|
|
| May 06, 2007 | Sunday | Rabi-us-Sani 18, 1428 |
Making their role more effective
PML’s double standards
Revisiting ‘enlightened moderation’
THERE is no denying the fact that a battle of historic proportions is going on right now in the Muslim world, including Pakistan, for the soul of Islam. On the one side are the forces of ignorance — “taqlid”, retrogression, extremism and intolerance. Arrayed against them are the forces of knowledge, enquiry, enlightenment, progress, moderation and tolerance.
TWO public figures have come out with prescriptions for pulling the country out of the political mess it is in. Speaking in Lahore and Islamabad at two different functions on Friday, both Qazi Hussain Ahmad and retired General Jahangir Karamat pleaded for putting an end to the army’s role in politics and establishing civilian supremacy. While the former army chief called for checking the military through legal and constitutional means, the MMA president came out with a formula that visualised an interim government headed by the Senate Chairman. Once an interim government was formed with Mr Mohammedmian Soomro as its acting president, the assemblies would be dissolved and free and fair elections held. Friday also saw the launching in book form of the diaries of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who also found a mention in Gen Karamat’s speech. The general referred repeatedly to the military-civilian relationship in Pakistan and said that the process of military intervention in politics started when some politicians asked a serving military chief to become the defence minister.
The history of the army’s involvement in politics is as old as 1953 when Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad, having dismissed the Nazimuddin ministry, inducted General Ayub Khan as defence minister into the ministry of Mohammed Ali Bogra. Four years later, Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan struck, overthrowing Feroz Khan Noon’s civilian government and abrogating the 1956 constitution. This set a nasty tradition that has continued till this day, for the army chiefs since then have staged three more coups d’etat — Yahya 1969, Ziaul Haq 1977 and Musharraf 1999. These direct military takeovers are in addition to the army’s behind-the-scenes role in toppling four more elected governments — those of Mohammad Khan Junejo, Benazir Bhutto (twice) and Nawaz Sharif. In his speech Gen Karamat said that the army was inherently aggressive and interventionist, and because it had inordinately large resources at its disposal, no other institution was in a position to challenge its supremacy. With the judiciary de-fanged, the only people who could take on the army were the politicians, but regrettably there was no dearth of time-servers and turncoats the army could make use of to prolong its stay in power and legitimise its seizure of power. During the post-Zia period – 1988-1999 – the politicians had a chance to consolidate democracy, but many of them did not seem to see beyond their noses and never hesitated to call upon the army to “do its duty” -- to topple their rivals’ government. We also know now, in spite of his denials, that Asghar Khan’s letter to the army was a major factor in sabotaging the PPP-PNA agreement and serving as an invitation to Ziaul Haq to take over.
The army, politicians and the judiciary: in the end we can see that it is a collective failure. Qazi Hussain Ahmad’s formula contains nothing new but it can serve as the basis of a solution if the government accepts it which one doubts. Holding parliamentary elections after the existing assemblies have elected Gen Musharraf for a second term would amount to a joke with the concept of constitutional government. An army chief being an elected head of state is a contradiction in terms. He may manage this sort of election, but such a dubious political and constitutional exercise is unlikely to pull the country out of the present crisis, much less strengthen democracy.
IT IS heartening that women from five major political parties came together at a workshop in Islamabad on Friday to discuss ways to raise women’s representation in their parties. This shows that women now realise that there is no point in working at cross purposes and that a unified front will enhance their empowerment. This is a much needed endeavour because the increase in their numbers in the assemblies — now at 33 per cent through reserved seats for women — is not enough. After the last election, one had thought that since there were more women parliamentarians, they would be able to play a more active role in governance, particularly in alleviating the lot of women. Sadly that has not happened, primarily because most parties tend to sideline their female members. Several women who won in the last election were wives or daughters of men who were barred from contesting because they were not graduates, or were made to contest so as to strengthen their parties’ presence in the assemblies. In effect, some women parliamentarians’ presence in the assemblies is inconsequential for they just follow orders. The other more courageous women parliamentarians, who are in the assemblies because of their sheer determination, find it difficult to assert themselves. There is always fear of reprisal or further alienation. Women thus need to assert themselves to be effective legislators. Male politicians too need to change their attitudes towards their female counterparts.
Until society is educated and enlightened to a point where a person’s gender ceases to matter, reserved electoral seats are necessary for women — without it women would not be able to participate in meaningfully in the national or provincial decision-making process. Friday’s workshop was a good example of how dialogues between men and women in political parties can bridge various gaps. Men need to realise how women can be involved in their party’s decision-making process and those decisions need not be confined to women’s issues. Women too need to effectively assert themselves so that their opinions are taken into consideration.
THERE is now further evidence of why Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain can never be an honest broker in any dealings with bigots and obscurantists. First he tried to undermine the women’s protection bill, tabled by his own ruling party to amend the draconian Hudood laws, and more recently appeared to endorse every illegal demand put forward by the Lal Masjid clerics. Little surprise then that he has now forced tourism minister Nilofar Bakhtiar to resign as head of the PML’s women’s wing, despite strong opposition to the move within the party. The reason: Ms Bakhtiar “acted irresponsibly” by participating in a paragliding event in France — organised to raise funds for earthquake-hit children in northern Pakistan — during which she was photographed hugging her elderly male instructor. Ms Bakhtiar, according to a PML vice-president, had harmed the party’s image.
It is believed the real reasons for her ouster lie elsewhere, with rumours rife that it was PML insiders who themselves leaked the photographs as part of an ongoing campaign to remove Ms Bakhtiar from her party post. Irrespective of the motives, the very fact that Chaudhry Shujaat can use the photographs as a valid reason to ask for Ms Bakhtiar’s ‘resignation’ betrays his hypocrisy, if not his real mindset. Publicly he is a staunch supporter of President Musharraf and his policies — indeed, Chaudhry Shujaat would not be where he is today if he weren’t. Many of his actions, however, fly in the face of the government’s mantra of ‘enlightened moderation’ and efforts to empower women. The MMA may be in the opposition but it has much in common with the bigots on the treasury benches. As Ms Bakhtiar summed it up, “under President Musharraf, women’s rights have moved on considerably. But we are still in a period of transition and negative forces are not feeling happy about it.”
The outcome of this epic battle of ideas will decide the destiny of the Muslims and the Muslim world in the decades, maybe even centuries, to come.
It is also equally true that the salvation of the Muslim world, which has suffered from backwardness, subjugation and humiliation for centuries, lies in seeking knowledge as the Prophet (PBUH) commanded, freeing the mind from the shackles of useless traditions and taboos having no basis, strictly speaking, in religion, seeking enlightenment in the true sense of the word through encouraging the spirit of enquiry and the application of the principle of ijtihad, and in practising the insight thus gained in our daily life individually and collectively. This is the only way to an Islamic renaissance.
One can do no better than to quote Iqbal from “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”. Having established that all lines of Muslim thought “converge on a dynamic conception of the universe”, Iqbal calls for the exercise of ijtihad as the expression of the principle of movement or evolution in Islamic thought. He goes on to stress that “The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”
It is against the background of the foregoing that one should examine critically the “strategy of enlightened moderation” as propounded and practised by General Musharraf. According to the general, the strategy involves a role by the Muslim world in “shunning militancy, extremism and adopting the path of socio-economic uplift” and a role by the West, in particular the US, in resolving all political disputes like Palestine and Kashmir with justice, and also in assisting in the socio-economic uplift of the Muslim world.
As far as the proposed role of the Muslim world is concerned, one cannot disagree with the advice that General Musharraf purports to give to the Muslim world to give up extremism and militancy, and adopt the path of socio-economic development. The Prophet himself declared that the Muslims constituted a nation of moderation. The Quran has clearly directed that there is no compulsion in religion. Still, the general should be appreciated for reminding his religious compatriots of a cardinal principle of Islam, particularly as in the heat of the moment or argument we are likely to forget it.
The objectionable aspect of the advice to Muslims is its underlying premise that only they deserve this counsel for moderation and for avoiding militancy and violence. This one-sided assumption betrays not only a woeful ignorance of history and current realities but also the working of a mind which sees the salvation of the Muslims in subservience to the West, intellectual and otherwise.
Even a cursory glance at the world history of the past few centuries would show that it is the West, more than anybody else, which has indulged in brutal acts of violence and trampled on the independence of other nations and the fundamental rights of other peoples through colonisation. The world’s two bloodiest wars were fought primarily by the West in the 20th century and not by the Muslims. It was the US, and not the Muslims, which fought the Vietnam war.
And it is the US which, encouraged by the neocon extremists, invaded Iraq without any legal justification and occupied it, causing bloodshed on an unprecedented scale in that hapless country. The Muslims alone cannot be blamed for terrorism, which must be condemned in all forms and manifestations, as the activities of the IRA, the Basque separatist group ETA and a numerous other terrorist groups in various parts of the world would bring home to any objective observer.
As for extremism, there is no shortage of extremist and bigoted elements in the West. So the West needs as much as the Muslims this counsel for moderation, tolerance and avoidance of violence that Musharraf has come up with.
A strategy must be based on realistic assumptions. It is all right to appeal to the West to help the Muslim world in resolving justly such disputes as Palestine and Kashmir. But to start believing that the West would respond positively to such appeals runs counter to the lessons of history and the dictates of geopolitics which are decided by the considerations of realpolitik rather than those of humanity.
The West which has been responsible for creating many of the serious political problems of the Muslim world is not about to help in their resolution unless it sees the solution of those problems in its strategic interest. There are no indications that that moment has arrived. In fact, one reaches the contrary conclusion if one goes through the writings of the neocons and other bigoted elements in the western society.
Let us now see how General Musharraf has practised his so-called strategy of enlightened moderation domestically. General Musharraf would like Pakistani society to shun extremism and militancy. One couldn’t agree more with him. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the general, according to his speech of September 19, 2001, was an ardent supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan and had been advocating their retrogressive and obscurant cause with the leaders of the world until 9/11. The general’s view underwent a U-turn only after the US delivered an ultimatum to him as the writings of American policymakers clearly show.
Even if one ignores Musharraf’s pre-9/11 policies concerning the Taliban, the way he has gone about promoting moderation and tolerance within the country in the post-9/11 period is hardly convincing. His domestic policies during this period reflect more a desire to perpetuate himself in power rather than a conviction to rid the country of extremism and militancy. That explains why the general has marginalised moderate political parties like the PPP and PML-N in domestic politics, thus allowing the extremist political forces to gain ascendancy in the political vacuum created.
Not only that, he has concentrated all powers in his hands and bent every institution of the state for the purpose of remaining in power – hardly a sign of moderation and tolerance that he preaches to others. His handling of the case of the reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan shows the lengths to which he can go in ensuring subservience of the state institutions to him. The biggest casualties of his policies have been the rule of law, primacy of representative institutions and the principle of merit. In the process, he has also unleashed forces of extremism, bigotry and militancy.
As for the path of socio-economic uplift that General Musharraf would like the Muslim countries to take, he is again on a weak wicket if one scrutinises his record. The general takes great pride in accelerating Pakistan’s economic growth rate during the past few years. The fact of the matter is that the average growth rate during the seven years of his rule five per cent is not much better than the performance of his civilian predecessors in the preceding decade if the statistics given in the Economic Survey of Pakistan are to be believed.
Even the improved performance during the post-9/11 period has been more due to the increased inflow of foreign capital in the form of foreign loans, the rescheduling of external debt and home remittances rather than the reform of the economic system which the country badly needs. Despite the economic windfall of 9/11, our economic growth rate remains far below that of the Indian economy – nothing to be proud of on the part of the general or his economic managers.
The allocation of resources to education, health and shelter, without which one cannot even think of socio-economic uplift, have remained abysmally low during the general’s seven-year rule. Just to give an example, the total allocation of national resources to education, has been below two per cent of the GDP during most of this period as against the minimum international target of four per cent despite government statements assigning high priority to this sector.
The country right now has an extremely exploitative and oppressive system in which the poor can hardly make both ends meet because of high levels of poverty, inflation and unemployment and in which the weak have no way of securing justice. As for the state of law and order, corruption, the deterioration of state institutions, the less said the better. These are the indicators of the systemic failure rather than those of socio-economic progress. Musharraf’s dictatorial system is not even moderately enlightened.
In short, General Musharraf’s “strategy of enlightened moderation” is a strange cocktail of flawed assumptions and wishful thinking. Besides, his policies pursued during the past seven years betray lack of conviction in the medicine that he has proposed for the ills of our society. A military dictatorship in the 21st century does not provide the path to socio-economic progress and enlightenment but, rather, is a sure way to stagnation, retrogression and obscurantism. Surely this nation deserves better than that. Surely the general knows that the system that he has imposed on the country and enlightenment are incompatible and contradictory in terms.
If he is sincere in his call for enlightenment and socio-economic progress, Gen Musharraf should prove it by restoring a genuine democratic system, establishing the rule of law, strengthening the institutions of state, assigning the highest priority to education and socio-economic development in terms of allocation of resources, promoting social justice and undertaking wide-ranging socio-economic reforms in the time that is left to him for ruling this country.
The writer is a former ambassador.
javid_husain@yahoo.com