Finally — elections

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s announcement that the general election will be held by Feb 15 should serve to inject some sanity into the political bedlam that Pakistan today is. Looking at it from the general’s own point of view, the announcement should take some — some — heat off the wave of anger sweeping the country against his proclamation of emergency coupled with the roundup of political opponents, manhandling of the lawyers and journalists and the draconian measures against the media. Let us not discuss for the moment whether the decision to call elections has been taken at the behest of some foreign powers. The decision for the nation to go to the polls within three month has come, and let us thank heavens for it. We would have had few options if Gen. Musharraf had decided to postpone the election by a year, as hinted at by the prime minister a couple of day ago. More elections have been postponed than held in Pakistan. Let us assume and hope that nothing will make the president change his mind, no matter what happens — even if the Supreme Court rules against him in the case now pending with it on the dual office question.

Will the elections be credible? This is the crucial question. Let us, therefore, reiterate the basic minimum the nation expects of the military-led government. First, the emergency must be lifted. Second, the Provisional Constitution Order withdrawn. Third, a caretaker government must be installed at the earliest headed by a prime minister who is truly independent and in whom all political parties have confidence, assisted by an election commission that must carry out its duty without fear and favour. Fourth, all political parties and leaders must be allowed to take part in the elections. Fifth, there must be an even playing field for all. And, sixth, all the draconian measures against the media must be withdrawn immediately. Finally, we hope that the president will not renege on the pledge he gave to the Supreme Court, as it existed before Nov 3, that he would hang up his uniform before taking the oath of office as president ‘if elected’.

Swat: more of the same

THE fanatic Mullah Fazlullah of Swat seems to get it all – and at the time and place of his own choosing. One day, he gets his armed supporters to terrorise the people and raises money to buy more arms to conquer new towns and villages; then they disarm security personnel, take over government buildings and declare a reign of terror. The next day, the cleric has the government buckle, from within, as it were, to reach an accommodation with him if only his men would please vacate key installations and let security forces remain in Swat without getting in their way. The militants snatch state authority before it is formally made over to them through a jirga arrangement, until the understanding falls apart and militancy resumes. This cycle has persisted in Waziristan before and in Swat now. After taking over Bahrain and Madyan Fazlullah’s men took control of Kalam valley only to vacate it after the security forces have reportedly left the area. Who is now in control?

Elsewhere in the country, law enforcement agencies crack down on lawyers and their supporters, ostensibly because the stranglehold of a government armed with extra-constitutional powers is complete where its writ prevails. In all this it is amply clear that the people seen as posing a threat to the government are not the same as those who are actually a much bigger threat to the country on the whole. For one, Mullah Fazlullah’s full blown insurgency and his Taliban army enforcing a parallel justice system least deserve the patience and care showered on them. Not long ago the cleric’s fanatics were staging their own flag marches, terrorising the people and enforcing a rigid form of Sharia that no decent Muslim can endorse. The emerging states (in Swat and elsewhere) within the state conveniently elude the mighty security apparatus which only flexes its muscles against an unarmed civil society and threatens media organs with closure. These are contradictions that are difficult to explain, let alone defend.

If there was one point in the president’s proclamation of emergency speech which even the harshest of his critics will not fault, it was the need to check the menace of growing extremist militancy. To expect that by wrapping up an independent judiciary and pulling the plug on the media, thereby depriving the people of their right to know, Mullah Fazlullah and his likes will cease their violent activities is naive. Likewise, there is little wisdom and much arrogance in directing state power against political opponents and those who believe in democracy — as opposed to those who have taken up arms and believe in violence as a means to bring change. Now that an independent judiciary is no more in the way of taking action against the militants, the government’s soft-peddling on the issue is bewildering.

Tragedy of Iraq’s displaced

THE current year has been particularly bad for both the Americans in Iraq and ordinary Iraqis. More than 850 US soldiers have been killed, which is the highest yearly toll since the 2003 invasion. Meanwhile, the number of displaced Iraqis inside the country has touched the 2.3 million mark — around two million have left the country — sparking a humanitarian tragedy that can only get worse unless serious peace moves combined with rehabilitation efforts are undertaken. With nearly half the population living in ‘absolute poverty’, as pointed out by an Oxfam report published last July, one would be justified in assuming that the displaced bear the brunt of poor social conditions, especially when there are no government camps and they have to rely on makeshift shelters. The grimness of the situation is underscored by the fact that about 65 per cent of the internally displaced are children, who are increasingly suffering from malnutrition and whose education has been seriously affected because of the prevailing insecurity. Moreover, the lack of jobs, and consequently income, is forcing displaced women to turn to prostitution to make ends meet for their families. With Turkey’s threat to carry out incursions in northern Iraq, one can expect greater numbers of Iraqis to flee their homes.

It is a shame that the international community, especially the US, that is essentially responsible for the suffering of Iraq today, is not doing more to bring to an end the travails of Iraqis, forced out of their homes by death squads or hostile neighbours on sectarian grounds. While countries like bordering Syria, which has already absorbed thousands of Iraqis, have reason to check the refugee traffic, it is appalling to note that the US has issued under 2,000 visas to fleeing Iraqis since the invasion. The global community must do more for the Iraqis living in fear and poverty in their own country, especially as the government in Baghdad appears helpless in the face of this human tragedy. It would be worth considering Iran’s proposal — even though pooh-poohed by the US and others — for an Arab force to be deployed in Iraq instead of American troops. Considering the anti-American sentiments that prevail in the country and are a major factor in triggering the violence, substituting the US soldiers with Arabs could defuse the tension somewhat.

Concept of Islamic caliphate

THE Orthodox Caliphate that came into being immediately after the demise of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in 622 AD lasted for a short duration of thirty years, spanning the rule of the four ‘pious Caliphs.’ It was a trail blazer in the realm of polity and statecraft, in its contemporary age of imperialism and dynastic rule.

Islam introduced, for the first time, the concept of rule by a person from among the masses, chosen by pious citizens. They did not call him their king, or sovereign, but ‘khalifutul momineen’, meaning literally “Leader of the Believers”.

It was so popular as a system of government that later historians falsely considered it to bear a close similarity with the system of government that was in vogue in other contemporary civilisations. For instance, the European political thinkers have always tried to prove that Khilafat was just another version of theocracy, or rule by the clergy – the system with which they were conversant though, mostly, unhappily.

Even Muslim scholars of yore, who lived and prospered during the period of autocratic rule by strong men and despots, have likened it to autocracy of the kind they lived under. When the fashion of polity changed in Europe, particularly after the French Revolution, the Islamic Khilafat came to stand on the same footing as the newly-founded republics of Europe which were ruled according to an approved popular constitution.

After the end of the Second World War, when America emerged as the sole superpower, the trend was in favour of calling the Khilafat the precursor of Democracy.

And since it was not only America but also the Soviet Union that became a leading power, and later a superpower, sharing the hounours of world leadership with the Americans, some of our intellectuals did not hesitate in comparing the Khilaphat with Soviet socialism.

Commenting on this aspect of Islamic Khilafat, Syed Suleman Nadvi has recorded his considered opinion in these words which can be rendered in English thus: “The fact is that, in its earliest stage, Islam sought to establish a type of government which was new in those times and the kind of precedents and precepts which it introduced, tended to present the image of a government which was simultaneously a theocracy, autocracy, constitutional democracy and dictatorial dispensation.

“This led to the political theorists of various hues and persuasions to interpret the system as conforming to that which they preferred themselves, although, in reality, it was such a kind of government whose origin can be traced entirely to the thinking of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and, exclusively, to his effort to give a practical shape to the Islamic system of government. Therefore, it was neither theocratic nor autocratic, nor democratic, nor socialistic but such a holistic system which contains all the good ingredients of other known systems and excludes all those unhealthy and bad ingredients which vitiate other known systems of government” (Seeratun Nabi Vol VII).

The Quran avoids prescribing the specific details of an Islamic government in regard to its form and framework. The reason is not far to seek. One can sum it up in the words of the English poet, Alexander Pope, who wrote that “for forms of government let fools contest, what is best administered is best.” Therefore, an Islamic government may be categorised as any thing – a theocracy, because it is required to function as a tool to ensure that Quranic “do’s and dont’s” are implemented; or as a democracy because the Quran lays stress on administration by ‘mutual consultation’; or even a dictatorship because of the absolute power of the Khalifa, one he is chosen or nominated in that capacity.

But the fact remains that none of these similarities of Khilafat with one or more existing systems of government leads conclusively to the perception that Khilafat too is comparable, in its entirety to one of the political systems functioning in various nation-states of the world.

It is not a theocracy, because its head of government is neither God’s nominee nor a divinely-ordained ruler but is an ordinary human being selected through a consensus of fellow human beings, formally declaring their obeisance (bayet) to the office of authority. However, since the heads of government in that period were God-fearing, devoutly religious and of impeccable character, they richly deserved the title of ‘pious Caliphs.’

Looking at the Khilafat from another angle, namely, the method of selecting the ruler by a consensus of competent and practising Muslims and not by any divine right, it can be called a democracy of a special kind where the ruler is advised to “consult with others in appropriate mattes” and where he lives like any ordinary person without the service of bodyguards and security of living in specially protected quarters.

From the above sweeping survey of the period of orthodox Caliphate no one can deny that the system of government devised by Islam was such that denied special status to the ruler who lived like any one else in the realm, though armed with powers of a Byzantine emperor.

With no special privilege or pelf attached to the office of the Caliph, if one was chosen to become a Khalifa and he accepted to shoulder the responsibility of the post, he had his eyes not on any material or monetary gain but on the desire to earn God’s pleasure by carrying out the duties of the head of state honestly and earnestly even if that meant offending some black sheep in the rank and file of the Ummah and thereby putting their own lives at stake.

Actual events that followed the setting up of the Khilafat established the fact that to become a Khalifa was like wearing a crown of thorns. So, out of the four pious Caliphs, three were assassinated by hidden enemies.

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

Yigal Amir’s thousands of sons

IT is no coincidence that the Yitzhak Rabin Centre for Israel Studies stands deserted, while on the soccer fields, the murderer is cheered and the victim is booed…

The rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square was a protest against Amir and his growing status. The preoccupation with the circumcision of his son has resulted in an unfortunate deviation from the main issue, because the problem is not Amir’s biological son, but rather his spiritual sons, who walk among us by the thousands.

Some of their voices are heard, and will be heard even louder the closer we get to the Annapolis conference. Most will make do with prayers hoping the talks fail; a minority might resort to violence, bolstered by Amir’s success. The preoccupation of the media with the assassin and not the assassin’s legacy blinds the public to the real danger…

You cannot preach democracy to those who scorn it, and who consider the land of Israel more important…

The concern is that the religious right takes no interest in explanations by this side or that, and views eternal war with the Palestinians as better than giving up parts of the homeland. That is the source of the belief that no leader has the right to give in during negotiations, no matter how large of a majority supports him in the Knesset; and anyone who does give in is a traitor.

If the Annapolis talks evolve into an agreement, Ehud Olmert will need strong public backing to stand in the breach. It is a pity, therefore, to waste time on Amir’s marital relations, and unnecessary to wallow in vengeance against the man and his family…

Rabin’s assassination proved that with demagoguery and violence it is easy to undermine the elected government, even if its decisions are backed by a majority in the Knesset.

— (Nov 6)

A bitter pill for Pakistan

…PAKISTAN, indeed, is passing through critical times. Security forces are struggling to contain pro-Taliban and Al Qaeda-linked militants who have gained control of large tracts of the volatile northwest province.

Hundreds of people have died in recent weeks. The quiet tourist valley of Swat has now become a scene of deadly violence.

Violence has reached the main cities of Islamabad and Karachi too. More than 400 people have been killed since a government raid on the Red Mosque in Islamabad in July. But the question here is whether the imposition of emergency would help contain militancy?

Many analysts feel that it is going to aggravate the situation. Parties with Islamist agendas have already called for nationwide strikes and protests. President Musharraf is already despised by pro-Taliban leaders and militants. Now — with the imposition of emergency — he faces criticism from those who supported him in his fight against terror.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated: “I just want to repeat that the United States does not support, and indicated to the Pakistani leadership prior to this action that it would not support, extra-constitutional means.”

British officials called the state of emergency a major setback for Pakistani democracy. “We recognise the threat to peace and security faced by the country, but its future rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism,” Foreign Secretary David Miliband said. ...But President Musharraf appealed to the international community to understand the “criticality” of the situation. “Please do not expect or demand your level of democracy which you learned over a number of centuries. Please give us time,” he said. President Musharraf must give democracy and democratic principles enough time to bloom and prosper. He must now call the elections on time to give mandate to the people. — (Nov 5)