Side- effect (Weak politicos)

Source: The News International

LINK: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=199847

Friday, September 25, 2009

Harris Khalique

He came, he saw, he got subdued. This is what happens with popular political leaders or popularly elected civilian rulers of Pakistan. Read 'she' in case of Benazir Bhutto. The overwhelming establishment of the Pakistani state subjugates any free will or desire to bring about a real change in the economic and political makeup of the country. The founders of this all-pervasive establishment were Ghulam Mohammed, Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan. Ayub was made the commander-in-chief in 1951, became the defence minister in 1955 while being in uniform and then appropriated complete political power by declaring the first martial law in 1958. Ably served by the protege of the Indian civil service and watchfully guarded by the inheritors of the north-western command of the British Indian Army, the establishment of the state first got us rid of the hope for an equitable society, then the possibility of living together with East Pakistan, and finally from any likelihood of creating even a bourgeois democratic polity.

After 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's promise couldn't fully realise either due to his appetite for absolute power and wish to eliminate all opposition or compromising his party programme by giving in to landed elite. He leased out draconian powers to security agencies to curb his political opponents. Eventually, bureaucracy held sway in running the affairs of the state. The landed elite did to Bhutto's PPP after 1971 what Unionist Party feudal lords had done to Jinnah's Muslim League after 1946. Whatever mistakes he made, Bhutto was undoubtedly a popular leader. The establishment that Bhutto was wooing for years betrayed him. It struck. Now it was General Ziaul Haq and the likes of Ghulam Ishaq Khan who determined the destiny of Pakistan. I cherish repeating with a vengeance that Zia's rule dug up the very foundations of Pakistani society and weeded out anything that was good in our soil.

After Zia's death, a fragile democracy was restored with instability and intrigues marring the efficient functioning of state affairs. Benazir Bhutto, the popularly elected leader after Zia, was sent packing in much less than two years. The establishment could not put up with her popular face and the possibilities a democratic dispensation may offer to the common people in the long run. Nawaz Sharif was the only alternative. Like elder Bhutto came from the folds of Ayub Khan's regime, Nawaz Sharif came from the heart of General Zia's establishment with both military and civil bureaucracy reposing their trust in him vis-a-vis Benazir Bhutto. But after each having their turn twice and never able to finish the full tenure ever, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were both living in exile after 11 years of the civilian interlude, owing much to their own doing besides the antics of the omnipotent establishment. General Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for almost nine years with the help of a coterie of generals and pet politicians. The ghosts of Ghulam Mohammed, Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan hovered above us all that long.

The politicians of today, treasury and opposition alike, will find it impossible to overpower the civil-military establishment even if they wish. The reason is simple. The wealth they have amassed and the means they have employed to amass such wealth weakens them. It is not kosher these days among the liberal circles of Islamabad to criticise the government. It is seen as being anti-democracy and anti-civilian rule. But politicians need a lot more resolve, vision and character if they want to strip the establishment of its undesired powers.

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and rights campaigner. Email: harris@spopk .org