Containing the military

ECONOMISTS almost never factor in politics in their attempt to understand how public policy is made. They consider theirs to be the superior science. “It’s the economy, stupid” James Carwell, Bill Clinton’s political adviser told his candidate as he was campaigning for the American presidency. Clinton got the message and when on to win the presidency.

If economists pay some attention to politics in understanding the making of public policy it is almost always ex-post, after policies have been made, seldom ex-ante, before policies get to be made. If they informed themselves better about the politics of economic decision-making, their advice to those involved in public policymaking would be much more pragmatic.

Economists, until recently, were also not inclined to show much interest in history other than their own. That has begun to change. Recently, Paul Collier of Oxford has begun to suggest that without understanding a county’s history we cannot develop a real appreciation of why it has developed more rapidly or, conversely, why it has remained backward.

The interface between politics and history on the one side and economics on the other has been much more profound in the case of Pakistan than in most other developing societies. This is not because the Pakistani is more of a ‘political man’ or a ‘man of history’ than an ‘economic man’; not because he was more inclined to respond to political pressures and the burden of history than to economic concerns. The reason is that Pakistan has always been a politically volatile society. Attitudes have arisen because of the way history has shaped Pakistani society.

This is a good time to reflect on these issues since the country’s leaders once again are confronted with some serious policy choices. The economy is in trouble and requires firm action by policymakers. Their ability to take decisions that economists believe will restore health to the economy will depend on their willingness to resolve old differences, to set aside narrow concerns in favour of national priorities.

A senior diplomat in Islamabad said to me the other day that she was surprised by how much of the political discourse was focused on settling old scores rather than moving the country forward on the basis of well-thought-out strategies. These were needed, she thought, for reforming the economy, the society and the political system in ways that would help the country gain the world’s respect.

At this point, she went on to say, Pakistan is more feared than respected. There is a fear that some parts of the country may become havens for terrorists who would disturb the western countries. There was no fear that Pakistan was about to become an economic giant that would challenge the rest of the world as China has done for so many years and as India is beginning to do. The policymakers in Pakistan should be working to create the second fear rather than helping to perpetuate the former one.

She also made one additional point, as interesting as the first. She thought it is not only the persistent economic backwardness that pushes people towards radicalism — any radicalism, not just of the Islamic variety — but also political conflict. Stable political systems develop institutions — if they don’t already possess them — to resolve differences among different segments of society. Pakistan is still struggling to bring stability to the system. It is only then that it will be able to turn its attention to the important question of institution-building.

History explains why in the case of Pakistan the national debate remains focused on personal vendettas rather than on national interests. Some of the differences that are determining the present discourse appeared on the day the country was born. They have shaped society and remain unresolved. The most prominent of these, of course, is the civil-military conflict. That is related to two conflicts; between those I once called the ‘outsiders and insiders’ and between those who are regionalists versus those who are nationalists.

Today, I will deal with the first; saving the discussion of the other two to next week. The common interpretation of the reason — or reasons — why the military keeps appearing in the political field is that while the initial thrust may have been for reasons of political ambition or disappointment with the way those who were in political power were going about resolving their differences, other interests were also at play.

Once power was gained, the military went on to develop strong economic interests which it would find difficult to give up. A recent book by Ayesha Siddiqa has documented how the military has built up its economic strength. While one may have some problems with the methodology used and the calculations made, the basic conclusion drawn is correct. The military now has a powerful presence in the economy. All this analysis may be right but it fails to look at the other side of the equation; how civilians have behaved when they were given the opportunity to govern.

Pakistan has seen its history interrupted by long years of military rule. After all, by the time the country celebrates its 61st birthday in August 2008, it would have been governed by the military for 481 months out of a total of 732 of the country’s life. This arithmetic holds if we count the period since the elections of February 2008 as a non-military one.

However, even when civilians were in power or shared power with the military, politics remained volatile. They fought their battles not within the institutions created to resolve political disputes but in the open. During the several periods of rule by the politicians, street politics prevailed over parliamentary debate. In fact, it was the politicians’ inability to resolve their differences that gave the opportunity to the military to force its way back into the political arena.

The civil side of the power equation can only assert its right to govern when it bases it on institutional support and not on the will of the people. People will want those to take power who will serve their economic interests. As they have shown repeatedly in the past, they will quickly change their allegiance if they find that the civilians are failing to deliver on the economic front. “It’s the economy, stupid”, after all. Today, it is economics that troubles the common citizens not how the disputes among several players presently occupying the political stage get resolved.

To go to UN or not?

AS far as unresolved murder conspiracies go, Pakistan has had more than its fair share. The most recent was the Dec 27, 2007, killing of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in a gun and suicide bombing attack in Rawalpindi which shocked the world.

Last week, the National Assembly unanimously passed a PPP-sponsored resolution demanding a United Nations probe into the assassination to “identify culprits, perpetrators, organisers and financiers behind the heinous crime and bring them to justice”.

The UN has made it clear that as a member-state Pakistan will have to make a formal request. The government is apparently going to approach the world body in a couple of weeks to constitute an independent investigation commission.

Twice elected as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto was Pakistan’s most well-known political leader whose death has created a veritable void in our national politics which is unlikely to be filled anytime soon. The state owes it to the people of Pakistan, to her family and the families of those killed with her that justice be served.

The Musharraf-led regime, whose leading members were identified by Bhutto herself as potential suspects, obviously rejected a UN probe from the get-go. And the caretaker regime never responded to the PPP’s request for a UN inquiry. Not to mention the former government’s criminal negligence, if not complicity, displayed in the conflicting statements about the cause of her death, the haste with which her body was rushed out of the hospital without an autopsy, the way in which crucial evidence was destroyed and the operating surgeons were harassed and silenced.

Under domestic and international pressure, Musharraf allowed Scotland Yard to help Pakistani authorities investigate only the cause of her death. That investigation did little to assuage the PPP’s apprehensions. CIA director Michael Hayden’s endorsement of Musharraf’s conclusion that the Al Qaeda-affiliated militant leader Baitullah Mehsud was behind the plot did not cut ice either. The crucial issue of responsibility still remains wide open, despite the reported arrests of and confessions by suspected terrorists.

Since the formation of the PPP-led coalition government, questions are being asked as to why the party does not use its control over the state apparatus to get to the bottom of the matter rather than going to the UN. The implication seems to be that by asking the UN, Pakistan will invite undue interference in its internal affairs and prove to the world that its own agencies are inefficient.

This smacks of the classic ‘why wash our dirty linen in public’ argument often heard when the establishment tries to cover up and deflect blame for its misdeeds. The solution is to let the dirty laundry air out in full domestic and global view so that responsibility can be fixed and accountability served.

The PPP’s political commitment to the forming of a UN commission notwithstanding, the state security apparatus is suspect in the eyes of most Pakistanis, and it does not appear to have either the capacity or the credibility needed to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Hence, the PPP’s justified continuing push for a tribunal modelled on the now well-known Hariri Commission. That commission was created by the UN Security Council as a ‘special case’ to investigate the February 2005 slaying of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others in a bomb attack in Beirut.

If Al Qaeda-linked militants are indeed involved in Ms Bhutto’s murder, as the CIA and Pakistani authorities have claimed, it is all the more imperative to carry out an internationally sanctioned inquiry since these militants pose a grave threat to the security of member-states, especially Pakistan.

What comparative technical advantages can such a commission offer? For one, it can bring to the table much-needed credibility, experience and resources that Pakistan cannot generate on its own. It can pool forensic and other professional expertise from member-states’ agencies, including Scotland Yard. Then there is the crucial issue of the confidentiality of information disclosed during investigations.

Related to that is the security and safety of witnesses who risk their wellbeing by coming forward and testifying. The suspicious disappearance of terrorist suspects like Abdul Rauf from police custody in Rawalpindi does not inspire confidence in the witness protection capabilities and motives of security agencies.

But that raises the important question as to how the PPP-led government will ensure that these agencies support the activities of the proposed commission rather than undermine it. For instance, commission members will need foolproof security given the high-risk environment in which it will be expected to operate. The government can rope in the military and security agencies if the proposed commission’s mandate is expanded to other terrorist crimes, in addition to those linked to the fatal attack on Benazir Bhutto.

But even if a commission were to be established by the UN, it will not offer any quick fixes. Survivors and families of the aggrieved might understandably be looking for a swift closure but it can be several years before any investigation can bear fruit. For instance, it took the Hariri Commission some three years to find conclusive evidence that a ‘criminal’ network acted in concert to plot the assassination. The process is complicated because evidence collection in a complex terrorist crime is difficult not least because of unavailability of credible witnesses and forensic evidence.

Technical and operational constraints aside, the success of a UN-backed inquiry is intrinsically linked to Security Council politics. The resources and political commitment of the Security Council’s P-5 will be crucial to ensuring that the process does not run out of steam. In the Hariri case, the United States had a clear interest in exposing suspected Syrian involvement so it squarely put its money and diplomatic power behind the commission.

Others, including Britain and France, supported successive resolutions for the extension of the commission’s mandate and responded to its requests for assistance.

At the end of the day, justice must be allowed to take its course. We can ill-afford the unresolved death of another democratic leader. A UN commission is likely to help Pakistan find a credible conclusion and allow state agencies the opportunity to dispel public perceptions of their complicity in the crime. Only when the murder is properly investigated to the satisfaction of all parties, can the perpetrators and their backers be exposed, prosecuted and punished in a court of law.

Research needs funds

FOR years, campaigners against the Burmese military junta have also been campaigning against Lonely Planet. If you can get hold of a copy of the first and most debased edition of its guide to Burma, you will see why.

The travel publishers pretend the dictatorship is ‘sensitive to criticism’. The true nature of the regime creeps out in embarrassed sentences hidden in the small print. ‘Be conscious that the Burmese are not free to discuss politics with foreigners and may be punished or imprisoned if they are caught,’ reads one. ‘Don’t compromise local people by raising political questions in inappropriate situations,’ chides another.

Burmese democrats assumed that Lonely Planet was a cynical operator which knew the truth about their country but euphemised for the sake of sales. Thomas Kohnstamm, co-author of Lonely Planet guides to various South American countries, raises the plausible possibility that Lonely Planet employees were so stretched they barely grasped the nature of Burmese autocracy before moving on to the next country.

In his memoir, Do Travel Writers Go to Hell?, Kohnstamm shows a side of publishing which is at once decadent and mean. He explains a Lonely Planet recommendation for a Brazilian cafe by saying that the waitress suggested that he came back after closing time. ‘ …. I later recount in the guidebook review that the restaurant “is a pleasant surprise... and the table service is friendly”.’

At least he was a gentleman about it and at least he went to Rio. Later, Kohnstamm cheerily admits to producing chunks of the Lonely Planet guide to Colombia from San Francisco. ‘I got the information from a chick I was dating — an intern in the Colombian consulate.’ In his book, he says he filled the gaps in her knowledge by relying on other people’s research.

He now says he was joking, but is adamant that he couldn’t do a proper job because Lonely Planet wouldn’t even cover the cost of his flight to Colombia. Kohnstamm’s story went everywhere because it challenged the belief that reference books, reports in serious newspapers, magazines, academic papers and journals are the result of a reliable process which produces accurate results.

For all the talk of the net changing the world, it remains a parasitic medium which depends on old-fashioned sources, which readers could more or less trust. Journals across the world help them do just that. In the past few years, nearly all of them have put their products online, free of charge, and hoped that web advertising will make up for the losses of print sales.

An apocalyptic mood is gripping publishing. JK Rowling fought back tears as she told a New York court how an online site had ‘plundered’ her work. Tracey Chevalier, who wrote Girl With a Pearl Earring, warned at the end of March that piracy on the net will make writing uneconomic.

She worried about work that can be cut up and pasted easily on to websites: poems, recipes, travel guides, short stories. But in south Asia, China and Turkey, it is not simply recipe writers who are being hit. At last week’s London Book Fair, Simon Bell of the Publishers Association described factories in Turkey producing enormous numbers of pirated copies of complete books by combining the net with modern printing technology.

Pirated books are rare in the rich world because bookshops will not take them. But the arrival of the Amazon Kindle and similar ‘e-book readers’ will allow books to be downloaded in under a minute. People will always write for love. But love won’t give them the time to write any more than it will help provide an accurate account of the fighting in Basra or a reliable guide to Burma. Good research needs to be funded. The optimists say authors and publishers shouldn’t panic. Web advertising and new ways of marketing will make up any shortfall.

Briefly, the net allowed the transmission of professionally produced and edited news, books, music and analysis to anyone anywhere in the world with a connection. But the golden age couldn’t last because the net users weren’t prepared to pay for decent content and the web degenerated into mediocrity.

‘It is necessary to piece together second-hand information about things you are not able to see yourself,’ said Kohnstamm. His cynical voice may be the voice of the future. n

—The Observer, London