What Musharraf should have done... but didn't

I wrote the letter below on 14 October 1999. It was published in the 19 October 1999 edition of the Daily Dawn. Mr. Musharraf obviously did not read it, or ignored it, in the event that he did. Today 17 years later the advice given remains relevant. In re- publishing the letter my intention is not to invite further intervention but to highlight that the problems of yesterday remain in essence the problems of today. Until we find solutions we do not have any hope of moving forward.

Those who read the letter below will also find uncanny validation of the adage 'The more things change the more they remain the same'.

Nadeem M Qureshi

The Editor

Daily Dawn Karachi

Dear Sir,

The removal of Mr. Sharif's government represents an opportunity that must not be squandered. It is clear that democracy, as practised in Pakistan, has failed to deliver results. Incompetent and corrupt people have been routinely elected to parliament regardless of their party affiliations. And once in power have performed, not surprisingly, egregiously. This has brought us where we are today. A country that stands on the brink of economic collapse with decimated institutions unable to provide its citizens with the very basic of services.

Clearly the system of democracy needs to be revamped so that the best of Pakistan's people, not the worst, run its affairs. General Musharraf and his colleagues are now in the unique position to make this happen. What should they do?

To start with they should not give in to the rising international clamour for a quick restoration of civilian rule. The changes that are needed to put democracy on the right track in Pakistan cannot be effected quickly. Yet the issue of legitimacy must be addressed. Since in a democracy, authority ultimately belongs to the people they should be approached directly in a referendum asking them to authorise an extra constitutional government, headed or sponsored by the military, for a period of two or three years. They should also authorise this government to make all necessary structural and constitutional changes to make democracy viable in the future. These changes would then be ratified by a future parliament.

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind of the outcome of such a referendum. The scenes of jubilation seen on the streets of Pakistan as news of Mr. Sharif's ouster spread are ample testament that the people of Pakistan have had enough of this particular brand of democracy.

Assuming we get so far. A referendum is held, a military led government gets a 3 year mandate to make basic changes and international indignation is muffled if not silenced. What would such a government need to do? There is space here only to talk of the fundamentals.

1. The feudal system must be dismantled in its entirety. Land that was 'gifted by British rule during colonial times to those who gained its favour must revert to the ownership of the federal government. These steps must be accompanied by genuine land reform that frees the people of rural Pakistan from the yoke of oppression that has long deprived them of their basic rights.

The importance of this reform cannot be overstated. Democracy in Pakistan has failed to deliver because there remains today a large part of the population, perhaps a majority, who cannot vote their minds. This is why recurring elections bring the same people to power — people whose central interest is to maintain the status quo.

2. The design of any future democratic setup must ensure that the cabinet consists of unelected professionals. This would mean that the President or Prime Minister would be able to pick the best of Pakistan's people for running the affairs of state. In the present system parliamentarians with little or no administrative experience, and even less education, end up in executive government positions. The disastrous consequences now stare us in the face,

3. The quota system must be dismantled. There is no room in a democracy for discrimination on any basis. All citizens must be equal in terms of their rights. Previous governments have sought to address economic imbalances between rural and urban areas in Sindh by resorting to quotas. But discrimination should never be a tool of economic policy. Other tools must be used such as education and investment in industry and infrastructure. The pain, alienation and destruction that Sindh has suffered would surely have been avoided if more enlightened policies had been pursued.

4. Education. No democratic system can function effectively if its people are illiterate or uneducated. In some sense this issue is an aspect of feudalism. In an effort to maintain their grip on power, feudal landlords even today do not permit schools in areas they control.The interim government must declare primary education as a cornerstone of its policy and ensure that whatever democratic setup takes over from it continues with this policy. A literate population is a guarantee, perhaps the only real guarantee, that a democratic system will work well.

5. The issue of religious intolerance in general and specifically the recent tragic escalation in Shia - Sunni violence must be addressed with extreme urgency. The root of the problem here is ignorance of even the basics of Islam. The "leaders' of both communities need to be educated. And here our rulers can turn to a source that they have approached in the past only for financial assistance.

The Gulf states are home to a number of Islamic scholars whose knowledge of the Quran and sunnah is respected across the Arab world. One of these is Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi at Qatar University. I have heard him frequently on Gulf television channels arguing forcefully-based on his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Quran and Hadith – for unity between Shia and Sunni.

Dr. Qaradawi, and others like him, would be more than delighted to give many of our religious leaders who call for violence against other Muslims a lesson not just in Islam but also in humility.

6. And finally the economy. Here Pakistan must resist the pressure from external agencies such as the IMF, the World Bank, WTO etc to jump onto the bandwagon of privatisation, open markets and globalisation. These policies while well suited for developed industrial nations make absolutely no sense for a developing country like Pakistan, where in fact they would, if implemented, relegate its economy to a perpetual backwater. Economic success stories such as Japan and South Korea were made possible by strong government participation and protected markets. Even today US companies complain of protectionism in both Japan and Korea.

So Pakistan stands today on the threshold of opportunity. If General Musharraf and his colleagues act with wisdom and courage they can set a course that will let Pakistan fulfil the potential that it seemed to promise when it was created half a century ago. If they fail there will be no second chances.

Nadeem M Qureshi

14 October 1999

The difference between Pakistan's Generals and Politicians

There is a widely held belief among the general public in Pakistan that the army is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in Pakistani politics. It is thought, for example, that most election results are predetermined by the 'agencies' - an oblique reference to the secret service apparatus of the Pakistani defense establishment. The agencies decide who will win and who will lose. And important government decisions especially those related to foreign policy and internal security cannot be made without the army's tacit consent or approval.

Does the army indeed exercise this level of control over Pakistani politics? It is difficult to affirm or refute this with any reasonable level of confidence. But the more interesting question, and one that perhaps can be answered, is: Why would the army want to interfere?

To understand this one has to understand two sets of people: Those who run the army - the generals. And those who run the civilian administration - the politicians. Politicians first: This is a motley set. They include feudal landlords, hereditary 'pirs'- the descendants of long deceased holy men, urban mafiosi, and a spattering of mullahs. This whole set is not usually associated, in the public eye, with integrity, honesty, decency, competence or for that matter patriotism.

The army on the other hand recruits its soldiers from across the social spectrum. The selection process - especially for the officer corps - is competitive and demanding. Only the best survive. In some sense the army is a complete meritocracy - it is 'up or out'. If you meet the cut you are promoted to the next rank. If you do not you retire. Hence those who run the army - the top generals - get to where they are on the basis of their merit and competence. Remember also that the army inculcates patriotism in all its soldiers - enlisted men and officers. The message that their raison détre is to defend Pakistan to the last breath is hammered into their minds again and again. In the end, whatever else you say about these men, you cannot say that they are not patriotic.

So on the civilian side, running the country, you have a set of politicians of dubious competence and integrity who get to where they are because of inherited privilege or deception, or coercion, or other even less savoury methods.  Ask the general public what they think of their politicians' patriotism and the response, stripped of expletives, would be that they will happily sell a close family member for a foreign passport.

On the other side, running the army, are a group of generals who have come up through the ranks based on their competence and professionalism. And etched in their conscience, by virtue of their training, is the paramount importance of protecting Pakistan from any perceived threats.

Now back to the question of why the army would want to interfere in politics: The generals, professional and competent patriots, do not trust the politicians, people of questionable competence, integrity and sincerity, to be faithful to the country. They believe, perhaps not without reason, that if these politicians are left to their own devices they would pose a real and present threat to the integrity and security of Pakistan. And since direct interference for the army is not an option they resort to other means - the agencies - to keep the politicians from doing too much damage.

This is clearly a dysfunctional way to run a democratic country. The politicians should be running the country with the generals focusing exclusively on the army. Running a six hundred thousand man army is difficult enough without the added involvement of keeping a set of dubious politicians in check. The generals would be happy to focus on their own domain and leave the running of the country to elected representatives of the people. But they will not do this until they have confidence that the peoples representatives have the integrity, competence, experience and sincerity to do so.

So we as a country need to try harder to bring into politics people who do have the qualities needed for national leadership. And once we succeed in doing this the army, reassured that the country is in safe hands, will no longer need to be involved in minding the minders.