between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea
Over the past few weeks, our family has been engaged in a fierce political debate – in itself an altogether not uncommon thing in Pakistan. The content of the debate though, I found myself very intrigued by. Before continuing, it would be worthwhile to mention that it works on the assumption that secular democracy is the only constructive foundation for Pakistani society. This is a premise that has often been disputed. Some of my friends have claimed that for a largely illiterate and feudal society like Pakistan, a benevolent dictatorship would be far more pragmatic. Sounds like paternalistic hogwash to me[read Amartya Sen], but to each his own I suppose.
My Uncle(let us call him S.), is an ardent liberal who has been pained to see more than one military dictatorship in his lifetime, which made his arguments all the more surprising. He has argued that more urgent than the threat of military rule in the present, is the danger posed by the feudal establishment of the Pakistani heartland, who have managed to cement their place in the corridors of powers, i.e. the government and the military. As he sees it, this establishment is the greatest supporter of radical Islamism since it serves their purpose quite neatly by perpetuating the ignorance of the populace and consolidating their grip on the reins of state.
According to him, Z.A. Bhutto was one of the first Pakistani leaders to take the fight to them, confronting them with secular democracy. This is why he was killed. In the present, the fight is being carried on by Musharraf who has taken a similar stance i.e. his crusade against militancy in the tribal belt, his albeit shallow support of liberalism, etc. To provide further proof, he has argued that the very people who supported Zia in the past are the same ones who are now anti-Musharraf. The argument is that fundamentalism poses a far more dangerous and subversive threat than any military dictatorship and as such, Musharraf should have been allowed to ‘do his thing’ and continue dismantling the establishment.
I believe that S.’ analysis of the political situation is far more deep and substantial than that of most analysts and commentators writing today who cannot seem to get beyond the simplistic dictatorship/democracy dichotomy. However, though I agree with his prescription I cannot reconcile myself to his cure. I think its the ideology of fundamentalism which must be combatted rather than the simple support of it. At the grass-roots level, the people who are drawn to militancy are those who have become disillusioned regarding the political process of democratic governance, those who have been disenfranchised by the Pakistani economy, and the political power structure. Furthermore, in the past few years of military rule (the primary focus of which has been the elimination of extremism), fundamentalism has grown exponentially in the Frontier, FATA, and Waziristan areas.
Just yesterday (Nov. 7th ’07), Kalam in the Swat valley was seized by Maulana Fazlullah and his men. Two thirds of the valley, a mere day’s drive from Islamabad, are now in control of the militants. Today they retreated, but not due to any military intervention, but rather due to the ambivalence of the general public towards their cause. In the meantime they have been raiding ammo dumps, police stations, and army checkposts to resupply, without any significant action by the army whatsoever. Local police have been calmly surrendering to them left, right, and center while the stalwart jawans of our FC troops lay their lives on the line waiting for backup. By emposing an emergency, the government is now diverting its resources to neutralizing and jailing members of civil society rather than combatting the real foe. They are stuck in a political quagmire while the looming threat of fundamentalism seems ever more powerful. This is why I believe dictatorships are counter-productive for Pakistani society. They are so concerned with consolidating their own tenuous hold on power, that they cannot engage the real issues in Pakistan.
However, the issue remains a real concern and S.’ arguments cannot be so easily parried. I would greatly welcome constructive comments on this debate by viewers of this blog.
