THE WAY IT WAS: The third opinion —Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan
Gen Musharraf would have made a better and very popular president had he
executed the two-point agenda and let himself be judged by the people. With less
constitutional power he would have been stronger and exercised greater moral
authority over parliament and the nation. But I suppose he thought one in hand
was better than two in the bush
There is a saying that people can’t stop eating rice on account of an odd
piece of grit in the mouth. The late Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan always insisted
that in order to correct the failures of democracy you needed more democracy. It
is a year since he left us. God bless his soul. He had a point, which is worth
considering because democratic institutions are under siege on charge of having
failed to function well in the past. There is no dispute as to the need to
improve the functioning of our democracy by adopting some remedial measures. The
contention is about the methods being proposed to undertake the task.. Everyone
is aware that science has progressed through the centuries by repeatedly
correcting itself through science and not by ritual or magic. Similarly, in
order to improve, democracy must also rely on itself.
One way of dealing with what ails our democracy is to first diagnose the root
cause of the disease. The other method is to ignore the cause and deal with the
effects — changing the dressing regularly. The latter is the easy way to a
permanent settlement: Naa rahay ga bance, naa bajay gee bansaree. There is yet
another method. It seeks remedy in ignoring the problem. This reminds me of a
tale. A ship develops a leak in a storm and the captain, instead of having the
leak plugged, focuses on pacifying the passengers; telling them that they have
nothing to fear as long as he remains in uniform. Bound to him by promise of
booty, the crew members polish his medals. Fearing the consequences of his
abandoning the ship, some passengers clean his boots and press his uniform over
and over again. The god of storms and the god of the seas are greatly angered.
The leaks get worse. Water that had been trickling in from the bottom starts
gushing. Soon the ship starts sinking. “Captain, my captain! What is
happening?” everyone shouts with one voice. “Nothing really! We are
descending to the ocean floor. I have a hunch there is better fishing to be
found there,” replies the captain, immaculately attired in his well-pressed
uniform.
There have been innumerable problems with our conduct of democracy. Before
proceeding any further, one must clarify, our clergy and the establishment —
they may choose to say what they like — are not included in the discussion
because the clergy does not believe in democracy and the establishment is the
very cause of infection. There are indeed faults in democracy but they can be
put right not by less but by more democracy. In other words it can repair and
improve itself only by greater participation of people. The critics of democracy
would like the people to believe that Pakistani citizens are incapable of
governing themselves. Actually it is in these critics’ interest and those they
represent that citizens should remain submissive. Should the people trust those
who denigrate wisdom of people and constantly dodge and connive to deprive them
of their rights? The ballot box and not anyone’s thumb is the time-tested
measure of the pulse of a people. Caesar’s thumb was never up for democracy.
When they have their thumb on a people’s throat, the Casears rarely think of
taking the pulse.
It is true that when Gen Musharraf took over power there was a political crisis
in the country. Politicians were at loggerheads; judges were at war, courts
under siege and within the army there were intrigues for the office of the
Chief. Under such circumstances most people, regardless of their political
affiliations, were happy at this intervention hoping that it would be sweet and
brief. Musharraf promised to take transparent account of every corrupt
politician and hold fair and free elections. Most citizens and political workers
seemed to support this agenda. People were angry at the working of the Ehtesab
Bureau that was presided over by a thug harassing and implicating the opposition
leaders in false cases and arm-twisting and blackmailing individuals to
submission. People were also convinced that the incumbents would rig the
elections. Citizens were happy that whosoever had stolen money from the national
exchequer would at last be held accountable.
The political workers were additionally happy that the process would help weed
out the ugly elements that had given a bad name to their parties and blocked
honest and loyal political workers’ way in their parties. The debate as to who
was perceived as corrupt by party members would have strengthened the parties.
There are only two ways of dealing with a corrupt person (a) enable citizens to
judge him (b) let the courts judge him on evidence against him. The corrupt
politicians who couldn’t be taken to court would have at least been ostracised
from the political process as party organizations shunned them. The debate on
corruption among the citizens and in the parties stopped suddenly when people
saw that accountability was being used as a political tool to pressure
politicians.
There is unfortunately also a third — more useful way — for dealing with
corruption. The method has been greatly refined in recent years to deal with
miscreants for whom Pakistan doesn’t come quite first. By adopting the third
method every undesirable person can be condemned to the Bastille or marginalised
by rigging polls. It is tragic that instead of trusting honesty and wisdom of
the people, the third option has been relied upon. To this day those in power go
rhetorical at the mere mention of corruption, but keep the back door open to
welcome the corrupt. I am convinced that Gen Musharraf would have made a better
and very popular president had he executed the two-point agenda and let himself
be judged by the people. With less constitutional power he would have been
stronger and exercised greater moral authority over parliament and the nation.
But I suppose he thought one in hand was better than two in the bush.
They say one should also look at the other side of the picture. The other day my
elder son, Ahmed, telephoned from abroad and asked, “Abbu! What is happening
in the country? Now the Sindh Assembly has also passed a resolution in support
of Musharraf holding on to his Uniform”. What could I tell him? I could
perhaps have said, “Son! The Assemblies are passing these resolutions because
the majority of the members have benefited from the Uniform”. I didn’t,
because everyone knows this. I was, however, greatly disheartened and felt
ashamed that it was the ‘educated’ legislators who were beneficiaries of the
democratic process (elections) and democratic institutions (the National
Assembly, the Senate, the Provincial Assemblies and local government) that were
the very people weakening and sabotaging those very institutions for their
immediate material interests. What they are doing amounts to, as they say,
drilling holes in their eating bowls, or to put it another way biting the very
hands that cast votes for them.
There is also another saying: Laton kay bhoot baton say nahin mantay. If
politicians feared their voters, would they have passed these resolutions? It is
quite unlikely. I fear if democracy is to be strengthened and every citizen made
accountable, political and social activism has to be brought to life. What is
needed for a better Pakistan is not terrorism but terror of the people, armed
with their democratic rights. If the fear of law and Constitution is not
instilled in the hearts of politicians they will continue to act against the
collective will of the people. They will continue to serve Caesars for personal
gains.
Prof Ijaz Ul Hassan is a painter, author and political activist