musharraf government may not readily agree to all that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif demand but they have indeed provided a basis for face-to-face talks replacing backdoor overtures. The government and the parties in opposition can now meet straightaway to evolve a consensus on the composition and charter of the interim national government and the mechanism for holding elections. There should be no hurdle as fair and free elections under an interim set-up are a constitutional requirement and the president and the prime minister have often reiterated it.

As the talks proceed, an environment cordial enough may prevail for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to return. Even if they cannot, nothing would be lost for they are in exile facing numerous charges and Musharraf is in control at home and the option to fight on remains open.

If a consensus is reached on an interim national government, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif would be asking for a bit too much if they insist on taking part in the elections and lead their respective parties in parliament. Nawaz Sharif has a trusted and tried successor in his brother Shahbaz and Benazir Bhutto has a bevy of loyal acolytes including Makhdum Amin Fahim, Aftab Shaban Mirani, Aitzaz Ahsan and Raza Rabbani to choose from. The PPP and the Muslim League can join hands to amend the Constitution enabling their leaders to return if they are able to muster a two-thirds majority in parliament. Nothing would be lost if they cannot for, in any case, a large question mark hangs over their conduct and performance as prime ministers in the nineties. Those who have seen Shahbaz Sharif work as chief minister of Punjab would tend to agree that he would, if it comes his way, make a better prime minister than his brother.

What really matters is to have fair elections on schedule or, better still, ahead of it. Secondary issues like Musharraf’s uniform and undoing the amendments he has made to the Constitution would resolve themselves once a truly representative parliament comes into being which the present one is not.

The elections postponed or rigged would make Pakistan a banana republic if it isn’t one already. It would be a folly of horrendous proportions if an all-party conference is not called now to evolve consensus on the interim government which should plan and conduct elections, and without laying preconditions. Serious doubts are already being cast on the accuracy and integrity of the electoral exercise now in progress.

Wrong note for nature

CORNCOCKLE and weasel’s snout, lapwing, bittern and water vole: not, as they sound, the ingredients of a witches’ brew, merely the most picturesque of the flora and fauna that risk becoming casualties of the latest example of administrative failure.

MPs on the public accounts committee were scathing at the start of this week about the costs of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ mishandling of the new farm subsidy system, introduced before either its complexity or its likely cost had been properly understood. Although the impact of the chaos cost farmers millions of pounds in debt interest, the burden of the rescue operation has fallen on Defra’s limited budget. That has led to cuts and uncertainty for the department’s other projects, such as waterways, conservation and habitat improvement.

A government that champions its green credentials is having to impose cuts on its own environmental work - an absurdity echoed yesterday when, from Finland in the morning, Tony Blair warned that the world might be just 10 years from climate change catastrophe, and, in the afternoon in London, it emerged that government cash has run out for some renewable energy projects.

The real victims of maladministration are often too isolated to be seen: lone parents defeated by the child support agency, low income families suddenly told to repay tax-credit overpayments that have already been spent. But the economic consequences of the single farm payment disaster may do visible damage to the British countryside and undermine projects designed to make a vital contribution to the restoration of natural environments in the cities.

The most spectacular casualty is the all-new unified green agency, Natural England. The body, launched this month, links all the different funding streams and interested parties involved in landscape and access (the old Countryside Agency), improved stewardship of agricultural land (the Rural Development Service) and guarding biodiversity (English Nature).

But before it was even launched its chairman-designate, Sir Martin Doughty, was warning the environment secretary David Miliband that the cuts he was being obliged to make were eroding its ability to do its job. Last month, half a dozen of the leading conservation and access organisations, including the RSPB, Friends of the Earth, the Ramblers’ Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, went public with their alarm.

The damage of the budget cuts, predicted to last for several years to come, will be felt all over the country, and not just by Natural England. While it may not be able to afford to build a new dry stone wall or preserve rare orchids in farmland — environmental projects now face a miserly 5,000 pounds budget cap — British Waterways, another quango dependent on Defra support, is cutting back on maintenance. That may lead to the closure of some canals, including ones newly reopened - bad news for the public who enjoy using them, and bad news too for the creatures that live in them.

Mr Miliband has brought energy and focus to his first big cabinet job. He has put his drive behind achieving real reductions in carbon emissions (even if budgetary sleight of hand was involved in his announcement of extra cash for the greening of homes). Organisations, such as the RSPB, that eagerly anticipated a similar energy behind a drive to restore the natural biodiversity on which Britain’s endangered species depend applaud his enthusiasm for tackling climate change. But they would like their own areas of concern to count too, for, without conservation now, species and habitats will be lost long before global warming claims them. Mr Miliband inherited a chalice tainted by administrative chaos, but he should remember that it is by his response to adversity that he will be judged.

—The Guardian, London