Enough with the coup-mongering

ON July 26, the PPP-led coalition government kicked up a dust storm with the decision to reign in the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) by putting it under the control of the interior ministry. Two weeks on the controversy generated in its wake refuses to die.

Retired generals, diplomats, defence analysts, TV anchors and other usual suspects have since ripped into the government like sharks, citing the decision and its quick reversal as evidence of the government’s incompetence, ineffectiveness, chicanery and, above all, its desire to appease the Americans angry over the ISI’s alleged support to the Taliban. In the words of one analyst, the episode was akin to “buffoonery with sinister intent”.

The few sane voices emphasising the principle of civilian control over the ISI were naturally drowned out in the deafening diatribe. Not that all the criticism of the decision was unreasonable. But neither was it all reasonable. The retired generals were quick to remind us ‘bloody civilians’ that internal and external intelligence are two distinct functions performed everywhere in the world by distinct agencies. Hence, the interior ministry has no business controlling the ISI, an agency primarily concerned with counter-intelligence like the American CIA, the British MI6 or the Indian RAW.

That is indeed true but in none of these countries is counter-intelligence run by the military. And unlike the ISI none of these agencies are in the business of rigging elections and destabilising elected governments. Neither do they run a foreign policy shop without civilian oversight. And above all, they are civilianised and actually report to their country’s chief executive.

In Pakistan the ISI too is responsible to the prime minister. Technically speaking, that is. It is common knowledge that the ISI chief is a military officer whose professional loyalties lie with the chief of army staff. When Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto appointed a retired general, Shamsur Rehman Kallue, to the post in her first tenure, he was reportedly kept out of the loop by his uniformed deputies. The same was apparently the case even with Lt Gen Ziauddin during Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure as he was considered close to the PM.

Prime ministers, in other words, usually have had little or no clue of what the ISI is really up to. After all, it was the ISI’s ‘midnight jackals’ who tried to engineer a no-confidence motion against the elected PPP government in 1990. Here is the problem: each civilian government finds itself in the unenviable position of claiming responsibility over the military and the ISI, as the prime minister did in Washington recently, but without the requisite authority to fulfil that claimed responsibility. Lacking an independent, reliable civilian source of intelligence, they rely on what the ISI tells them.

Is it not unfair that such a huge fuss was kicked up over one badly executed decision of an elected government which has the publicly mandated right to be wrong? One rarely hears loud protests when the army puts the entire constitutional structure of the state under its unlawful command as it did for instance in October 1999. The then ‘reluctant’ coup-maker Gen Pervez Musharraf was obviously well within his rights to lock up the elected prime minister under subhuman conditions and to usurp all executive powers by brute force. No blurring of institutional boundaries there. After all, how can the uniformed guardians of the state’s integrity do any wrong? They are always ready to protect us from ourselves and the politicians we put in office.

No wonder the civilian government has been in office for just four months and its funeral rites are already being delivered left, right and centre. The whispering campaign against it appears to be gathering momentum in and outside the electronic and print media. The army chief is being reminded by a few self-appointed patriots of his responsibility to save Pakistan from growing internal and external threats. The prediction in vogue: two more months and the present system is history.

Of course the civilian government has not done itself any favours by appearing rudderless and indecisive. Of course it should better communicate and coordinate its decisions with its coalition partners, the parliament and other stakeholders. Of course it should have carefully weighed and deliberated its options before taking the decision on the ISI and then stuck to its guns. But effective leadership and governance do not arise overnight in countries with long histories of military rule and entrenched military influence. The spectre of military vetoes and pressures haunts governments in post-authoritarian contexts. Where national leaders are routinely dismissed from office, jailed, exiled or killed, expecting the miracle of instant statesmanship from politicians is a fool’s dream.

Even as doubts about the coalition government’s survival abound, the PPP and the PML-N appear close to an agreement on the modalities of resolving the two key issues straining the coalition: restoration of the deposed judges and Musharraf’s impeachment. Their resolution will represent an important move towards strengthening democracy and civilian supremacy over the military, as will the repeal of presidential powers to sack governments and appoint military services’ chiefs. Once these critical bottlenecks are removed, the coalition government should be in a better position to expend more time and resources on the pressing economic, security and governance challenges facing Pakistan.

Regardless, we must not lose patience with democracy which is a cumbersome process. Mistakes are common, policymaking can be slow and often stalled, and even when its kinks are removed over time, democracy becomes ‘less imperfect’ at best. But to repeat a truism, any non-democratic option is hardly ever better. The patent failure of Musharraf’s authoritarian rule, if not those of his military predecessors, is here for all of us to see and it should serve as a dreadful lesson to anyone itching for yet another dose of ‘good governance’ under military auspices.

If our own experience with autocratic regimes is not sufficiently instructive for the coup-mongers amongst us, they should take a cue from the German and Italian intellectuals who initially welcomed fascism in the interwar period as an alternative to defective parliamentary democracy. They had nothing but regrets once fascism bared its ugly teeth. By then it was too late.

as2252@columbia.edu

A golden opportunity

THE rule of our civil and military services under the titular leadership of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s and that of Gen Pervez Musharraf who succeeded them has brought Pakistan to the brink of a cave-in.

Civil war conditions obtain in Fata and parts of the NWFP. ‘Nationalists’ in Balochistan are up in arms against Islamabad. Sabotage attacks against electricity pylons, gas pipelines, railway tracks, police and military vehicles are common all over the country. Bombers have taken a heavy toll on civilians and security personnel alike. No one feels safe. It is a frightening situation for any state to be in.

The economy is tottering. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. There is acute shortage of electricity and gas and the prices of food and transportation are rocketing sky-high. The value of the Pakistani rupee is falling dangerously and there has been a huge flight of capital from the country. One hundred and sixty million souls yearn for adequate food supplies, potable drinking water, basic healthcare and education. Hardly any social contract remains between the state and the people.

The grave national situation looks graver when one realises that Pakistan is the main battleground of a world war raging between the United States and its allies on the one side and Al Qaeda and an assortment of militant groups on the other. It is a hot war. Both sides are going for the kill. The war has chillingly disturbed peace in Pakistan.

The United States is trying to maintain its post-Second World War imperial neocolonial role by waging a conflict. The failure to win a victory and the taste of defeat is no deterrence for the superpower. It did not win in Korea, Vietnam and in the two wars in Iraq. In Afghanistan it declared victory but had to come back reinforced with Nato detachments. But it cannot abandon the fight because as Noam Chomsky correctly diagnoses the US is waging not a war on terror but a war of terror.

The US is keen to achieve domination over strategically and economically important territories like Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Towards that end it wishes to rely on governance through pliant ‘democratic’ regimes and economies in the hands of the private sector. This policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan has manifestly failed.Columbia University’s Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, observes: “The world has not been kind to neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently and serve the public interest well.

“Neo-liberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now overhanging the global economy.”

Thanks to our ruling elites and their neocon patrons, Pakistan is now landed with a disastrous economic doctrine and a fragile ‘democratic’ dispensation, the latter headed by cliques imported from exile through enacting laws which bestow on them reprieves and pardons. They have reputations of gross corruption and crimes. They command neither respect nor support among the masses, so essential for good governance.

Looked at from the point of view of Pakistanis who have suffered political oppression and economic deprivation for the last 60 years, the situation offers a golden opportunity. The people must reorganise themselves politically as the present system of governing Pakistan is afflicted with political autoimmune deficiency. It is incurable in its present state. The state needs restructuring.

The four provinces and Fata should decide what powers and authority they would like to bestow on the federal government. In a new social contract the people should restructure the government at three levels — citizens, provincial and federal. What political and economic power can be exercised at a smaller population level should not be decided and implemented by the body of an area with a larger population.

The citizens’ government at the level of a village or cluster of villages or tribes should have the jurisdiction and authority for the protection of person and property of the people, the management of local policing and the organisation of citizens’ courts for criminal offences. The citizens’ government at the level of tehsils and talukas should have its own administration to maintain land records, adjudicate on questions such as those presently dealt with by the revenue officials of tehsils and talukas. It should also have its own civil courts.

The provinces should exercise power over all matters not specified in the jurisdiction of the federal and citizens’ governments. The principal responsibility of the provincial governments should be to legislate for the governance of the provinces.

If so proposed by the provinces and Fata, the authority of the federal government may be limited to external affairs, defence, communications, currency, the State Bank, import, export, holding of elections, nationality and immigration, and collection of income tax and customs duties. Money bills should be passed by the Senate as well. The National Economic Council and National Finance and Planning Commissions should be abolished. High court judges should be appointed by the provinces. The power of the president to issue a proclamation of emergency should be limited to the time when there is a threat of war or external aggression.

The new structure of state should guarantee all citizens facilities for work and adequate livelihood; provide for the social security of the entire working population through compulsory social insurance or other means; provide basic necessities of life to the people, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical care irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race; and reduce disparity in the incomes of individuals.

The guarantee for the emergence of a sovereign Pakistan lies in its healthy relations with the countries of South and South-West Asia. The defence of Pakistan should be ensured through strategies and policies which are not largely dependent upon defence-related agreements signed with the United States.

The economy of Pakistan needs to be rescued from the trap created by liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. Operating along with the private sector, the public sector needs to be revived in several fields such as electricity and other forms of energy, communications, water supplies and housing for the poor, food distribution and buffer stocks. The vestiges of feudalism should be removed through land reforms and other measures.

The working classes desperately need laws to strengthen unions to achieve common important goals such as improving wages, hours and rules of work, procedures for registering complaints against working conditions, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, and regulations in respect of benefits and unionising of labour.

mh1@lhr.comsats.net.pk

Circus 2008

ONE doesn’t have to be a complete cynic to read into Thursday’s grand declaration made by the ruling coalition what it really means, threaten as it does President Musharraf with impeachment unless he seeks a vote of confidence from parliament. There is nothing in the constitution that requires the president to do so.

The reaction issued by the US State Department takes cognisance of this fact, emphasising the need to stick to the constitution as parliament convenes on August 11 to start proceedings as per the declaration. While many a media pundit back home hails the move as proof that the ruling coalition by forging a consensus on the issue has come out stronger than expected, it remains unclear how far it can carry the threat of impeachment. There’s more than meets the eye. Mr Zardari has done it again. And so has Mr Sharif by falling for it. So what’s next?

The word ‘impeachment’ as pronounced by a chuckling Mr Zardari under the full media glare came out as a bit of a tongue-twister. It looked carefully choreographed and rehearsed for the intended effect. While Mr Sharif walked away with the satisfaction that the PPP and he were finally on the same wavelength, reiterating the pledge to restore the sacked judges after impeaching the president, he missed the point that impeachment may only be considered after a vote of no-confidence fails to convince the president to step down. As the debate opens, the constitutionality of the vote as the mechanism to oust the president will become the point at issue; the proceedings may just drag on, dulling once again the prospect of the judges’ reinstatement.

While the MQM has made its stance clear on the issue, saying that Mr Musharraf’s impeachment will not solve the people’s problems and hence it is against the move, the other ruling coalition partners have ridden the wave. Baloch nationalists and those sitting in the APDM have also welcomed the gambit. Mr Zardari must be happy, having braved the storm that the PML-N had whipped up as it threatened to leave the coalition if its demands were not met.

But deep down he must also be worrying about how to stage the challenging act of recoiling from yet another stated position.Despite what he said, Mr Zardari is not very likely to go the whole hog against his benefactor. The passage of the National Reconciliation Ordinance by the last parliament and its endorsement by the post-Nov 3, 2007 Supreme Court are realities that cannot be ignored. True, it was Ms Bhutto who may have negotiated the deal with President Musharraf and technically Mr Zardari may not be bound by it, but morally he is; he too has benefited in no small measure from the implementation of the ordinance by the president.

By impeaching President Musharraf, will Mr Zardari let him walk the moral high ground for having fulfilled his part of the promise, while he reneges on what Ms Bhutto may have agreed to do in reciprocity? PPP President Makhdoom Amin Fahim, cast in the feudal tradition of honouring pledges, seems to think otherwise. These are not the only questions worth raising.

The president has been meeting his own allies and legal aides just in case. There is ample time between now and Aug 11 when parliament convenes. One is not sure if Mr Zardari, after the posture he assumed on Thursday, will be able to wriggle out of it in good time — if it is indeed only a posture. He has pitted himself against one mighty president armed with the infamous Article 58-2(b), which is not a weapon of defence but of aggression. It is being conjectured that the army may remain neutral while a crisis begins to unfold between the presidency and parliament. But is it informed conjecture?

Ambitious generals in the past have taken advantage of deadlocks between civilian political players even as the latter showed the ability to turn back from the brink, as did Mr Bhutto and the Pakistan National Alliance in 1977. In the 1993 confrontation between Mr Sharif and President Ishaq Khan, the generals became the arbiters of compromise; the prime minister and the president had to bow out. Though the Sharif government with its ‘heavy’ public mandate had won the day in the apex court, the army did not want the president impeached.

When has regard for the rule of law been a hurdle in the way of those bent on enforcing their writ over and above the law? Welcome to the circus this Independence Day. Everyone’s invited and it’s all on the house.