The lesser evil?

[Skeptic]

Read an article in Dawn and found it could be a great topic for discussion here. On this forum, the audience is quite dissimilar to what is mentioned in the article and I though it'd be interesting to get your views. If we were to determine from the forum, it'd seem that approval rating for Musharraf has gone up considerably after his departure.

-------------------------- START -------------------------​

The lesser evil?

Why should a bad and inefficient civilian leadership make former military dictators or future ones any better?

FACEBOOK is a great invention. It allows you to interact with people, without having to meet them, and have discussions. I accidentally got into a discussion with some on my friends’ list regarding my comment on Gen Musharraf’s current status.

There were quite a few who responded to my question about who was paying for the former military dictator’s stay at the expensive Dorchester hotel.

There were immediate suggestions regarding the source of money. Some believed that he might have earned his money courtesy his lecture circuit. For instance, the Indian Express paid him millions of rupees for his lecture in Delhi. But then Dorchester is no child’s play. It is truly expensive and we are talking a lot of money.

The interesting point about the discussion was not whether my friends and I managed to solve what had begun to look like something out of the Da Vinci Code, but that the debate highlighted our attitudes towards democracy versus dictatorship or civilian versus military rule. Very quickly the entire debate began to focus on the issue of the lesser evil as opposed to the bigger one and on whether or not Musharraf was a greater problem than the current regime.

Of course, there were some views that were easier to understand such as those of a serving air force officer who tried to reprimand the rest of us for showing lack of respect towards the leadership. One wondered why he bothered to contribute since the discussion was among civilians, generally considered less nationalist and second-class citizens by the men on horseback. One really wondered if the air force officer himself understood that leadership was not about heading an organisation but about motivating people with a set of clear achievements.

However, the rest was more interesting as it reflected the confusion that has gripped the entire nation today regarding the lack of choice as far as the leadership is concerned. The problem has intensified due to the inability of the present regime not managing to capture the imagination of the people, especially the middle class and the educated and affluent upper middle and upper classes. It is indeed sad that Asif Zardari seems to have broken all records where losing the people’s confidence is concerned. Consequently, Pakistanis with a US Ivy League background and those in a better position at home are immediately reminded of the days when Musharraf was in power.

It is also rather comical that today when Zardari announces that he has brought home money no one is willing to believe that the funds are meant for IDPs. A popular perception is that corrupt practices will take care of a lot of these resources. There are also more fingers being pointed at the behaviour of the ministers. We are probably once more in the same cycle that is the fate of praetorian societies. Short-term planning driven by greed, rather than a long-term vision is the hallmark of such societies. Such behaviour is not specific to Pakistan and can be found in a number of Latin American countries where there is a general inclination towards the military whenever things go wrong, but not to the point of wanting the military to continue permanently.

At this point, there are two issues one would like to raise. First, how real is the corruption of politicians in Pakistan? Surely, we would all like to believe that the present set-up is just as corrupt as that headed by its predecessors. It is a fact that the government suffers from genuine inefficiencies and an inept top leadership. However, do we really have a lot of evidence to produce in a court of law regarding alleged corruption? Why is it that successive civilian and military governments were unable to catch ‘thieves’ despite keeping these leaders in prison, throwing others out of the country and having access to all official records?

This is not to argue that politicians are clean, but then are they any worse than the generals who take over with the excuse of cleaning up the political and economic system and who manage to do nothing except create greater chaos? Why is it that military regimes never manage to catch the corrupt or is it that there is far more propaganda than what is actually stolen from the coffers? For instance, while the grapevine is rife with stories about illegal money being made by this government, there is very little on how some of the most influential members of the previous government earned their billions.

Second, why should a bad and inefficient civilian leadership make former military dictators or future ones any better? Sadly, the middle and upper classes in Pakistan, as in other parts of South Asia, are constantly tempted by Singapore’s political model. Things have to be modern and tidy even if it means no democracy which is not a lame concept dictated by Washington but a system that is marked by good governance and the rule of law.

Moreover, why should we imagine that the inept civilian leadership is not a product of its military predecessors? Like many Latin American states, the ineptitude of the civilian leadership distracts people from understanding that corrupt and incapable leadership elements in the military and civilian are interlinked. The greedy senior military generals, businessmen, industrialists, large land owners and influential mullahs are interconnected. These days there are deep familial connections as well. Hence, it is not surprising that the military does not manage to catch any of the corrupt politicians despite its claims of possessing the ‘capability to meet any challenge’.

So, while there is no forgiveness for what this government is unable to achieve, it is unfair to get into the lesser evil-versus-bigger evil debate (this reminds one of the classification made by the US of the good Taliban versus the bad Taliban). Evil multiplies and this is what we have seen happening throughout the six decades of our history.

-------------------------- END ----------------------------​

This is not exactly a showdown between Zardari and Musharraf, but simply comparasion between two ideologies (Democracy / Military Rule)

 

[Bane Blade]

Nice article though any pro democracy person would say that atleast we choose the corrupt man in power we don't do that in military rule.

 

[Skeptic]

Nice article though any pro democracy person would say that atleast we choose the corrupt man in power we don't do that in military rule.

I don't think the discussion is simply between pro-democracy and pro- military rule people. The entire point of debate is which one works better for Pakistan. Some members of the forum even hold a view that democracy does not suitable for Pakistan and some consider Military rule as the time when most of the development occurred.

The debate is actually of the two ideologies rather than it's leaders.

 

[Zob]

well every dictator starts of well but too much power corrupts absolutely.....so either change the dictator periodically!!! or make your parliment supreme!!

 

[Skeptic]

well every dictator starts of well but too much power corrupts absolutely.....so either change the dictator periodically!!! or make your parliment supreme!!

From what I have observed, change of regimes / govts has hardly had an effect on the level of governance or a very major change in domestic policies. With change of guards things generally continue to run in the same manner unless a very radical person (Like Gen Zia) instills a change.

In democratic set-up (I'll speak for India) there has hardly been a major reform in governance whether congress is in power or whether the others are (BJP, NDA, Third front all have had their share).

The problem lies not only in the top leadership but also in bureaucracy. It's the top Civil servants and senior cabinet secretaries which are responsible for execution and implementation of policies. Even in case of Pakistan, even after the military coup the top brass of civil servants remained the same and not a major change in Pakistan Civil Services happened and they are also responsible for all the wrongdoings. If they stop co-operating with the leaders, corruption can be put under a strict check. None of the minister openly negotiates a deal and demands his share (from personal experience). It is their secretaries and senior members of the staff who frame the deal and forward the share to respective ministers etc.

So frequent change is not the only solution, what needs to be looked at is the backbone which is running our countries. I think the condition of Govt. depts is same across the subcontinent be it Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal or Srilanka.

 

[Bane Blade]

I am sure that the parliament will be the only one to bring true change I am sure that people will learn to vote at some point I only hope that they learn early.

 

[niaz]

I came across this article in Dawn, even though it was published on May 29th. Think it raises some valid points. I apologize if this has been posted before.

A grim but necessary choice By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 29 May, 2009 | 08:08 AM PST If anyone thinks that Maulana Fazlullah, Baitullah Mehsud or Mullah Omar are aware of, let alone familiar with, the basics of, say, macroeconomic policy, water distribution or fiscal budgets, that person has probably been living in the same cave as those militants. —Dawn/File photo

HERE’S the scorecard so far: a few thousand militants in Malakand division; one military operation; over a million people displaced in a matter of weeks; a few thousand – militants, soldiers and civilians combined – probably already killed in the fighting; a destroyed economy in the northwest; a third devastating terrorist strike in Lahore in three months; ethnic fault lines re-opened with a vengeance in Sindh, and to a lesser extent in Balochistan and Punjab; and another operation imminent in South Waziristan, which will in all likelihood unleash more mayhem.

It’s hard to avoid the question: is it worth it? When the blunt instrument that is the state is used to crush a nimble, shadowy enemy is the terrible fallout worth the aim? At one level, the calculation is simple enough: if we don’t defeat the militants today, they may defeat us tomorrow. But who is this ‘us’ and what are ‘we’ fighting for? And whatever the objective, is it acceptable for ‘us’ to sacrifice a swathe of the population as necessary ‘collateral damage’ in ‘our’ bid to defend that objective?

In short, who are ‘we’ to sacrifice the lives of so many ‘others’ at the altar of national interest? We better have a good reason, or else the blood, sweat and tears of the millions of victims of this ‘war’ will be our cross to bear, too. The physical burden will of course always be for the direct victims to bear, but by picking sides, by acting as cheerleaders in a defensive war without having thought about what exactly it is we are trying to defend, we may end up no better than the enemy we are trying to defeat.

Frankly, if we are just fighting to save what the Pakistan of today represents, then we’re probably better off not fighting to save it.

Today’s way of life? If endemic poverty, a declining agricultural system, sprawling urban slums, a towering mountain of uneducated under-25s, a mass of unemployed, a repellent gap between the haves and the haves-not is our way of life, then we’re probably better off without it.

Today’s class of politicians? The more I have seen them up close the more I have been revolted. They are venal, they are corrupt, they are unimaginative, and they are incompetent. It’s not just difficult to imagine them fixing this country, it’s almost impossible.

Today’s state? Asphyxiated as it is by the army’s security paranoia, its trajectory has been wrong for a long time, let alone today. But for those who have fed at the trough of that paranoia, life hasn’t turned out too shabbily. If you’ve ever had the privilege to roam through the home of a retired general or superior court judge or grade-22 bureaucrat, you may wonder if colonisation had ever ended.

Juxtaposing the suffering of millions of Pakistanis as a result of a military operation against militants that the state nurtured or at least turned a blind eye to for a long time with the wretchedness of the Pakistan of today almost makes you believe that the operation isn’t worth it. Let those millions suffer so that a few can go on enriching themselves while the majority live out their lives, nasty, brutish and short?

But it’s worth it, paradoxically, precisely for the people of this country – if we think about what life can be like tomorrow. There are two foes of the people in this country: the militants and those who rule the people today. If it was simply a case of defeating one enemy – the militants – today so that we can live under the yoke of the other foe – our rulers – tomorrow and forever, it’s definitely not worth the cost in terms of the extreme suffering, even death, of a slice of the population.

But the real question is essentially one of frameworks: can the framework of governance offered by the militants provide a better future for the people as opposed to the present framework that we have?

Here’s what the militants offer: law and order and an ‘Islamic’ society. Hard to quibble with, especially for those oriented towards achieving a better abode in the after-life, which, let’s face it, is the majority of the population. But the militants offer a world with trade-offs that while permanent are not necessary. Why must living in a modern country with modern amenities, a functional economy and a healthy respect for fundamental rights be sacrificed permanently in order to live in an ‘Islamic’ society with law and order?

And if anyone thinks that Maulana Fazlullah, Baitullah Mehsud or Mullah Omar are aware of, let alone familiar with, the basics of, say, macroeconomic policy, water distribution or fiscal budgets, that person has probably been living in the same cave as those militants.

Yet, while dismissing the ‘alternative’ system offered by the militants is easy enough, it’s more difficult to build a case for defending the system we do have. For that, we need to forget for a minute about Zardari and Sharif and Kayani and Iftikhar Chaudhry and the rest of the characters in the pantheon of our leadership today.

At its core, the ‘system’ of governance we have today is a competitive system with the ‘leaders’ competing against each other for the support of the population. Any given civilian leader may be corrupt and incompetent, but he also knows that if he doesn’t give something back, build something, create a few jobs, right a few wrongs committed against a few in the population, he will be chucked out eventually, either by a rival politician or a military dictator. And any given dictator also knows that if he doesn’t do many of the same things, he will in turn be chucked out.

The ‘beauty’ in our ugly system is two-fold: no one group – civilian or uniformed – is all-powerful and there is little appetite in the system for total repression. Even under Zia, the possibility of a Burmese-style military junta emerging was low. And even under the most rapacious of civilian governments, as the excesses worsened the likelihood of a quick and unceremonious end always correspondingly increased.

Right there then is the reason why it is right to take on the militants and defend what we have. Unlike what the militants offer, we already have the kernel of a system that can work for us, the people, and not against us in the long term: competition among disparate groups of potential leaders for public support.

That system clearly doesn’t prevent exploitation, but it does prevent any given government from taking the country over a cliff, and, crucially, it contains the possibility of a leadership that will herald a better tomorrow emerging.

So, yes, grim as the fallout may be, it is right, if not necessary, to take on the militants today if we want to retain the possibility of a better tomorrow.

cyril.a@gmail.com

 

[Bane Blade]

Here’s what the militants offer: law and order and an ‘Islamic’ society. Hard to quibble with, especially for those oriented towards achieving a better abode in the after-life, which, let’s face it, is the majority of the population. But the militants offer a world with trade-offs that while permanent are not necessary. Why must living in a modern country with modern amenities, a functional economy and a healthy respect for fundamental rights be sacrificed permanently in order to live in an ‘Islamic’ society with law and order?

I don't understand how this is true because I thought that people should also obey the law of the land they live in and they should bring change peacefully I don't see where this writer researches from but seriously needs to sort themselves out.

 

[Khalids]

The debate is about what is better: Military rule or Democracy in Pakistan.

Speaking ideally, democracy is far more better than Military rule. No question of religion here. Just compare the two types of government and conclusion will always be that democracy is better. We shouldn't be trying our arguments based on who did what? It should be based on what ought to be what.

If we are determined to have democracy, we can make it pure and standardized with the course of time, like in India or any other democretic country. But how can we make a military rule better? History shows that military rule or dictatorship worsens as the time lapses while democracy becomes better and better with the course of time. Its because democracy is a systemetic way of government while military rule comes into birth by destroying the rules and system. As they say in persian:

khisht e awwal chooN nehad me'maar kuj
Ta suraiyya mee rawad deewar kuj

" when an architect puts an angled brick in the foundation of a wall it remains angled, although it reaches the skies"

Speaking in Pakistani context, we had 38 years of military rule and 10 years of democretic governments controlled by military out of 60 years of our independence. Why we don't give democrecy this much time so that we have a better idea whether it is worth while or not?

In my opinion, it is our feudalistic approach towards life that we can not tollerate democrecy to a certain extent. Then there is an other psychological phenomena: We dream for a MASIHA all the time. A person who can end all the miseries overnight. We, as a nation have never made any long term planning for the future of our country therefore democrecy feels unfit to us because of our own mind set, due to wrong interpretion of political concepts and miseducation by our real ruling class (Military, Mullah & Land lords). It should be the duty of our intelligentia to educate people in the right way at the mass level.

Let us Pkistanis be clear cut about a social democretic system of government to be the only solution to our problems and let us be determined that we will get it even if it takes centuries to get.

BTW, have any democretic society any movement as we had in last two years for the resotoration of a free judiciary? It shows how, as a people, we love political, judicial, social and economic freedom for our beloved country.

Military rule can not give us any kind of freedom.

Please don't quote freedom of media during last dictatorial regime, this is also achieved by our media after a long long strugle.

 

[SSGPA1]

Next time around Musharraf will have a better chance since he is a civilian now.

Problem with Pakistan is that there is no true leader available ... there are many politicians but no leader ....

If Pakistan wants to have progressive democracy then first of all, political parties need to elect leaders ...

People like Javed Hashmi rot in jail and people like Nawaz Sharif become Chief of the political party ... NS ran away to Saudi Arabia leaving his workers behind and yet he becomes chief of his party ... this is the reason why Pakistan doesn't have true leadership ...