Let me say something which is likely to generate controversy. Pakistan cannot become a democracy without it also becoming a liberal society. Who can best introduce liberal values in Pakistan? I think President Pervez Musharraf can
dailytimes.com.pk
The roots of dictatorship in Pakistan —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Pakistan has an abysmal record as a democracy. Elected governments have been few and none was allowed to complete its term in office. Considering that India and Pakistan attained freedom almost on the same day, the failure of Pakistan and the success of India as a democracy poses an intellectual puzzle that needs to be addressed.
I prefer a democratic government. I believe government should be based on the consent of the governed, which they should be able to exercise freely through the secret ballot by voting for the party they think best represents their interests. Also, democracy should train its citizens to accept dissenting opinion and the freedom of conscience and opinion, and the legal system should uphold rational principles of justice.
Such a sentiment for democracy may not be shared by those who believe a man of destiny is always needed to lead Muslims (an idea presented by Akbar S Ahmed as the ‘Salahuddin model’ in his book on Jinnah) or those who believe that the purpose of founding a state is to ensure the supremacy of dogmatic Islamic law.
Whereas we have no way of ascertaining if the people of Pakistan want democracy, since their will has not been tested over a long period of time, there is no doubt in my mind that the ruling strata of Pakistan have little faith in democracy. Rather they find it convenient to crush the spirit of the people through feudal oppression and an intellectually suffocating, obscurantist interpretation of Islam.
The Pakistan movement emerged as a serious force only after the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940. The two-nation theory was a rejection of the principle that government should be based on political majorities and minorities following the outcome of an election, in which the former has the right to rule and the latter to act as the legitimate opposition. According to constitutional theory, such majorities and minorities are expected to be based on political programmes and not permanent ethnic or religious divisions. The Muslim League argued instead that democracy would lead to permanent Hindu rule since Muslims were a minority. It alleged that Congress was not a secular, nationalist party but a Hindu one. It justified its own right to be the counterpart Muslim communal party. According to its reasoning Hindus and Muslims were not only two religious communities but also two different political parties. The Congress protested such reasoning but the British accepted it and conceded Pakistan.
The League assumed a mass character only during the 1945-46 election campaign. Later, when it began ‘direct action’ on January 24, 1947 against the Khizr ministry it was protesting the fact that although it had won the highest number of seats in the Punjab it had not been supported by the other parties in forming a government. It therefore resorted to angry slogan-mongering such as ‘Khizr Kutta hai, hai, Khizr Dulla hai, hai’ (Down with Khizr the dog, down with Khizr the pimp); ‘Lei kai Rahein gai Pakistan, Jaisey liya tha Hindustan’ (We will get Pakistan the way we took Hindustan); and ‘Pakistan ka Narah kiya? La Ilaha Illilla’ (what is the slogan of Pakistan? It is that there is no god but Allah). In the din of daily demonstrations and agitations Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s sober vision of a secular, democratic Pakistan could not be properly propagated among the masses.
The early death of Jinnah on September 11, 1948 and the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan on October 16, 1951 proved to be too great a loss for the young nation. Their successors were at best sublime mediocrities. They made a mockery of parliamentary politics. Before long the British type of vice-regal system based on the supremacy of the civil service and the army over the representatives of the people was firmly re-established in Pakistan.
Consequently, neither before attaining independence nor after gaining it could Pakistan develop a tradition of constitutionalism and institutional democracy. On the contrary, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto employed his parliamentary majority to get the heterodox Ahmadiyya sect declared non-Muslims, thereby lending legitimacy to the politics of majoritarian tyranny. The military strongman General Muhammad Zia-ul Haq’s long rule of eleven years effectively did away with all vestiges of liberalism and Pakistan became an intellectual desert where nothing creative and artistic could prosper. People took out their frustration by telling bawdy jokes.
The blasphemy law, separate electorates, Islamic laws on rape, compulsory chaddar for female newscasters and so on introduced by Zia-ul Haq provided enough grounds for fanatics to unleash their fury against hapless non-Muslims and women. Neither Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif did anything to remove such laws from the judicial system, although they had come to power after winning elections. In fact Nawaz Sharif made the crime of blasphemy punishable with death and by spearheading the so-called 15th Amendment in the National Assembly of Pakistan was set on a course which would have taken Pakistan even further towards fundamentalism.
Under the circumstance, it is clear that elections by themselves are no guarantee that Pakistan will become a democracy. Modern democracy is unthinkable without the individual being invested with certain inalienable rights; therefore, without a liberal foundation democracy can degenerate into a majoritarian tyranny. In other words, a responsible and stable democracy grows out of a firm foundation of liberal values — individual rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism and on — and not the other way round.
Under the circumstances, let me say something which is likely to generate controversy. Pakistan cannot become a democracy without it also becoming a liberal society. Who can best introduce liberal values in Pakistan? I think President Pervez Musharraf can. He enjoys extraordinary powers and can therefore more easily do away with the laws on rape, blasphemy and so on. He has already abolished separate electorates. If he were to rescind the reactionary laws of Zia-ul Haq he would have created the basis for a future elected government in Pakistan to continue with liberalisation of social values and political culture.
Hopefully such a government would then dare to say no to populist exploitation of Islam. Only then can we exorcise the ghosts of authoritarianism, fundamentalism and dictatorship from our body politic.
The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se |
