Democracy is the winner

THE people have spoken with unprecedented force and conveyed in no uncertain terms that all that stood in the name of President Pervez Musharraf’s vision for Pakistan was unacceptable to them. It was supposed to be a vote for electing a parliament and provincial assemblies, but it turned out to be a referendum on President Musharraf’s plans and policies. Casting their vote in the otherwise challenging conditions the people struck down, brick by brick, the granite-hard political architecture the President had so assiduously built over the past several years. You name a leader of the erstwhile ruling PML (Q) - Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Rao Sikander Iqbal, Hamid Nasir Chattha, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, Sheikh Rashid, Khurshid Kasuri, Ijazul Haq, Liaquat Jatoi, Sher Afgan Niazi or anyone else who held a mentionable position, the voters threw him out of the ring. The great dream of Chaudhrys of Gujrat to capture Islamabad and rule Pakistan for another five years lies in ruins. The election outcome has not only vindicated the opposition’s struggle for restoration of democracy but it also wrote an endorsement to the myriad opinion polls and surveys which had quite correctly forecast the angry mood of the people. Pity, the reality so clearly visible to an eyeless could not be spotted from atop the presidential palace. Contrary to its perceptively low credibility, the Election Commission of Pakistan has acquitted itself reasonably well, with elections being relatively fair and free and transparent and its results reaching almost in no time the people without much of hurdle and hassle. Mercifully, the incidence of violence at the polling stations was not above normal, victory rallies were peaceful and no suicide-bomber hit the polling stations. One must also recognise the ‘indirect pressure’ raised by the civil society, lawyers’ community, media and foreign governments who did contribute to make the electoral exercise meaningful and productive. But one powerful nudge that pushed the voting exercise towards its logical conclusion, was the new army chief General Kayani’s unmistakable message to his men to remain aloof from politics. That the final showdown was confined to a close electoral fight between pro-Musharraf and anti-Musharraf forces does not mean that there were no other issues agitating the mind of the opposition. A host of formidable challenges defying easy solutions were and still remain on the table.
In the name of so-called ‘Pakistan First,’ the space generally available to democratic forces was being squeezed. For the President the Constitution was relevant only if it helped him remain in power; he suspended it twice, the second time to pave the way for his reelection. Then there was the omnipresent suicide-bomber that would hit targets across the country with impunity, as he operated from the no-go tribal areas. Thoughtless handling of Bugti affair had triggered an insurgency in Balochistan. As if these problems had not made life insecure and uncertain for most of the populace, the people had been pushed to the wall by the high inflation, lack of employment and ever-receding economic justice. But, ironically, the President and his aides ridiculed their critics, flaunting a plethora of high-sounding figures. The ‘sub-achha hai’ refrains emanating from the power corridors made the people sick and disgusted, giving them the mind for a resolution with single objective of getting rid of the regime. No wonder, the voting public used the electoral exercise on February 18 as an agent for change, not just to have new political leadership but a new life in Pakistan. Obviously, the dramatic results of the Monday elections would tend to generate high expectations, which would turn out to be a serious challenge for the new government.



End of a saga

AFTER 49 years as Cuba’s revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro has quit. He announced his departure in a characteristically long letter of resignation though his radio broadcast to the Cuban people yesterday morning was unusually brief. Castro’s departure, through age and infirmity, was not unexpected. The reaction of the Bush White House was equally predictable. Now, said the president, Cuba was free to pursue the path of democracy to the betterment of the Cuban people. It is an interesting take on history. When Castro’s guerrillas ousted the Batista dictatorship in 1959, America had pretty well colonized the Caribbean island. But it was not the sort of colonization of which any American could be proud. Batista’s regime was notoriously corrupt and vicious and it enjoyed close relations with the US Mafia which operated casinos and brothels and dealt in narcotics and money laundering under the carefully averted gaze of the Cuban authorities. Castro’s victorious troops drove the hoodlums from the country along with many of their Cuban henchmen. The latter went on to establish virulently anti-Communist and anti-Castro enclaves in the US, principally in southern Florida. Communist Cuba did not flourish economically and needed the support of the Soviet Union which cheerfully overpaid for Cuban sugar, the country’s main product. The payments supported Castro to the tune of some $5 billion a year. This was necessary because, in protest at the overthrow of their man Batista and the nationalization of all US businesses, Washington had cut all economic links. When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, so too did the handouts and Castro was reluctantly forced to turn to tourism to keep his inefficient economy alive.
But an efficient economy is not everything, as the repellent example of Gen. Pinochet’s Chile demonstrated. Whatever its shortcomings, (and it too is a police state), no one starved in Cuba and there remains today free health care and education and rudimentary welfare. There are indeed many millions of dirt-poor Americans currently enduring far greater economic deprivation than most Cubans. During Castro’s early years, Washington tried invading Cuba in 1961 and there were several attempts by the CIA to assassinate the charismatic leader, most farcically with an exploding cigar. Since the US forced Spain to give up Cuba in 1898, Washington has treated Cuba as its property — initially to be exploited and then, for the last 49 years, to be punished. Cubans may envy some US lifestyles but the more thoughtful and informed will rightly fear a return of US hegemony. Washington could do two things straightaway to demonstrate its good intentions. First, it could unilaterally remove the economic embargo and let the Cuban authorities respond as they wish. Secondly, it could remove the detention camp and its occupants from Guantanamo Bay to the US mainland and so cleanse Cuba of a barbarity over which it has never had any control.

—Arab News