Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Democracy or Dictatorship? Does it really matter to us?

With Musharaf setting sail for retirement [perhaps], the much touted violation of the constitution seems to settle in the dust. The main question being asked in the media include the all important one: who and what will fill the vacuum Musharaf leaves behind? However, one has to wonder whether this is the question to ask, given the nature and quality of Pakistani democracy we have experienced through our history. It is more relevant to keep in view the democracy this nation has seen since General Zia was assassinated.

The less myopic educated segment of Pakistani society remembers what this democracy has been like. It is now 2008, and the writer speaks of the Democracy that Pakistan has experienced in the post General Zia era. Indeed, it was 1988 when Pakistan saw democracy return after Zia's rule was brought to a halt. Who all did the country see before it in its democratic forefront? Benazir Bhutto [who would still be around if she weren't assassinated], her ever-scheming Asif Zardari, the Sharif brothers, much of the PML, Altaf Hussain, etc. That was 1988, and the country saw Benazir step into power twice since then. So did Nawaz Sharif hold Prime Minister's office twice. Now, it is 2008, and one would assume these leaders would have relinquished their hold democratically after serving two terms each. However, low and behold, in come the same faces and their minions two decades later.

The masses [largely uneducated as any survey will verify] are somehow convinced that these
so-called democratic players people promise change. Well, one won't deny that. This time round, they have managed to oust the single-minded Musharaf. He stands firm in the development and security he brought to Pakistan, particular in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC. Apart from that, he has done a lot that has discredited him. The one thing that does prop him up amid the rest in the political scenario is that he could never be found guilty of marauding the country. With him gone, this is one of the greatest worries Pakistan should pay attention to. Given the record of our democratic players, it is indeed difficult to imagine them keeping their hands clean. Old habits die hard they say. For example, whether Pakistan has democracy or dictatorship, the police are still corrupt; the misuse their powers, commit crimes themseves, and are untouchable.

So what about the 'vacuum' that Musharaf has left behind? Is there going to be any new promising blood around, aside from the philanderer of a son that Zardari has fathered? How come there are no new faces in the political arena? Is there some sort of barrier that keeps new blood out? Shouldn't a democratic country be concerned about the fact that the last 20 years has brought no change even within the individual parties? Certainly, Musharaf's rule didn't deter any political party from choosing new leaders through a democratic process. If these political parties believe in democracy so fervidly, how come they have lifetime leaders? This is unlike any democratic party in UK or the US or even India. Democratic leaders are supposed to be elected even within their parties through the trust of their own party members.

One may not have answers to all the questions above, but there are certain glaring points that one might need to digest in order to understand the way that things work in Pakistan. We are a client state and a buffer state. The west needs us to be in a certain predicament in order to suit their own designs. We will probably forever ever on the brink because this is how they achieve their objectives. Look back at the history of this country, and you will see a shift back and fourth: corrupt leaders come in and make a mess, the people cry, and then the army comes in.
After that, the people get fed up of the military, and they cry for democracy. Next, the same rogues, if they are alive, come in to plunder the country some more, and the military will be back again later. Today, many Pakistanis are crying out for democracy. Tomorrow, we might want another Ayub or a Musharaf. The army can come in because it can exercise its might and may sometimes have civilian support. The so-called democracy returns when the same old leaders manage to make more promises to the largely ignorant masses that love them blindly.

Call it conspiracy or whatever one wants, but this shift of power is expected to continue as long as the west benefits from it. That's why one should ask whether having democracy or dictatorship really matters. The people at large still have the same problems!

Finally, it's worth pointing out that while democracy-loving people welcome Musharaf's departure with dancing and firing guns in the streets, the more educated waste their time participating in independent polls. Surprizingly, Dawn News TV reported that there were 76% of the voters were in favor of Musharaf not being impeached while the remaining 24% felt that he should be impeached. In a follow up poll, while these two groups were split with more than 50% believed that he should remain as president. Now this was an English speaking audience that participated in this poll, which one might assume is an educated segment.
Now, are these English-speaking viewers in favor of western designs while residing in Pakistan? Are they as like-minded as the Pakistani-Americans who largely felt more comfortable with Musharaf being around? You can be the judge.

No comments: