Change around the corner?

IF Pakistan holds reasonably fair elections in the next few months, we can expect some major changes of the type that occurred in 1970 when a new political force, the Pakistan People’s Party, suddenly burst on the political scene.

By saying this, I don’t mean to predict which of the major political parties will win at the polls and which will govern from the national and provincial capitals. Instead, my intent is to analyse which way the electorate is likely to go when they are given the opportunity to make a free choice.

A dramatic change will occur for a number of reasons. It will be the consequence of how the economy has developed over the last several years and how the rewards of growth have been distributed among different segments of the population. It will also be the result of the way the political parties have developed over time. It will need to come to terms with demands from one very vocal segment of society to use the teachings of Islam for thoroughly restructuring Pakistani society. It will, finally, reflect the changes that have occurred in the international environment in which Pakistan exists.

Each of these factors is worth examination as Pakistan prepares to hold another general election that, in its impact, may rival those held in 1970.

I have no idea how political parties these days write their manifestos, how much serious social and economic research goes on before pen is put to paper, how much effort goes into gauging the mood of the people and how much faith our leaders put in exciting the electorate by making promises that roughly match the people’s expectations.

To place this discussion in context, it may be useful to go back to the way the political parties prepared themselves for two elections — those held in 1970 and 1997. The 1970 elections was the first time the country’s citizens were allowed to choose their representatives for the National Assembly.

The 1997 elections were the last time a reasonably fair contest was held, free of palpable official interference. It can, therefore, be treated as a kind of benchmark for evaluating the various changes to which people will be responding in the forthcoming elections.

The elections of 2002 don’t serve that purpose since people were responding to what was perceived as the failure of parliamentary democracy in the country. In that election, the military under the command of General Pervez Musharraf was seeking a mandate for governing the country differently, for bringing changes in the structure of politics, for stabilising the economy, and for cleansing the public sector of corruption.

In 1970, at least one political party, the fledgling Pakistan People’s Party, approached the elections having prepared itself and its future constituency with some professionalism. It created a research wing of sorts and published a series of papers that analysed the problems the country then faced and then indicated how the new party intended to solve these once it gained political power. The papers were called the party’s 'Foundation Documents’.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing comparable to these is being prepared for the next election by any of the major contestants.

The PPP in 1968-70 — its formative phase — saw the country faced with three major problems. The most important was economics; the perception that the poor had benefited little — perhaps not at all — from the high rate of GDP growth that marked 11 years of rule by General Ayub Khan.

That that had happened was voiced by Mahbubul Haq, the Planning Commission’s chief economist, who delivered what came to be called the “22-families speech.” In that he said that a significant part of the additional wealth created during the Ayub Khan era was captured by the very rich. The PPP used this perception to propose a significant programme of income and wealth distribution.

The programme had many components. Among them were land reforms, nationalisation of large industries and financial and trading companies, labour laws to ensure minimum wages, health standards and job protection for the industrial proletariat, food subsidies, and a public construction programme to provide housing for the poor.

A catchy slogan — ‘roti, kapra, makan’ — captured what the PPP expected to deliver to the poor. The slogan lives on to this day and is the reason for the solid base of support the party still has in many parts of the country.The party’s second concern was the absence of what it regarded as a viable political structure. It did not accept the system of the highly centralised government Ayub Khan had put in place by limiting the size of the electoral college for choosing the president and the members of the national and provincial assemblies to a small number of electors called the “Basic Democrats.”

There were 40,000 of them in each wing of the country, East and West Pakistan. The party wanted to discard the 1962 constitution promulgated by the military government in favour of a new system closer to the constitution passed in 1956 by the second constituent assembly.It would be a parliamentary system with considerable autonomy awarded to the federating provinces. The prime minister would be the country’s chief executive answerable to a parliament whose members would be directly elected by the citizens who would vote in their own constituencies.

The party believed that such a political structure would also help to keep within the fold of a unified Pakistan the people of East Pakistan who had become increasingly alienated by the way the West Pakistani elites had governed the country.

The authors of the 'Foundation Documents’ believed that granting provincial autonomy would satisfy the political and economic aspirations of the people of Bengal.

The third concern for the party was Pakistan’s stance in international politics. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the new party’s founder and its first leader, was responsible for moving the country a little bit away from total dependence on the West, in particular the United States. This he did while serving Ayub Khan first as his commerce minister and later as his foreign minister.

The reliance on Washington was the outcome of two fears – India and the lack of domestic resources to produce a robust growth in the country’s gross domestic product. The party believed that neither of these two objectives were served by the foreign policy a succession of administrations had followed over a period of nearly a quarter century. Ayub Khan had published a political autobiography as his regime approached its end. He called it ‘Friends not Masters’, referring to the country’s close relations with America. He argued that the close association with the United States constituted a relationship between two friends; Washington, he maintained, was not Islamabad’s master.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after leaving the Ayub Khan government, offered his riposte, also in the form of a book. He called it ‘The Myth of Independence’.

It is useful to recall that neither the ‘Foundation Documents’ nor the election manifesto produced by the PPP had much new to say about the role of Islam in the Pakistani political and economic systems. There were the usual references to the need to govern on the basis of Islamic principles. Exactly what these were and in what way they would affect governance was not addressed seriously, certainly not in any kind of detail.

Therefore, neither Bhutto nor his party was prepared to deal with the pressure of Islamic parties when they manifested themselves in a popular campaign against the PPP administration in 1977.

Other parties also issued their manifestos but they were not based on the kind of solid analytical work that had gone into the preparation of the PPP’s papers.

The East Pakistan based Awami League had announced its six-point programme which, in effect, was aimed at creating a loose federation in the country with most powers resting with the provinces. It was clear that the party leadership was heading towards eventual secession by East Pakistan from the country Jinnah had created. The six-point plan offered little to the people who lived in the four provinces in the western wing.

The two Muslim Leagues that operated during the period of Ayub Khan were adrift after his departure. The Pakistan Muslim League went under rapidly after the loss of its patron. The Council Muslim, the dissident wing of the League, lost its raison d’etre once official patronage was gone that had supported its rival, the PML.

The right of the political spectrum — the space the two Leagues had occupied — was now under the influence of the religious parties, most notably the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Jamiat ul Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) and the Jamiat ul Ulema-i-Pakistan (JUP).

In their election manifestos, the Islamic parties essentially repeated what they had been advocating ever since the country gained independence. They wanted Pakistan to be governed according to the principles of Islam. It was clear from their pronouncements that if they gained power, they would create an entirely new political structure that would have little resemblance to the parliamentary system of governance advocated by the PPP and supported by the Council Muslim League.

When the people went to the polls in December 1970, they had some clear choices they could make. The PPP offered them a political system that extended the legacy left by the British. The rapidly disintegrating Muslim League could only promise a continuation of the structure Ayub Khan had built. The religious parties promised a total break with the past.

The people chose the PPP and with it the promise of new economics and a new foreign policy. What really motivated the people to vote so decisively for the PPP was its economic and social programme. Pakistan had seen impressive economic progress during Ayub Khan’s 11-year rule when the GDP had increased at the rate of 6.1 per cent a year.With the population increasing at the rate of 2.3 per cent per annum, this meant a rate of growth of 3.8 per cent a year in per capita income. This was an impressive performance, unmatched in the history of the area that is now Pakistan. But an impression was created that the benefit of this performance was not shared with the people.

Haq’s 22-family speech and the PPP’s 'Foundation Documents’ further cemented that impression. People voted for the PPP not because of the political system it said it would give the country. They chose the PPP not because it promised independence in foreign policy. They chose the party because of its economic programme.

If the elections are rigged

GOVERNMENTS established through tainted or rigged elections leave very pernicious effects on society at home and can even threaten regional and global peace. The absence of political and moral legitimacy leads to mental insecurity which is reflected in the actions of the political leadership and the establishment.

To cover up this deficiency, the government resorts to false alarms or generates other issues to divert attention.

A look at the electoral history of the world’s democracies over the past 60 years will set apart those governments that have been established through a rigged electoral process and show the consequences of this as having a negative effect on the country’s economy and on regional and global peace.

The US, too, has not been without its share of unfair polls as exemplified under the presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush Jr. One witnessed during the time of the first three the Cuban missile crisis, John Kennedy’s murder, the Vietnam conflict and the Watergate scandal which can be considered as an exercise in pre-poll rigging.

Closer to our times, the presidential elections of 2000 caused an enormous political crisis. The 2000 US presidential election were characterised as being riddled with fraud and corruption. It signalled to the world that democratic norms could be disregarded.

But the first time that rigged polls were practised as state policy was under the Truman Doctrine under which the US military establishment, secret agencies and US financial powers were permitted to rig polls at a global level to prevent the formation of government by socialist parties through democratic elections. Military dictators, despots and absolute monarchs were allowed to strengthen their rule throughout the world

In 1946, the Philippines gained independence from the US but the latter made sure that a rightist government prevailed by all means, including fraudulent elections. This resulted in a decade of civil war.

Peace was short-lived in South Korea after the Second World War as the Korean War broke out. People took to the streets against President Syngman Rhee’s government which came to power through rigged elections. This resulted in a long period of instability. and martial laws continued until clean elections took place in 1992.

The lives of millions in the subcontinent are affected by the absence of a transparent electoral process in occupied Kashmir. Instead of holding a free and fair plebiscite in occupied Kashmir as per UN resolutions, India has resorted to rigged elections to install puppet regimes inside the occupied territory. This, together with a rigged electoral process in Pakistan, has resulted in three wars with Pakistan and an on-going arms race (including nuclear weapons).

From 1947 until 1973, Pakistan could not frame a truly democratic constitution. From 1947 to 1958, Pakistan witnessed one or two local rigged elections when the term “jhurlu” was coined.

It is no secret now that Gen Ayub Khan, during one of his official visits to the US, emphasised to the establishment there, that the security and stability of Pakistan was solely dependent on its armed forces, and convinced them that Pakistan would be destabilised if elections were held in February 1959, because a large number of political leaders (particularly from East Pakistan) had socialist leanings.

It was with the blessing of the then president Iskander Mirza and the US that the first military dictatorship emerged in Pakistan. This catastrophe fell upon Pakistan due to the inability of the governments before 1958 to hold free and fair elections.

To legitimise his unconstitutional rule, Ayub introduced a system of basic democracy and created a so-called democratic parliament and got himself elected through rigged elections. The presidential polls in which he had to face Ms Jinnah in 1964 saw colossal pre-poll rigging and the use of administration and intelligence agencies. His winning the election against the sister of the Quaid through rigging greatly reduced the moral standing of his presidency and the system he created.

To overcome this perception, an anti-India hype was created by letting so-called freedom fighters infiltrate occupied Kashmir which finally culminated in the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. After this war, Pakistan did not see another period of stability until his government was removed by another military general.

Yahya Khan said that he would eradicate corruption and set up a correct political system. He did hold elections in 1970 (perceived as free and fair), but a process of manipulation and post-election rigging took place when the results were not accepted, thus resulting in the 1971 war and the disintegration of the country.

Bhutto’s rule was a mixture of successes and instabilities. This period saw many by-elections, but the general perception was that these were rigged. After six turbulent years, the date was set for new general elections in March 1977, but these were also seen as having been rigged. Massive demonstrations by the opposition took place, resulting in the overthrow of the government, and the execution of Bhutto by a new military dictator.

On coming into power, General Zia declared his policy of Islamisation and of holding free, fair and transparent elections within 90 days (which did not happen).

His takeover was also partially legitimised by the decision of the Supreme Court that employed the doctrine of necessity to extend his rule. To impress the international community, he held a referendum in 1984 which became a popular joke. The hand-picked prime minister Mohammed Khan Junejo was also not tolerated by the dictator, resulting in the dissolution of the National Assembly and the government.

After Ziaul Haq’s death, the establishment engineered and manipulated elections to give Pakistan a fake democratic civilian face under the compulsion of international pressure.

From 1988-1999, four tainted and engineered elections resulted in a game of musical chairs involving the governments of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, which finally led to another martial law headed by Gen Musharraf.

Gen Musharraf claimed he would establish true democracy and announced his reformist seven-point agenda. His ill-advised “referendum” was followed by the rigged and manipulated election of 2002 that thoroughly depleted his moral stand. He and his hand-picked government lacked moral legitimacy to the extent that he had to accept all undue pressures of the US after 9/ 11, and forced to make a complete U-turn on all national stands.

As if this were not enough, he crowned his actions by making the Chief Justice non-functional in March this year, a move that was seen as part of a pre-poll rigging plan. The historic verdict of the Supreme Court to reinstate the Chief Justice has eliminated all moral ground for him to continue as president and chief of army staff.

The upcoming elections are nervously anticipated as the people fear pre- and post-election instability. To remind him, Pakistan was created by a great democrat and constitutionalist. Gen Musharraf should know that democracy only works when losers accept the results and this happens only when elections are fair and honest.

If elections are marred, then not only do the losers not accept the results, fraud and corruption comes to highlight the national programme. If this happens then Bush will not stop challenging our national sovereignty and India will continue to perpetrate injustice on the people of occupied Kashmir. Fundamentalism and extremism will continue to flourish at a much accelerated pace.

sajid.sajidsalim@gmail.com

Liberty is not what it was

THE Liberal Democrats –– understandably preferring to recall established achievements rather than speculate about dubious future prospects –– are holding a contest to decide who, in popular estimation, is the most important Liberal in British history.

Asquith (rightly) and Campbell Bannerman (wrongly) have not been included on the shortlist. The final choice is among Gladstone, Mill, Lloyd George and Keynes. And I am told that John Stuart Mill is the favourite to win. That should surprise nobody. He is, like the party itself, comfortingly worthy but out-of-date.

Mill's libertarian philosophy is based on two precepts that –– despite having written an admirable essay on women's rights –– he always expressed with the use of male pronouns. The first principle asserts that "all errors which (a man) is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good". Only cranks believe that now. If it were a generally held view, we would not prohibit the use of recreational drugs or require passengers in the back seats of motor cars to wear safety belts.

I was a member of the cabinet that first discussed the desirability of making back-seat safety belts compulsory. Millite ministers initially objected. They were reconciled to the "infraction of liberty" by the argument that a passenger flying through the windscreen might injure the pedestrian whose life had initially been saved by the emergency stop. And Mill's second precept makes a distinction between "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others". In short, we are free to damage ourselves but are not at liberty to behave in a way that harms other people.

The distinction was easier to make in Victorian Britain than it is today –– though even in 1859, when On Liberty was written, subscribers to the cult of the individual grossly underestimated how much one human is dependent on another. Put aside for a moment all consideration of complicated questions about what pressures –– economic, social and psychological –– induce men and women to encompass their own destruction. They were rarely asked in Mill's time. Just accept the incontrovertible fact that today, almost everything we do for good or ill has an effect on the rest of society. Progress has made us members one of another.

Our interdependence has increased with every economic and scientific advance and it now embraces matters both general and specific, from conduct that is likely to destroy the whole planet, to the sickness caused to publicans by tobacco smoke drifting across the bar. Some of those detriments would be dismissed by Mill as "contingent injuries...which society can afford to bear". That is because he did not know that greenhouse gases existed or that tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. The philosophy for our time ought to concern a consensus about civilised conduct, not extol irresponsible individualism.

And it ought to be based on a definition of liberty that is far more meaningful to the majority of mankind than Mill's notion that freedom is no more than the absence of restraint. The right to do something that circumstances prevent us from doing is not a right worth having. Liberty, we have learned since Mill's day, is the practical ability to enjoy the choices of a free society, not the theoretical chance to take advantage of opportunities which we cannot afford.

Mill's philosophy was great for the 19th-century middle classes. He would have rejected outright a more positive view of liberty since it required the freedoms of the few to be constrained in order to protect the freedoms of the many.

On the other hand, William Ewart Gladstone came to accept that necessity. His first administration merely promoted the idea of merit –– important enough in its time. The purchase of military commissions was prohibited. The civil service was recruited by examination rather than interview. The universities were opened to dissenters.

The Education Act pressed forward with the idea that the state has responsibilities towards the welfare, as well as the physical protection, of its citizens. But, most important of all, his two Irish Land Acts accepted that sometimes the privileged (in this case the landlords) must have their rights restricted so that the poor (in this case the tenant farmers) can live in comfort. If Liberal Democrats are as radical as (in some parts of the country) they claim to be, there is no doubt he will come top of their poll.

––The Guardian, London

Fresh fears on the farm

IT spreads to people only with difficulty, and when it does the symptoms are mild. But foot and mouth disease is a serious hazard in human as well as animal affairs. The bovine pyres of the 2001 outbreak were merely the most dramatic symbol of a wider devastation, which saw swaths of rural Britain closed down and imposed economic costs of £8bn.

There was a political price to pay, too. The government stood accused of indifference to the plight of the countryside, and the general election had to be postponed. So Gordon Brown has been keen to be seen taking direct charge of the response to the fresh outbreak, which emerged at a farm in Surrey over the weekend.

Only weeks into a premiership that has already seen a terror plot and the worst flooding in decades, Mr Brown on Saturday dashed back from holiday to chair an emergency Cabinet committee meeting.

The prime minister's pro-active approach has met with a favourable press so far. It has also seen the Conservative leader, still bruised by having been abroad during the worst of the flooding, cancel his own holiday to avoid looking passive by contrast. But whether Mr Brown's decision to take the reins will do him any favours in the longer term is a different question.

The answer turns on how far the outbreak spreads and on whether the responsible ministry, Defra, errs in responding. On neither count is the picture yet clear; and the signs that had emerged by last night were mixed.

On the positive side, there has been no repeat of the 2001 blunder, when days were lost before a nationwide ban on transporting animals was announced, and continuing haulage encouraged the spread of the disease. This time the ban came immediately; Defra must now show it can effectively police it. There are other reasons to hope infections may not spread as far this time.

The discovery that the infected cows at Wolford farm had the 01 BFS67 strain of foot and mouth, which does not normally occur naturally, makes the likely source the nearby Pirbright research site, where the American company Merial recently used the same version of the virus in a batch of vaccine. That encouragingly leaves the one established case close to the source, and also bodes well as vaccine viral strains are typically less virulent.

But Pirbright's involvement also poses awkward questions for Defra, whose own Institute for Animal Health shares the Pirbright site with Merial, as to why this obvious potential source of infection was not included in the original exclusion zone around Wolford farm. Ministers face embarrassment, too, in explaining why recommendations they accepted in 2002 — to rebuild the IAH laboratories — are still being put into place. Such issues, as well as any suggestion of neglect at Merial, will develop real charge if the virus spreads.

Despite tests in several farms coming back negative yesterday, betting against that is still risky. For the incubation period — when infected animals show no symptoms but can still spread the contagion — can be up to a week. If the disease has already spread, whatever ministers do, the knock to consumer confidence may again slash farm incomes and drive hundreds out of agriculture altogether.

If the development of vaccines designed to prevent foot and mouth have instead sparked it, that will be a cruel irony. That should not, however, mean ministers automatically embrace culling as the only solution. Back in 2001, smallholders felt that their preference for vaccination was initially ignored because of the lobbying power of larger farmers, who feared the implication for exports.

Yet it was not just agriculture, but the economically more significant tourism trade that lost billions when the pyres began to be lit. The hope still is that the countryside can avoid the type of catastrophe that engulfed it six years ago.

––The Guardian, London