But what about the Pakistani Autumn? There are several criteria to judge it by. First, every political analyst knows that the Sharif brothers are not really talking of a real change in the way the country is governed. They are really talking about taking power in the centre in place of the PPP. That is what all opposition parties do and democracy gives them this right. What democracy does not allow is a call for a violent revolution. For no matter how romantics have painted revolutions, the fact is that all of them entail unacceptable levels of violence and there is no guarantee that the rulers thrown up by these traumatic events will be compassionate and democratic. Let us remember that the French Revolution (1789-1799) was followed by a Reign of Terror (1793-1794) in which the guillotine sent between 16,000 to 40,000 to a bloody end without adequate or fair trial; the counter-revolution (War in the Vendee) was termed ‘the first genocide’; and eventually, instead of kings, France was saddled with an emperor (Napoleon 1804-1815) who led a ‘grand army’ of Frenchmen (400,000) to death and destruction in the wintry wastes of Russia (40,000 returned in 1812) and finally lost to the allies (1815). The Russian Revolution (1917) brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia and they destroyed their rivals, the Mensheviks, and then went on to establish a dictatorship (Stalin, 1878-1953) which executed 700,000 and sent 14 million to concentration camps. The governance did improve but still 1.5 million people died in the famine of 1947. In China, the communists established a one-party rule which made dissent punishable and which curbed political opinion. In Iran, the Islamic revolution curtailed personal liberties, made dissent dangerous and established a non-democratic form of rule in which parties not approved of by the religious establishment simply could not contest the elections. In short, revolutions generally end up by replacing one set of dictatorial rulers by rulers even more dictatorial than before. It is much better to let politics follow an evolutionary course as it did in Britain, the ‘mother of democracies’.
In any case, rhetoric aside, Pakistan is not exactly eighteenth century France or Czarist Russia or even the Shah’s Iran. No ruler of this country, including the generals, have behaved as ruthlessly as Hosni Mubarak, Saddam Hussain, Qaddafi or Basharul Assad. Even during martial rule, Pakistan’s press, at least the English press, has been more free and anti-establishment than even some democratic countries. The present government was elected through due political process and was accepted as such by its political rivals. It is, of course, entirely true that the government has not given good governance so far. To be fair to it, foreign and military policies are not in the hands of the civilians in Pakistan. So, to blame the government for allowing drone attacks or not being able to prevent the Taliban from attacking parts of the country is unfair. But to blame the government for loadshedding of power and gas; or the increasing gap between the rich and the poor; or not being able to prevent the turf war between armed supporters of political parties, including the PPP, in Karachi; or the ruin of the railways and the disruption of PIA flights; or the failure to appoint the chairman of the NAB; or letting off the big fish in corruption cases — for these things it is fair to blame the PPP government. The perception that at least some of these distortions, especially those related to corruption cases and the appointment of the NAB chairman, are related to the vulnerabilities of Mr Asif Ali Zardari seems to be correct. If he did not have cases against him, some of these things need not have occurred. However, Mr Zardari is not the PPP as a whole nor is the PPP the system as a whole. So, if one calls for a revolution, one is in danger of overthrowing the system and what will replace it is anybody’s guess. Moreover, if it is a question of good governance, provincial governments do not deliver good governance either. In Punjab, first doctors and then students of various secondary boards of education resorted to considerable violence before they were given relief. Even in the case of dengue fever, it was not prevented initially and hospitals remained without sufficient platelets and other necessities, though it is only fair to say that Mr Shahbaz Sharif did put in an enormous amount of effort to redress the situation eventually.
But otherwise it has become a national characteristic that cities, including hospitals with dengue patients, remain dark till people resort to violence; that pensioners have to die before pensions are paid; that medicines are rushed from India but only after avoidable deaths. This kind of knee-jerk governance is part of all the provinces of Pakistan and it does not have only to do with the PPP it seems. Our dysfunctional justice system remains the same despite both military and civilian governments and we cannot protect policemen and judges who arrest or kill terrorists.
While I do not think there will be a revolution in Pakistan because ours is still a society in which people are free to express their anger both on the street and with each other, there is much irresponsible talk about it. This talk dilutes peoples’ faith in the democratic process and paves the path to fascist philosophies. In our case, the army was always the beneficiary of the end of civilian rule. Now it may be the religious right wing also. But if one has any illusions of how that kind of rule will be, then Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are possible examples. Democracy, after all, is the best revenge, even if one has to wait for five years or more to take that revenge.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 3rd, 2011.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
When one sees an intro about the writer being a "HEC disdinquished professor & Dean of Education...", one expects to read about education in Pakistan. There are enough people in Pakistani Politics, for teachers to indulge, too in this pass time. I hope, the Paper is more carefull in their intro.
I think you have made a very logical point. We have already passed our spring, now it is supposed to be a peoples' government. Now things will change very slowly, that is how the democracy works. The Arab world has arrived at the point where we arrived decades back and lost our way, found it again and lost it again and have now found it again...............
I think Condoleezza Rice summed it up much well last night in an interview...revolutions are always painful in the beginning but eventually they are worth it...it is true that it should be the last resort....however, isn't it ironical to note that most of the people who preach against revolution are those who have bread on the table and shelter above their heads! Anyways...a good read indeed.
strong textThe ruthlessness of Pakistani leadership may not be as much as we see in the Arab world or earlier in Latin American. But one loss of life is too many. I do not know or remember from 1950s, but 1960s and think of journalist Zamir Siddiqui, firing on Baqi Baluch, and several others. We got rid of Ayub and his Kaka Bagh or sufaid Bagh before that. The year was 1973, NAP was having a public meeting in the infamous Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi. Well it was Quid-e-Awam’s call and his infamous FSF in action. He was just trying to restore democracy. Enter Zia, and his draconian 14th century laws (murder of minorities in the name of blasphemy. Just a few years back everyone knows what happened in Karachi when our greatest military mind was challenged by the people on the street. So Dr. sahib let us not talk of this. Our deeds speak louder than our acts.
No one has behaved so "ruthlessly", including Zia?
You must be kidding.
During Dictators time Engliesh press wass free because only 21.3% of pakistan understand so they does not bothers to control they are harmless ....... to system