This Article was submitted to Daily 'The News' in early May 2000, which they did not publish for reasons best known to them

SPEAK  UP  BEFORE ----------!!!

Ijaz Khan
Assistant Professor
Department of International Relations
University of Peshawar
NWFP, Pakistan

The circumstances that he took over in, the source of his power, pointed towards one conclusion. His first speech gave some hopes to most, few remained skeptic. In between among typical Pakistani welcoming to every dictator along with few supporting voices from those who wanted to believe, the rare voice of danger and the bottomless hole that we as people have fallen into were lost. However, some of the initial enthusiasms had begun to fade. The second speech has disillusioned most. The question is what now or what next?

The immediate circumstances that he took power in are still shrouded in mystery. The country was experimenting with democracy. It was a sham democracy, it was an immature democracy, the leadership was corrupt, it was incompetent, was unable to tackle the problems facing the country. The economy was not showing any sign of revival or rather take off [it had hardly ever been good]. Militarism, extremism, sectarianism, criminalization of society, corruption and incompetence were eating the foundations of the state. A feeling of despondency, pessimism and exasperation was widely visible in the few that could still think clearly and had some vision and as much important had maintained their personal as well as intellectual integrity. There some among these ranks, who were there not because they believed but because they for one reason or another could not find a space in the decadent elite of this Islamic Republic of ours.

The basis of his power was and remains military. Army has never played a role that any democrat can be proud of. Be that Ayub Khan's golden decade, culminating in the division of the state, or Zia-Ul-Haq's Islamic Jehadi decade the results of which we are still suffering. Pakistan as a result of these military rules has achieved distinctions that can not be matched even by the most underdeveloped and poor countries any where in the world. Pakistan has the singular distinction of defying international system in 1971 by breaking up in an era [Cold War Era or the post second world war era] which was under written by sanctity of territorial integrity of states, guaranteed by the superpowers of the time. The Jehadi decade has left Pakistani with a society that has the distinction of being the only society that has proved the pundits of international relations wrong by becoming the only people who not just not opposed military takeover but majority of the people welcomed it. Not just ordinary people or so called opportunists, but ours is the only country where so called democrats and representatives of civil society have joined the bandwagon of well wishers of military rule. Which most surprises one is the expectation from the most centralized institution of the country to decentralize power and lay down the basis for civilian rule transfer real power to the people. This intellectual and political isolation from the world is the most important gifts of the Jehadi decade. More important than the widespread corruption or mass jingoism.

Even before his second speech, the high expectations had started giving way to suspicions. The first was shock was the selection of his team. Although it did not dimnish the optimism of the supporters much, but some must have fealt to be cautious. The 'best legal mind of the country' is known for his expertise in fighting the cases of every usurper and autocrat, from Ayub Khan onwards. The lady in the A-team has always been seen around undemocratic regimes. The foreign policy manager is the one known for his hawkish right wing views. There is not a single member of central or provincial cabinets who comes from middle or lower middle class. Besides being mostly either directly or indirectly connected or rather related to the chosen few families of this country. This team should have made it clear that no change for the better can be expected. But the manner in which recovery of looted wealth was orchestrated had made even some of the skeptics wonder. They wondered may be too long lists of national failures has made them over pessimistic. Or at least this man may be able to recover the looted wealth and really make some difference. The results every saw were the arrest of a few selected big names and rather very insignificant money. More important it could not be carried on any further as the complexity of the problem dawned upon our drawing room revolutionaries, who wanted to bring revolution on the strength of an institution known for its status quo nature and elitist culture. It gave a blow rather than boost to the economy. The manner in which the former prime minister was dealt with or his trial conducted is gradually awakening optimists to the reality that rule of law can not be established by breaking it.

The second speech has clarified any doubts. It has disillusioned many. The process of disillusionment had started earlier but it reached a certain high point with the second speech. From now onwards there should be no confusion. The complexity of the problem facing this country is daunting. It can not be simply solved by arresting a few. The issue is not of corruption. Corruption is a resultant problem, a symptom of a malaise much deeper. The problem is more cultural and civilizational. It is intellectual and conceptual as well. I will not go into the details of the problems. Most agree [including this author] the problems confronting this country is concentration of power, lack of institutionalization, lack of education, a moribund and dysfunctional economy and an archaic state structure. These problems are interrelated, one directly leading to the other, rather breeding and feeding each other. The most basic malaise of the society due to which we are unable to break the continuous process of national societal and state institutional decay is our conceptual ambiguity and theoretical absurdity. It is rarely that a debate would address the real issues. All debates would be drowned in the rhetoric and personal.

The military rule in Pakistan is clearly should be understood as an attempt by an archaic state structure to regain its control of power which it no more possesses. To view it as an attempt by the arbiters of power to correct the situation they are mainly if not only responsible for, can simply not be a view of a democrat. Such a view ignores the institutional limitations and lessons of history and just ascribes everything to the virtues and vices of individual. The state has lost the power to exclusive monopoly of coercive force the global village and the assertive civil society, both within and without. For the first time people who clearly and openly disagreed and condemned with a tyrant are not siding with the one who removed him because they understand and believe that the Nawaz Sharif was not the problem, he was creation of a problem, much deeper and more powerful. Voices of dissent are being raised even if suppressed and not very vocal. The attempts by the state to justify its action with reference to a misguided sense of patriotism, which was a very powerful weapon in its hands till recently, is not being bought by a growing number of people. People increasingly feel and understand the consequences of this act. They can understand and fear what they see behind the arguments emanating from the official circles.

Even now time is not lost for those holding power to realize the futility of attempts to roll back history. But perhaps that can not be. They are simply not capable of comprehending the real depth of the systemic changes that have occurred and are in continuos process. If some one believes that they can force the international pressure in cold war style then they are mistaken. Cold war is not returning in any shape. Signing or not signing of CTBT will not and can not change much. The composition of the National Security Council clearly shows that any expectations of revolution from above were futile. The people that have been chosen have mostly one thing in common. They become visible whenever civilian rule is trampled. They came on national scene with Ayub Khan, were out of sight when he left, resurfaced with Zia and now are back on the TV screens. Of course there are a few new faces, but that is also not new.

It is time for the civil society of Pakistan to assert itself. The configuration of history is in its favor. But one should not be over optimistic. There is a real danger of Pakistan becoming a rogue state, an international pariah. Deep-rooted and real changes are needed both in the internal structures and the conduct of our foreign policy. But it must be realized that those changes can not be brought by the elite, even the most honest or well read part of it, even if they can speak English with a better accent and their wives do not observe Purdah. Fundamental and Democratic Changes can be only brought from below, with middle class playing the vital role. Intelligentsia role and responsibility is to show the way. Foremost it is a political process and political parties must play their due role. Most important, change is needed in the conceptual frameworks of national debates and discourse. It must be realized that much worse is the philosophical isolation that we are living in than the economic or political isolation, which is its consequence. Every one must speak up before there is no left to speak for you and me.