October 04, 2016
Dictators and democracy
Pakistan’s first dictator Ayub Khan had famously proclaimed that we were unsuited to democracy because of the warm weather, which presumably made passions run high in everyone but cold-blooded generals. Our most recent dictator, Pervez Musharraf, has now echoed these sentiments by claiming democracy is ineffective in Pakistan and the army is required to act as a check on democratic failure. Musharraf’s statement may not be as laughable as Ayub’s theorising but it is rooted in the same dangerous mindset: for most of our history quite a few men in uniform have seen themselves as the country’s indispensable rulers and our democratic system an inconvenience to be praised or trashed based on the needs of the dictator. That dictators have no use for democracy should be self-evident since their very first act in becoming dictators is to discard democracy. But they have still been forced to pay lip service to democracy, be it Ayub’s Basic Democracies scheme, Ziaul Haq’s party-less elections or Musharraf’s own constant insistence that only he was bringing ‘true’ democracy to Pakistan. For Musharraf, needless to say, the only true democracy was the kind that put him in charge. Once the people of the country had their say and Musharraf was sent packing, he no longer had any use for democracy whether ‘true’ or otherwise – as his most recent remarks show – or indeed for the country itself which he tried so hard to flee.
Dictators have tried, usually not very successfully, to hide their contempt for democracy because the people themselves do not share their ugly sentiments. It was a combination of students, workers and peasants that brought Ayub down while Zia had to face the strength of the non-violent and populist Movement for the Restoration of Democracy. Musharraf, too, faced the wrath of civil society when he attempted his second coup in 2007. But the constant undermining of democracy by military dictators has had an ally in the form of opportunistic politicians whose own base of power is small but whose influence is outsized during military rule because of their willingness to provide the illusion of democratic legitimacy to coup-makers. These are the politicians who joined the smear campaign against Fatima Jinnah in 1965, who welcomed the overthrow and hanging of a prime minister and who formed the King’s Party in Musharraf’s time. It is they who side with the dictators and also do their best to prove them right in their assertion that democratic politicians are hopelessly corrupt. In truth, more harmful has been the corruption of the dictators and their henchmen who ruthlessly divide the country and buy off politicians with schemes like the National Reconciliation Ordinance a la Musharraf. When they have fled the country they did everything to corrupt, they then have the temerity to declare us unsuited to democracy even as they sit in luxury in foreign lands and avoid democratic accountability for their actions.
Do we miss them?
It has been more than two months since Wahid Baloch was picked up by armed men in plainclothes from the outskirts of Karachi. The only problem around him appears to be that he participated in protests and press conferences for the relatives of ‘missing’ Baloch persons. The official silence over Wahid’s abduction has been all-encompassing and it was only this week that the police, pressurised by civil society demonstrations and an order from the Sindh High Court, finally agreed to file an FIR – against unknown persons. This is not good enough when law enforcement themselves are culpable, since there were both police and Rangers checkposts near where Wahid was picked up. Yet, both the police and the Sindh government, which has ultimate authority over the police, have been silent on the abduction. As in the case of others like him, we don’t expect to see a charge sheet against Wahid. Organising protests is a constitutionally-protected right. Wahid was a telephone operator at the Civil Hospital and his role as a citizen of this country ranged from educational and cultural activities to participation in protests.
Civil society, the Human Rights Commission and Wahid’s family have demanded only that he be produced in court and given an opportunity to defend himself. This is the bare minimum the state can do, particularly when it is apparent that there are not even the bare bones of a case against him. Wahid is far from the only Baloch to have ‘disappeared’. Human rights organisations estimate a big number of such people. The home department in Balochistan only admits to the laughably low figure of 71. Even if one were to accept that low figure, it means that the constitutional rights of 71 people have been openly violated by the state. The National Assembly occasionally holds hearings on ‘missing’ people and there is much wailing and gnashing from politicians but they have yet to do anything concrete. Virtual carte blanche appears to have been given to the act of picking up anyone and holding them without charge. Even the intervention of the Supreme Court in cases of missing people has not been successful in securing the release of all those in secret custody. Not only must Wahid and all those like him be released immediately but, to deter future such incidents, action must also be taken against these unlawful kidnappings.