
Pakistanis have an affinity for Arab lands and they discuss them plenty: from demigod Saudi Arabia to tiny Bahrain, from fast-rising Qatar to the long-risen UAE (Dubai to be exact). But it would take something momentous for Egypt to come up in conversation, like the people’s revolution that ousted sour old Hosni Mubarak in 2011. That held our imaginations for a day or two, but it was only when Egypt’s generals staged a coup last week that we started talking.
We were better served by listening instead, listening to the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters who hit the streets moments later. Listening to condemnations from Turkey’s AK Party, its leaders having treaded the long road to civilian supremacy. Listening to the coup’s endorsement by that grinning reptile Tony Blair, who had declared Mubarak “immensely courageous” and “a force for good” mid-revolution, by which time, it was apparent he was neither. And listening, but straining to hear from the Land of the Free. Barack Obama, ex-constitutional law professor, has yet to say the word “coup”.
Egypt’s liberals may agree with such an oversight. But democracy means respecting the people’s mandate, even when handed to ham-fisted “Islamists” like Mohamed Mursi. ‘Egypt’s democrats aren’t liberal, its liberals aren’t democrats,’ is a phrase echoing across the press, and it rings true. The Brotherhood was hardly convenient for the generals, with its clumsy constitution and fits of teen angst against Israel. But it is here to stay. This coup damages less the Brotherhood, a crew that survived Nasser, and more the 51 per cent electorate that polled in favour of Mursi. When they leave their houses the next time, and they did this past week, it won’t be to cast ballots.
Which begs the question: are these coups ever worth it? The package deal — the generalissimo on TV, the soldiers in the street, the public service message that the day has been saved? Less space for liberty, less space for ideas even, is measured against better safety and more stability. For journalist Oriana Fallaci, whose companion was tortured to near-death by the colonels in Greece, the answer was a brittle no. Barely concealing her rage, she compared soldiers committing coups with thieves operating in the middle of the night.
The further away from Europe we move, the more Fallaci’s theory grows legs. Africa’s succession of maniacs in uniform, from its Idi Amins to its Jean-Bedel Bokassas. Chile’s Augusto Pinochet was a tyrant out of a Marquez novel, while Argentina’s hideous Videla oversaw the rape of imprisoned women and abducted the babies they bore. Up in Asia, the Burmese junta has been at large since 1962, while in North Africa, Colonel Qaddafi’s marathon reign ended as bizarrely as it began, with Libya in ruins.
But the jury is still out in Pakistan. Why does the validity of such coups, some ask, remain up for debate? For one, we are told, the masses heave a “sigh of relief” whenever those corrupt civilians are hauled away. But the same masses elect fresh ones in with as much enthusiasm. Better economic management, and for most patches, security, is a more convincing reason.
And while the military is solely responsible for the coups it commits, the burden of pre-empting future ones lies on its finest enablers: the political class. It was President Iskander Mirza, content with declaring our first martial law, who then anointed Ayub Khan its high priest. And it was our next civilian premier who advised Ayub that “to be head and shoulders above the others, it would be better if he elevated his own rank from general to that of field marshal”. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto went on to joke, “I am, therefore, the hero of Ayub Khan’s valorous battles.”
Aware of how history treated such marshals, Mr Bhutto wrote, “The dictator is the one animal who needs to be caged. He rules by fluke and freak. He is the scourge and the ogre. He is a leper. Not a single one of them has made a moment’s contribution to history.” History might deem Mr Bhutto right, but in so doing, assign him to the same category he condemns — in ignoring Mujibur Rehman’s mandate, in imposing emergency, in mowing down tribesmen via gunship in Balochistan, and in letting loose FSF thugs on party men. Thus, Mr Bhutto, the Fabian genius from Berkeley, found himself at the wrong end of a coup managed by Faiz Ali Chishti, a moustache with medals and little else.
As civility between Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari shows, our democrats would have been better served behaving democratically a long time ago. The military’s vaunting over Pak Radio can only be stopped when our civilians begin believing in the supremacy they are meant to uphold, rather than take campaign donations from Aslam Beg.
And supremacy can only flow from superior governance, as Turkey has proven (until late). Prime Minister Erdogan came down hard on Turkey’s sticky generals, but he coupled it with economic progress, political reform and an overarching belief in civilian rule that finally wrested control back into AK’s hands. Such supremacy stems from strengthening institutions and due process. It doesn’t from one-off stunts: from speeding off Gul Hassan in a getaway car to not letting Pervez Musharraf down from his airplane. And though 2013’s democratic transition was said to sound the death knell for future coups, we heard the same death knell during the passing of the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Eighteenth Amendment, and now, the “trial” of Pervez Musharraf. It will take harder efforts than that.
Bertrand Russell once asked, “At what stage of starvation would you prefer the grain to the vote?” It is in the interests of Pakistan’s elected leaders to ensure such a choice ceases being a mutually exclusive one.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 9th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Finally something readable from beginning to end. Loved it. @Stratos: "Overall rigorous delve into empty rhetoric?" Do you see the irony of your comment?
A slow and self-important read. The author is young and it shows. The few relevant points made are hard to sift through in this mess of out of context quotations and overall rigorous delve into empty rhetoric. Mr. Khan has talent and should try utilizing all of it.
@np:
Nothing is wrong with the observations of Oriana, as quoted here, until you are a caveman like Hafez Sayeed or Fazlur Rehman.
Any dis functional democracy is better than even the best of military rule. Democratic institutions no matter how fractured they may be, provide avenue for different segments of society to have their interests listened to. I believe democracy itself is not the solution to all the institutional structural fault lines that exist in country like Pakistan. We need to create more inclusive political and economic institutions which would lead to greater pluralism in society. Having said this we cant discount the virtue of democratic principles especially when applying to case of Pakistan where military has enjoyed immense power both directly and indirectly. It is one institution whose influence has been deeply rooted in our society and psych. The concentration of power that remains in the hands of military or within the grasp of few families is as much the fault of our own underdeveloped democratic institutions as it is the legacy of our colonial past. Democracy is not a saviour but it is an enabler that helps nations to open doors for previously disenfranchised segments. 2013 elections though not totally fair, still provide a very strong evidence to the above argument. We have different governments in all provinces. People have opted for opposing parties to form governments in their provinces. As only in democracy that you respect everyone's right to express even if you do not agree with their agenda. In Egypt the fear is that those segments of society that had voice through Morsi and Muslim brotherhood would now feel outcasts and may resort to guns to get heard.
The economic progress period in Turkey has seriously been shaken even if Erdogan's party had played a very positive role in the first few years. His main agenda now is to bring in creeping islamization into Turkey's secular traditions and he is no democrat. As for Oriana Fallaci,you need to know a little bit more on her fascist views on anything which is remotely Islamic. Be careful in quoting people who are dubious.
Pleasure to read. in fact, the most brilliant piece I could find on Pakistani media on the topic!
Providing the military ensures that elections are held quickly I honestly can't say that in this case I am against a military intervention. Democracy is meaningless if elected governments subvert the constitution and abuse their position to enhance their own power. Minorities should be treated as equal citizens and not as pets to be fed and caged under the pretense of being looked after. The problem with religious conservatives whether they're the Republicans in the US, the Likud in Israel or the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt is that they see a majority vote as a license to impose their version of their faith over everyone else. Without liberty being ensured to all citizens democracy is just reduced to two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.
Its a confusing article...I lost interest halfway
@NP: he quoted Modi before too. Doesn't agree with him either.
@SK: Quoting Fallaci shows that the author agrees with her thought process.
@np: thank you for those gems. I fully support what Ms Fallaci has said. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And I think every right thinking person would also.
Everyone knows Fallaci was an Islamophobe. It is incredibly stupid to say that her views 'are being admired' in this article, she has been quoted on her take on coups, and that in a slightly pitying way. Grow up people.
Wonderful writing once again!
Thank you for pointing out in a nicely summarised way the many failures of Pak dictatorships. But, if you had read the article more closely, you would have seen that the author never said dictatorships were flawless.
Succinct points presented in an eminently readable way. Bravo on a great article. This is why I read Express Tribune.
Minor correction Gp65, I'm sure you meant 1965 and not 1865 war.
Since you approve greatly of Oriana Fallaci, I thought I would share a couple of her quotations:
"I defend Israel's right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let themselves be exterminated a second time".
"The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture-it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization" - Oriana Fallaci
@Tariq: Dude. Your examples are wrong. Only Hitler "came in" through the ballot. The others just "stayed in" by manipulating the elections. You can't blame democracy for that, can you?
While I would completely disagree with what Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were bloodymindedly trying to impose on Egypt, in time their actions could have been democratically modified and rescinded. The mismanagement of governance was used as an excuse by the Egyptian generals, who aided and abetted the liberal elements to protest and then used the ensuing upheaval to regain their waning powers. Generals, as a rule, only act when their own interests are threatened. 'Saving the Nation" is their usual pretext.
@GP65 you have missed the entire point of this article. Its not a tribute to coups and khakis at all. Did you even read it after the title?
Thank you Asad for such an unbiased and crystal clear article. Dictators come in many forms and garbs. The generals can be easily identified by their uniforms but perhaps the worst dictators in history were those who rose to power from the political arena. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung and Saddanm Hussain, to name just a few, all came to power through political process. Dictators in all forms and grabs irrespective of their clothing and origins must be shunned. All rulers must clearly understand that they rule in the name of the majority, hence their actions must be supported by majority - not out of fear but of their own free will.
Reading Asad Rahim Khan, I often disagree with what he says, the tone he uses for Tony Blair, and for perceived anti-Muslim leaders like LK Advani and Wolfowitz from before, is much too violent and regrettable. But articles like these show 2 things that are usually there. He writes v well & his grasp of history is masterful. His last few pieces were a pleasure to read. But I would advise the young man too slow down on anger, or he risks wasting his talents.
I am happy to live under a military regime than pseudo democracy of the type we see in middle east and Pakistan. PPP term in office has sped the demice of the state of Pakistan. Every thing is out of control. Criminals, war lords, politicians, judges, bureaucrats and you name them are all persuing their narrow interest agenda. None amongst them has any sympathy neither for the people nor for the state of Pakistan.