Author: Husain Haqqani
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: April 18, 2002
On Pakistan's western border, the
US-led coalition is still engaged in its war against terrorism. US Special
Forces, intelligence operatives and FBI agents are scouring the caves and
mountains of Afghanistan for members of Al-Qaeda. They have been promised,
and are dependent upon, Pakistani support in their effort.
Along the country's 2,912-km (1,800-mile)
eastern frontier, one million Indian and Pakistani soldiers have been facing
each other since last December. The two South Asian rivals have fought
three wars since their independence in 1947. Both possess nuclear weapons,
ballistic missiles, sophisticated air force jets and other lethal weaponry.
But instead of staying focused on
Pakistan's security interests in Afghanistan and on managing tensions with
India, Pakistan's ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, has decided to ridicule
the country's politicians and confront the nation's media. General Musharraf
appears to believe that legitimising and strengthening his position is
more important than unifying the nation and healing its past divisions.
The constitutionality of the referendum
scheduled for April 30 is doubtful and General Musharraf's campaign so
far has failed to ignite much enthusiasm around the country. He would have
lost less ground if he had maintained some sense of proportion while embarking
on his uncontested campaign trail. But his appearance at his first rally
in military uniform, his decision to address orchestrated rallies with
military officers on stage, and his recent insistence on the media reporting
things the way he sees them has cost him the high moral ground.
General Musharraf is increasingly
polarising Pakistani society. Addressing newspaper editors and columnists
at the start of his campaign, he reportedly said that he saw this as a
moment for Pakistanis to choose between supporting and opposing him. He
cited President George Bush's remark, ''You are either with us or against
us'', uttered in the context of the war against terrorism and aimed at
other nations. But even President Bush was criticised for creating a ''them
and us'' paradigm. In any case, a formula for relations among nations devised
by the world's sole superpower can hardly be applied to relations between
the ruler and the ruled of an impoverished nation.
Not every one criticising General
Musharraf is necessarily his adversary or enemy. There are many who think
that he needs to change course and then, if elected in an open contest,
he can continue to lead the country. Some are convinced that politics,
by definition, creates disagreements and rivalries that must be handled
with tolerance and mutual respect.
The army is a national institution
and deserves the support of every Pakistani in defending the country's
frontiers. But politicising this national institution, by trying to influence
the outcome of a political exercise through the involvement of what should
be a politically neutral institution, can only undermine Pakistan's capability
to defend itself and root out terrorism in the region.
The anger currently being voiced
against the media for misreporting on the General's referendum campaign
is also a sign that the Musharraf government is moving in the wrong direction.
If the press was right and responsible when it supported General Musharraf
in his commitments against terrorism last September, its intentions should
not be doubted now merely because it disagrees with the official version.
Pakistan would be better off if, instead of blaming the media, General
Musharraf tries to rectify the mistakes he accuses the media of wrongly
attributing to his regime.
General Musharraf is frustrated
by anyone who questions his effort to ''change the system''. But the nation
has attempted complete overhauls several times since 1958, to no avail.
After each ''change'', things have remained more or less the same. Corruption,
inefficiency and disregard for law have varied in degrees but have never
disappeared. Perhaps it is time for us to take stock of why, despite the
yearning for revolution, Pakistanis cannot change their lives.
If the experience of other nations
is any guide, changes in society and forms of government result from an
evolutionary process. Evolution requires patience. It also demands acceptance
of the past as an integral part of the present. Thus, every western country
has built its political system in stages. At every stage, the gains of
the past were carried forward to the future and the mistakes were treated
as lessons. Even sordid chapters and unhappy events were duly acknowledged.
In Pakistan, however, there is a
tendency to deny the past. Every change of government is described as a
revolution and every ruler spends a great deal of time and energy denying
that anything good ever happened before him. In the United States every
President, whatever his faults or accomplishments, is remembered officially.
India builds a memorial to every dead Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi's mistakes
during the Emergency did not lead to her being written out of history.
Rajiv Gandhi received full honours upon death even though the investigation
relating to Bofors continued. Egypt gives due respect to Jamal Abdel Nasser
and Anwar Sadat despite abandoning the political legacy of one and the
economic policies of the other.
For Pakistan's rulers, the past
is just a dirty secret that should be confined to a closet. We do not like
talking about Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Yahya Khan. Ayub Khan,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ziaul Haq receive no official acknowledgement.
Both our recent elected leaders have been forced into exile and are being
castigated by General Musharraf without even an opportunity to defend their
conduct.
The present government would have
been able to improve things a lot more if it had avoided the pitfall of
creating a black and white paradigm, considering itself and its dreams
as white and the rest as black. It could have restored constitutional checks
and balances so ruthlessly destroyed by Nawaz Sharif. It could have ruled
that political parties must elect their officials, thereby laying the foundations
of intra-party democracy. It could have re-established the writ of law,
by rebuilding our shattered judiciary. It could have restored the independence
of the civil services.
Instead, it has embarked on the
course of trying to re-invent military rule as ''real democracy''. As a
result, everything seems to have been put on hold while nominal gains are
being trumpeted as major advances. Instead of denying and erasing the past,
Pakistan would be better served if we accept the past and build our future
in light of lessons learnt from it. One of the most significant lessons
of Pakistani history is that polarisation only breeds violence and insecurity.