Supporting Musharraf and Soft Authoritarianism

[stultified]

Do you think (especially those who have already passed the exam) that supporting Musharraf can be a good idea ? personally i think that democracy won't do in our circumstances unless a basic structure is prepared for it .

Post colonial world saw three developmental models in Asia.
(1)Chinese(state controlled till 1980 and liberal afterwards)

(2)Indian - Democratic(political institutions are developed but the gap between rich and poor is still there because the base was not prepared as in the case of China)

(3)Authoritarian(Japanese) .

Japanese model has been the most successful one . Though officialy a democracy there has been essentially a single party system in Japan . Its not a laissez-faire economy neither a state controlled but a mix of these two .

Later on Singapore, South Korea , Taiwan and HK also followed tha Japanese Model .

And still after them Malaysia, Indonesia , Philipines and Thailand followed the same model .

A benevolent democratic system to prepare the base and bring stability will do good especially in present circumstances with Unrest reigning supreme in Baluchistan, NWFP , FATA . Energy crisis looming at head . Water crisis sharpening. Religious extremism soaring high .

Thats my view . I dont know whether examiners like to read the repeated pro-democratic view always or an alternate view may do good .

opinion / comments ?
thank you .

[Adil Memon]

Salaam,

Musharraf has failed to achieve anything special when he is a dictator (unaccountable to anyone). What is the guarantee that he'll be able to pocket anything praiseworthy in democracy when he'll have to be subservient to people?

For the second statement, you think that we don't have the basic structure for effective functioning of democracy. I would agree with you. But do you think that a dictatorship can ever build such institutions for democracy? Well I don't. For a stable democracy we have to tread on the path of consistent free and fair elections. Democratic institutions can only be built within democracies.

Further, in the case of Pakistan, I would like the rule term to be limited to 3-4 years rather than 5. We have had very bad experiences with leaders in our country. A military dictator would come in holding a gun and get himself elected for 5 years under the guise of constitutional provisions. In case we have the shortened term, we would be able to get rid of worthless and dumb leaders within a short while. Musharraf would also have been displaced by now, but we're now waiting for 2007 for elections.

Once the norm of free and fair elections is established and people are allowed to vent their frustration through elections, we could raise the term.


China itself has always been a dictatorship under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And I would disagree with you when you'd call a one-party state like Japan an authoritarian government. Japan is a constitutional monarchy with democratic institutions well-established.

The tag of one-party state can no longer be limited to authoritarian states. Even free states can be branded as one-party states. For example Japan, where since World War II, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has lost power only once for a brief period between 1993-94. Germany also has some similar case. The Christian Democrats Party (CDP) in Germany has lost power only two times since 1949. The Socialist Democratic Party (SDP) ruled Sweden from 1932 to 1976 without any interruption. Christian Democratic Party (CDP) was at the helm in Italy from 1945-80. The Labour Party (LP) ruled Israel from its genesis to 1977.

Besides, all these countries do have other political parties. They contest elections, but lose. The tried ones are given the ride.

Regarding the last part, all I can say is that all these things depend upon the vision of the ruler. Imran Khan is a suitable choice in that regard. I will consider voting his candidate in these elections .

Comments and corrections are welcome!

Regards,

[Aristotle]

In my opnion Musharaf personally is not a bad guy.He is a clever man.His seven point agenda was praised by many ppl.But the problem is that he knows he cant implement what he thinks.He knows that he all alone cant fight with the corrupt lobby in pakistan.He knows that 90% ppl who r running the musharaf pro govt are currupt but due to some reasons he has to sit with them because the politicians and international scenario has left no other way for him.........

[stultified]

Helo,

Yes Adil you are right that Single party does not mean authoritarianism.

Japan wasnt and isnt authoritaran . What I called Japan was a Soft Authoritarianism(there is quite a literature on Japan's Soft authoritarianism).

Why so ? because the LDP has ruled till 1993 unilaterally . In the earlier stages they got elected by repressing the opposition by force . Then it was authoritarian in the sense that it alone ruled till 1993 with the help of a strong centralised bureaucracy and police force . So till 1993 they ruled almost without opposition's infringments ..stuck to their policies , started with labor intensive economy moved towards capital intensive in 60s and then towards high tech development . What was necessary was continuity of policies and it couldn't have been achieved in the absence of stronghold of center.

South Korea like japan had a centralized democratic system dominated by single party military system since 1961 .... recently is shifted towards democracy with all its institutions stable ...atleast as compared to rest of the third world.

Taiwan had an openly undemocratic system until 1986 .

Philippines and Indonesia started with a democratic setup but fell into authoritarianism between 1956 and 1986.

and the all followed the Japanese model of a centralized and soft authoritarianism .

The problem with a 3-4 year turn for any party is unstability of policies which we can least afford especially in fast globalizing world with intense competition and un-equal nation states.

Turning towards whether political parties can bring the Pakistan back to track.

experiences from 1988 to 98 were bitter enough to tell that "bibi" and "ganja"
are not competent enoug nor their parties .

Lets say Imran Khan gets selected ( I too like him personally) , now can he deal with FATA insurgents without ARMY support ? what about Balochistan? No way ! why ? Opposition will take him down with all their rhetoric . Musharraf who virtually is controlling the government has failed to start KBD , how can an infant Imran Khan stand before an opposition as that of Qazi and his MMA .. who know nothing but to oppose . Its same everywhere anyways.

So whats required is continuity of policies with least opposition to make a stable base . Musharraf will be an excellent option for the next five years if he can bring land reforms , build all the dams , control the situation in Fata and Balochistan .



though its ridiculuous to support a dictator , yet there aint any alternative it seems .

[Adil Memon]

SIR STULTIFIED,

Salaam,

Thanks a lot for the reply. The 'authoritarian' controversy stands resolved and I understand your concept of 'soft authoritarianism' now. Here we go:

I agree with you that continuity of policies has been a pivotal problem in our country. But the idea, you're suggesting to solve this problem is a blatant advocacy of dictatorship. Change in regimes is a democratic norm. Every democratic country goes through it. It happens in US, UK, India, everywhere. If we want some solution to this problem, we should better prefer some other way rather than allowing a dictator to perpetuate his rule.

The best solution that comes to my mind is slicing the projects and visions into pieces that can be accomplished within the regimes of the day. Because it is quite natural that the ruler that will follow will bring his own course of action.

Precisely speaking, a ruler must not formulate any project or vision that can not be completed within his term. Afterall, why should we set goals that are unachievable?

Now if Mr. Musharraf starts a programme like "Water Vision 2016" - does not mean we should let him rule till 2016?

For a moment, let us say that we should allow him. But do you really think he has achieved anything commendable within his tenure of 7 years. Things are not much different today as they were in 1999. However we've some increased problem of terrorism and extremism in our country now.

(Do not try to feed the lollypop of Economic Development, since it has accidental causes rather than Musharraf's vision. Also, we do not notice any considerable change in a common man's lifestyle since 1999.

Improving the lifestyle of a common man should be the prime target of a leadership. A few days back I read Chinese President Hu Jintao saying that his leadership is more concerned about people's upliftment rather than economic growth. According to him, if an economic growth can not reap its benefits to common man, it's useless. But look at our leader. He always screams about "Economic Growth". Now that's his vision. )

Your suggestion is only workable if we've a visionary ruler in the play. But Pakistan really has had a bad experience here. Dictatorships can be fruitful, but they are never the final answer.

I am also sure China will today or tomorrow transform into a democracy. So we must keep one thing in mind: There is no running away from democracy.

Hence, all the solutions must be thought of within the boundaries of democracy.

I would agree with you that Mr. Imran Khan is an infant politically. But Sir, Musharraf also isn't a professional politician. He's a general. He started his career in 1999 and has an experience of 7 years now. Imran Khan could also be given a start.

How would you expect an experienced Imran Khan if you don't give him a chance?

Musharraf's handling of the FATA and Balochistan crises is not a happy experience as well. Do you think he has solved the problems?

Musharraf must understand that as long as the militants in FATA and rebellious Baloch leaders have the backing of local people, force can not solve the problem. He is a military ruler. He thinks of force before other options. At his place, Imran Khan wants to resolve the issues diplomatically. I agree with him. Tell me if you disagree?

So whats required is continuity of policies with least opposition to make a stable base . Musharraf will be an excellent option for the next five years if he can bring land reforms , build all the dams , control the situation in Fata and Balochistan .

SIR - Musharraf has been trying to solve the problem of Balochistan and Fata since last few years, yet has failed. He has been ruling the country since 1999, but hasn't brought any land reforms. He has just laid the foundations of Bhasha a few days back - other dams do not really seem to be a possibility to me.

You've used the word 'IF'. Don't you think that 7 long years were too much for him to fulfil the 'if' conditions?

That's all for now. Waiting for response.

Regards,

[stultified]

hi Adil

the point i m trying to make is the difference between Western style and Third-world style democracy . I believe there are pre-requisite for a democracy to setup. Ex-Colonial powers had civil institutions , industrial capital(many times by exploiting the colonies) better education as compared to "third world" and a history of exploiters as opposed to a history of being exploited. They were active players in democracy as opposed to passive recievers. There wasn't as much need of land reforms in Western countries as it's in colonised countries like India-pk where lands were distributed for being a "traitor" to your "own" people .

So what happened in the post cold war era was that West went along well with its democracy, the substructure was already there and they built a democractic supersctructure over it . But in the "third world" let's consider Pakistan only , feudalism reigned , ethnic differences were high , there was'nt any base for industrialisation , education was abysmal , leaders were high-class rich elite + feudals , political leaders were mean and were assasinated if they were not. What was required was high-handedness in dealing with all these issues , if Red force of Mao seemed too oppressive , Japanese model of police cum bureacracy could've been used . But feudals and elite won't let it happen . Bureacracy was undermined gradually as well , by feudals as well as militarymen. Political parties could'nt make a difference because substructure for democracy was missing . Even Bhutto could'nt abolish feudalism. And there is nothing new in the fact that political parties(opposition) welcomed Army everytime.

If Imran Khan comes , how will he improve the law n order without Army , its hard to fathom . Balochistan , remote areas of NWFP , Fata add the Katchaa of Sindh ...60% of our country is unpoliced , beyond law and order . This makes army an inevitability especially keeping in view the present Afghan - Balochistan situation .

About that Musharraf could'nt do anything in his 7 years , put the figures aside , there's too much of infrastructural development going on . Telecom , IT , higher education much seems to be done . The question that poor couldn't get anything out of it is a legit one . Why they could'nt is because it will take longer for benefits to be distributed(if ever) . Politicals government are easy overawed by criticism over economic disparity because 5 years are never enough to compensate the wrong doing of a 100 years (50 years of independent explitation and 50 years of colonial) .

Army takeover is not a problem with Pakistan only . Its a problem with every third world country . In Asia , Africa or Latin America . Several countries have been taken over by army . This does'nt mean that army should rule . All I mean is there must be a POWERFUL entity ruling the State which could build the substructure required for democracy . Once the base has been made the centralized control will shed itself off . too many assumptions involved.

In sum , political parties won't be able to make a change in my opinion , because of a general lack of middleclass in political parties , and a colonial heritage that keeps on haunting us .

So the only alternative it appears is to tolerate Musharraf . Or there is another one Let the bureaucrates rule ... haha ... there was an article in dawn of this sunday over this last option , it might interest you .

Thanx for reply

[Adil Memon]

SIR STULTIFIED,

SALAAM,

It's so nice of you to reply. This post of yours however qualifies for a complete agreement with subtle dissents, that I will register below.

Originally Posted by stultified

There wasn't as much need of land reforms in Western countries as it's in colonised countries like India-pk where lands were distributed for being a "traitor" to your "own" people .

Western countries more or less depend on industrialization rather than agriculture. In contrast, the piggy banks of people in countries like Pakistan, India and China depend on agricultural growth to a proportional extent.

As you have yourself implied in your last line that these feudal lords were created/furnished by Britishers for effective administration or quelling the angry tempers. We need some time to eliminate them. But as you know that 50 years have passed away and we don't have any covetous results. The Land Reforms of Ayub and Bhutto couldn't solve the problem. For Ayub, I would say that he rather didn't have the political will since he was a dictator [this breed of ruler can not do anything good even if they want because they don't have the roots in public. - Imran Khan] and Bhutto himself belonged to the same setup hence it was too much to expect from such a man.

Rather than putting individual land possession limits, if Bhutto had placed the limits on family, the results would have been drastic. I will suggest this to Imran Khan if he comes to power.

So what happened in the post cold war era was that West went along well with its democracy, the substructure was already there and they built a democractic supersctructure over it . But in the "third world" let's consider Pakistan only , feudalism reigned , ethnic differences were high , there was'nt any base for industrialisation , education was abysmal , leaders were high-class rich elite + feudals , political leaders were mean and were assasinated if they were not. What was required was high-handedness in dealing with all these issues , if Red force of Mao seemed too oppressive , Japanese model of police cum bureacracy could've been used . But feudals and elite won't let it happen . Bureacracy was undermined gradually as well , by feudals as well as militarymen. Political parties could'nt make a difference because substructure for democracy was missing . Even Bhutto could'nt abolish feudalism. And there is nothing new in the fact that political parties(opposition) welcomed Army everytime.

Though I agree with you but for the sake of argument I would disagree with you. Brother, you can only over-ride the importance of democracy if you've tried such system in Pakistan and it has failed. We had democracy from 1971-1977 and 1988-1999 (no matter, a shattered one). The loss of popular democracy of 1970s is still mourned over by the people. And in the 1990s, the PMs were never allowed to run their complete tenures. That was undemocratic.

No matter we don't have the substructure for democracy, but once people are allowed to exercise their right of choice through elections and they are provided the opportunity to express their anger and vent their frustration on a regime by replacing it, the democratic institutions will be built up by themselves.

If people are served better by a regime, they will vote the party back into power again.

They will have to entice people through their agendas.

For example:
I am a Prime Ministerial Candidate

I make up an agenda like:

1) I will bring land reforms.
2) I will educate the masses.
3) I will provide employment.
4) I will uplift people socially, economically and politically.
5) I will fight extremism and terrorism.

And by chance, people vote me into power. If I, within my limited capacities, bring some change in the above mentioned areas and i'm able to win the confidence of the masses they will elect me in to power again.

If people have problem of water in my regime and I solve this problem to a substantial extent, they would not even think of adopting any other leader. I am sure on this. The problem is we never had a good leadership and Bhutto went crazy in the end.

If I wanted the term rule to be limited to 3-4 years, in return I would demand a concession of unlimited terms (not 2, as is the limit in countries like USA and Pakistan). I do not mind if a single political party rules for centuries. If the results are desirable, the type of rule, be it one-party, does not matter much. And this is what all the developed countries are moving towards.

We are more concerned with the good of people rather than the type of system. Since dictatorships are inherently doomed to be futile and worthless,

If Imran Khan comes , how will he improve the law n order without Army , its hard to fathom . Balochistan , remote areas of NWFP , Fata add the Katchaa of Sindh ...60% of our country is unpoliced , beyond law and order . This makes army an inevitability especially keeping in view the present Afghan - Balochistan situation.

I don't know why do you not want Imran Khan substituted with a military dictator in power. If there is an insurgency situation in a developed country, do they replace the civilian president/prime minister with an army general to solve the problem? Democracy has the solution to everything. Just take this straight.

About that Musharraf could'nt do anything in his 7 years , put the figures aside , there's too much of infrastructural development going on . Telecom , IT , higher education much seems to be done . The question that poor couldn't get anything out of it is a legit one . Why they could'nt is because it will take longer for benefits to be distributed(if ever) . Politicals government are easy overawed by criticism over economic disparity because 5 years are never enough to compensate the wrong doing of a 100 years (50 years of independent explitation and 50 years of colonial) .

If we assess the type of development he has brought with the time period he has been given, I would say that he hasn't done anything remarkable.

What we expect from governments is that they address the issues of people and avoid wasting their money. But, I think it is only in this regime that we have observed enormous entourages visiting abroad every week or so without any justifiable cause. This regime is buliding military headquarters worth billions. Increasing defence expenditures. Selling over provinces to aliens (Sindh) for making up votebanks. Killing innocent people in the name of War-on-Terror. And somehow bringing the federation to the verge of disintegration.

One of the causes of provincial disharmony is over-centralization. This is what dictators do. Hence we don't want them.

To justify your stance you would ofcourse highlight the positive aspects. However there are negative aspects as well.

Army takeover is not a problem with Pakistan only .

You finally agree that it is a problem.

In sum , political parties won't be able to make a change in my opinion , because of a general lack of middleclass in political parties , and a colonial heritage that keeps on haunting us .

Let there be free and fair elections for a few terms. If you don't notice the difference, bring Musharraf (or any dictator of his breed) back to the saddle.

So the only alternative it appears is to tolerate Musharraf . Or there is another one Let the bureaucrates rule ... haha ... there was an article in dawn of this sunday over this last option , it might interest you .

If people wouldn't have been engulfed in all these psychological, economic, social and political problems given birth by our mighty rulers, I am sure this system would have been demolished a long way back.

You raised a very good point in the end. I also do not like democracy much. As political science is one of my optional subjects, I have an extensive study of different political systems and along with that I have perused all those interesting political thoughts of various philosophers. I have decided that I going to develop a political system that would be a blend of democracy and technocracy - once i'm done with the exams.

Looking forward for more arguments.

Regards,
Adil Memon

By the way, does Musharraf or any other army man relate you directly or indirectly ?

[stultified]

if I may simplify the argument. The point of difference is whether Army will solve the problems or whether a democracy will . I can't look into the future , you can't look into the future . So the best we do is to refer to past for probable outcomes of future. In past Pakistan had both Democratic Governments as well as Armed Governments . Both failed to push the country out of misery.

Now... democracy is the order of the day , anybody going against is a moron , stupid and and add anything.

Taking example from elsewhere to predict future for Pakistan , we say that Democracy has worked in Western World so democracy will work for Pakistan.(There are countries from third world too like India that have developed democracies but still they are economically far behind S.Korea , Taiwan etc. that worked their way upwards from centralized control).

Here comes my point of difference.Repeating it again. The conditions in third world are not similar to those of the "First world" , just like Third world is not as fit for Globalization as is First world (though its a separate issue).

So , i quoted precedents from the third world. There have been successful coups all around e.g.

In Asia , Thailand,Burma,S.Korea,S.Vietnam,Laos,Indonesia,Ca mbodia and ofcourse Pakistan went through coups.

In Africa , Algeria , Burundi , Central African Republics , Chad , Togo , Youganda and Upper Bolta have witnessed coups.

In Latin America , Brazil , Cuba , Ecuador , El-Salvador , Goete Mala , Haiti , Nicaragua , Panama and Peru have tasted coups.

What was common in all these countries was poverty , indignation , lack of education, feudalism(in many) ...etc etc etc.

Now , how did some of these countries manage to come out ? That was either by Military's + civilian soft authoritarianism or by as you said combination of Democracy and Technocracy.

As i mentioned earlier some examples . Korea (single party and centralized since 1961) , Taiwan(openly undemoractic till 1986) , philipines and Indonesia (under military from 1956-1986). In the end what was good in these countries was that they finally came out of the military "problem" and got much of their substructure developed as well . To be very blunt and predictive , when substructure is developed , army rule will disolve away by itself .(ah assumptions ).

As regards your concern that Military authoritarianism is bad . Ofcourse it can be . It can be worse than a staggering democracy . Had it been Zia instead of Musharraf , I can't imagine supporting such a man . So instead of taking the abstract concept of Military Rule and infering that each particular instance of it will be bad ,is what I m willfuly avoiding here .

Army to door ki bat , idhar to bureacracy mein bhi door door tak koi jan pehchan wala nahi

Just that I too prefer what you said Democracy + technocracy . But route is different . In your opinion democracy is the road to democracy . In my opinion , in particular case of a third world Pakistan , Centralized control will lead to a democratic ideal .

Thanx for taking time to reply

One more thing , do you think supporting MILITARY DICTATORSHIP can be a good idea in EXAM ?


thanx bye .

[stultified]

forgot to mention about the free and fair election you suggested . Ofcourse , let there be , but under Musharraf haha ... a heavy hand on politicians' head make these makhdooms and pirs and chauhdaries more humane

[uzma]

salam, to begin with, it was a very interesting debate, pretty factual, concise , allusive and insightful about the current secenario, thank you very much for sharing.

I might not be very mature as to comment on such a complex issue well but to analyse, Adil sb's comments seem prone to ideal solutions that should always be sought after, as any other short term strategy is never gonna heal the wound, no disagreements!

but, may be going unrealistic, willingly, it seems realistic or it seems carrying sense (yani seeking sense in or from the nonsense) to think on the lines of Mr Stufield (sorry if m spelling it wrong).

Imran Khan can be a substitute if he could surivive in a mess our dear country's politics etc is into .

Baqi ka maloom nahin.

with regards.