|
Surviving Musharraf
Dr Moeed Pirzada
AFTER a long period in its history, Pakistan is bubbling with positive
news. Yet there are troubling questions that lurk on the margins;
questions that are either being ignored or whispered quietly in a
climate of “goodwill acrobatics”. For the first time in Pakistan’s
history, power has really been transferred — and that too peacefully —
from incumbents to challengers through a process of elections. This is a
big first for Pakistan given the fact Muslim societies, in the context
of history, have not been able to invent or sustain political
institutions that can guarantee transitions of authority from one hand
to the other.
In other words, wholly Muslim societies — with the exception of Turkey
and with some qualifications, Iran — have not been able to create state
structures where those who rule are distinct and separate from the state
itself; a concept most Western societies, after initial lapses, were
finally able to implement more than a hundred years ago. There are more
interesting things: for the first time in a country like Pakistan
political parties appear to be more powerful and important than
politicians and personalities. True it is less to do with policy visions
or good intentions, but the die has been cast. Today, Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani, for whatever reasons, is a nominee of Pakistan
People’s Party; Shahbaz Sharif — the would-be strong man in Punjab,
though a brilliant and much admired administrator — will represent Nawaz
Sharif who controls party’s vote bank; and it is Asfandyar Wali Khan in
NWFP who controls ANP, not the politician he has put in place as the
chief minister. As I said, it may be less by noble design and more by
short term selfish needs, but it’s a process of indirect political
control and delegation has begun and may even continue.
And there is yet more to chew on. Despite low key protests from
politicians and their spokespersons that it is the politicians and not
the civil society who have been elected by the people to set the
agendas, politicians and political parties are compelled to follow the
agenda set into motion by the media and the civil society. The fact that
despite strong reservations of some political parties, the drive to
restore the pre-November judiciary is still popular and it is a
testament to that fact. But if everything is so positive, as many argue
these days, then where is the problem? And the problem is: throughout
the election campaign and since the elections, no political party or
politician worth any name has come up with any creative design, original
thought, idea, plan or even half a brain wave that gives the hope that
they have any solution, or they are brainstorming on one, for the kinds
of problems that confront them in the forms of a remote controlled war
against terrorism, raging inflation, stagnating economy, energy crisis
and all the ills that come along with this.
It may be helpful to revisit the downfall of Musharraf. For the greater
part of his eight-year rule, he remained unassailable by politicians.
There were at least three reasons for it: One, the continued unflinching
US support; a relatively robust economic growth of the last few years
and his ability to offer the vastly expanded electronic media to the
people as a steaming out mechanism which he effectively marketed as his
brand of democracy. There was another: politicians whether they were
inside or outside the country had nothing to offer. Tariq Banuri, a
noted Pakistani academic, had commented sometime ago that the average
age of civil governments in Pakistan has been around two to three years
and that of the military government around ten. However, he mused that
given the increasing challenges to governance, the age of the
military-led governments might be shortened to around eight. Prophetic
words we must accept.
It is always helpful to remember the facts. Musharraf started to
collapse not because politicians were offering him any serious challenge
but because his total subservience to the US lead war against terrorism
alienated whatever support base he once had; and the media and civil
society he initially exploited as his “alternate democracy” gradually
turned against him. By early 2006, many in the US had started worrying
that he, if not supported by some political device, will soon become a
liability. Confronted by the civil society brigades, Musharraf exhibited
the worst form of antics to maintain his hold on power and within a
short period of few months, became the most popularly despised character
in Pakistan’s recent history. However, once again it is important to
note that his rapid downfall within a space of few months was wholly and
solely at the hands of the media and the civil society; politicians
merely moved in the space that was created due to his weakening and
imminent collapse.
Could this then explain why politicians are without an original work
sheet of their own? Their struggle against Musharraf was more in the
nature of fixing last minute nails in his political coffins, which they,
by the way, did nicely by focusing on rising prices of wheat and oil,
electricity failures and the doom and gloom of the war against
terrorism. They probably never got much time or opportunity to reflect
on what will they offer once he is finally gone? And this lack of
reflection may also apply to the sky-rocketing oil and wheat prices in
international markets. This then may explain why all what they are doing
so far amounts to either following the popular agenda set into motion by
the civil society or condemning Musharraf, which again is a popular
national pastime. But what lies beyond that?
—Khaleej Times
Bush in heavens-II
Fidel Castro Ruz
TUESDAY March 18th marked the fifth anniversary of the arrests of more
than 70 quislings, the ringleaders of imperialism’s fifth column in Cuba
who, paid by the U.S. government, violate the laws of the land and share
the opinion that this dark corner of the world should be swept off the
map. On this date, a Department of State spokesperson described the
event as the “Black Spring”, a term having racist overtones. We could
call it “White Spring”. Darkness does not exist in space, only in the
mind. What a huge difference between the methods used by the government
of the United States and those used by Cuba! Not one of the mercenaries
was tortured or deprived of lawyer or trial, even if it was of a summary
nature, provided by the law in the case of danger of aggression; they
have the right to receive visits, access to family facilities as well as
the other legal prerogatives of all prisoners; and if at any time their
health seriously requires it, they are released without the demands of
imperialism and its allies having absolutely anything to do with it. We
urge the United States to do with its prison population as we have done
here in Cuba. The Revolution demands respect for sovereignty, not
pardon.
On Wednesday March 19th, as we commemorate five years of the stupid war
unleashed in Iraq, Bush grabs hold of any Bin Laden declaration, either
fictitious or real, even though in the case of the latter no date is
supplied as to when it was made, nor are they able to assure us that it
was his voice. They shall investigate it, so they promise. Nobody ever
took so much advantage of such materials to shape the opinions of the
citizens of the United States and of many other countries in the world
that have similar cultures and beliefs, in order to justify the brutal
and genocidal wars that are so needed by imperialism. He keeps on
uttering and repeating, time after time, certain selected words and
phrases. The people and institutions referred to, without exception,
find themselves obliged to respond, whether the declarations are true or
not. Just observe how, year after year, from day one, Bush keeps on
milking the events of September 11th.
From the Bucharest conference, Bush will move on to that of NATO, and
from there he will pole vault over to Croatia, which had disputes with
Serbia, and whose President was tried and convicted by the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Kosovo affair. Did he really die a natural
death in prison? What kind of peace will be attained from such odd
twists and turns?
Hans Blix from Sweden, who headed the UN team of inspectors, who
diligently searched for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and who
shares many of the ideas and lies of the empire’s sinister philosophy,
wrote the following on the occasion of the fifth anniversary: “The
invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a tragedy - for Iraq, for the US, for the
UN, for truth and human dignity. They could not succeed in eliminating
WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared
aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They
came later, attracted by the occupants.”
The Association of Muslim Ulemas, the supreme religious Sunnite
authority in Iraq, made the following statement on the occasion of the
fifth anniversary: “The occupier has entered our lands by force and he
is not going to leave unless we use force. Any call made by politicians
who acquiesce to working under the umbrella of occupation ought to be
considered an invitation to surrender and capitulation. The occupation
forces have turned Iraq into the world’s most dangerous zone. The era
of occupation will soon end.”
United States Vice-President Dick Cheney, without recovering from his
exhausting meeting in Afghanistan with Karzai, had conversations
yesterday, on Friday, and today, on Saturday, with King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia in order to get his cooperation and that of OPEP for oil
supplies and pay with devaluated dollars. In truth, there can be no war
without oil, or oil without war.
On the Latin American scene, the Ecuadorian high command declared that
the bombs used in the attack on Raúl Reyes’ camp were GBU-2/B Paveways,
weighing more than 500 pounds, and with exact targeting precision thanks
to advanced technology. There were 10 such bombs and they left craters
2.80 metres in diameter and 1.80 metres deep.
In Western Europe, Sarkozy, whose honeymoon with the French electorate
finished a few days ago, was impatiently awaiting McCain and his
entourage of pro-Israeli Republican senators. McCain urged him to join
the NATO mechanisms, defended the Iraq War and forcefully lambasted
China. Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama are bleeding from attacks by the
right, the left and the centre. This is the perfect insane asylum. The
candidates for the presidency of the United States are discussing sure
war vs. probable war.
Today, on Easter, we also get Bush’s radio broadcast. What is he
thinking? A message which, brief as it is, only needs a few paragraphs
or phrases to be quoted in order to catch its drift:
“This is the most important holiday in the Christian faith. And during
this special and holy time each year, millions of Americans pause to
remember a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world.
“Easter beckons us homeward. This [...] is an occasion to reflect on
the things that matter most in life: the love of family, the laughter of
friends, and the peace that comes from being in the place you call
home...”
“America is blessed with the world’s greatest military, made up of men
and women who fulfil their responsibilities…”
“On Easter, we remember especially those who have given their lives for
the cause of freedom. These […] have lived out the words of the Gospel:
‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends’…” “Each year, millions of Americans take time to feed the
hungry and clothe the needy and care for the widow and the
orphan…millions across the world remember the gift that took away
death’s sting and opened the door to eternal life…”
“Thank you for listening.”
Bush might think that God will give him a prize for speeding along the
day of the Apocalypse and the Last Judgement, after which he will seat
him at His right, in the place of honour. Then perhaps he will abandon
the odious gestures that accompany his speeches, so that he can dwell
under the same roof as those souls of the human beings he exterminated
with his war against terrorism, the great majority of them being small
children, teenagers and young people, women and the elderly, all those
who should never be held to blame.
The Old Testament speaks of archangels who were transformed into the
enemies of God by their ambition and who were sent to Hell. It is
difficult to lose the idea that in Bush’s head, there lurk the genes of
some of those archangels. Today is Saturday. It is a slow day for
political news.Reporters are resting.
Why China might have Olympic regrets
Dominic Lawson
THERE will be no international boycott of the Olympics in Beijing. By
the time the Games are over, however, even the Chinese government might
be wishing that its country had never been chosen to host them. In fact,
the Chinese government will be fortunate if it is only the Tibetan
independence movement which seeks to exploit the intense media focus on
Beijing as the 29th Games draws near. This problem is by no means
peculiar to the People’s Republic of China in the year 2008. The
Olympics has long been a focus for spectacular displays of political
opposition. Forty years ago, the run-up to the Mexico City Games was
characterized by rioting against the government of Gustavo Ordaz: 10
days before the Games started there was what amounted to a massacre in
Mexico City, when hundreds of demonstrators were shot by the police and
military. This, however, was before the days of 24-hour news television:
Its impact was minimal compared to what would ensue if something similar
happened in Beijing this summer.
In 1972, West Germany would have had the highest hopes when Munich held
the Games: It seemed a glorious opportunity to eradicate the memories of
the only previous occasion on which Germany was the host — in 1936,
under the rule of the Nazis. Instead, it had to endure the public horror
of the “Munich Massacre” in which 12 Israeli athletes were slaughtered
by Palestinian terrorists. This is the “event” for which the 1972
Olympics is most remembered — by everyone except track and field
anoraks. Most terrifyingly for the occupants of Beijing’s Zhong Nan Hai,
it was probably the presence of the international media which lay behind
the timing of the student protests of 1989. The Tiananmen Square
massacre has rather obliterated the outside world’s memories of what
happened immediately beforehand: It was the occasion of the first visit
of a Russian leader since the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s.
The world’s news media had flown in to Beijing to broadcast the
encounters between the charismatic reformist Mikhail Gorbachev and the
gerontocrats of the Chinese Communist Party. The students could see that
this was an opportunity to demonstrate to the world their demands for
similar reforms in their own country — a demonstration suppressed with a
brutality that only underlined the Chinese Communist Party’s almost
pathological inability to cope with any genuine form of political
opposition. A similar inability has disfigured Beijing’s handling of
Tibet. The 72-year old Dalai Lama long ago abandoned the idea of
achieving independence for his people: His demands do not go much
further than advocacy of some sort of cultural autonomy. Far from
calling for a boycott of the Olympics, he has actually criticized those
who have pressed for such an ostracization of Beijing. Yet the Chinese
Communists have continued to denounce the old man with the vehemence and
the language which in earlier years they applied to such mortal enemies
as Chiang-Kai Shek. Thus the Beijing-appointed Communist Party chief in
Tibet, Zhang Qingli, has spent much of his three years in the job
hurling gratuitous insults at the Dalai Lama.
—Arab News
|
