The dictators' survival manual

By Manzoor Chandio
Published in Dawn, June 21, 2015 

King James II might not have imagined that the municipal system he had exported to India in 1687 for handling civic issues such as cleanliness, water supply and sanitation would be used four centuries later by Pakistani dictators seeking legitimacy and popular support.
Through a royal charter issued on Dec 30, 1687, the King had established the Corporation of Madras as the first municipal body. Members of this body used to be selected by the East India Company while the mayor was elected by the members. The municipal corporations of Calcutta and Bombay were formed in 1726, while the system of elected municipal institutions came into being in 1882. By 1935, hundreds of local body institutions were added across India.
While the municipal bodies were not democratic in nature, they were nonetheless aimed at handling civic issues. The basic functions of the local body system throughout the British era remained water supply, sewerage, sanitation, street lights, recreation, building regulations, controlling encroachment on public places, birth and marriage registrations, and issuance of death certificates.
After Partition, India improved the system, conducted regular elections and used the local body institutions to resolve basic everyday issues of the citizens. But in Pakistan, as with many other institutions established during the colonial period, local municipal bodies did not see any continuity after Partition. The local body system was effectively abandoned.
Worse, while local body systems in other parts of the world have served as a basis for grassroots governance, in Pakistan it has historically been used to reinforce power hierarchies and create perceptions of empowerment.
Ayub Khan`s Basic Democracy The first `new` local body system was created by General Muhammad Ayub Khan under the Basic Democracies Order1959. He was of the view that democracy was as alien a concept to the Pakistani masses as the English language, and thus, it needed to start from a very basic level.In fact, this line of thought was first introduced by Iskandar Mirza, who believed that `overwhelmingly illiterate masses were bound to act foolishly. Having no training in democracy, they could not run democratic institutions, but needed a controlled democracy.
Thus began the concept of experimenting with democracy, which later on became a readymade mantra for successive dictators.
Gen Ayub Khan introduced four tiers of local governance: union, taluka, district and divisional councils. Elected union councillors (80,000) were the `basic democrats` in this system; they were to elect the president, members of the National Assembly, as well as members of the provincial assemblies (East and West wings). The rest of the country had no right to direct voting.
Ayub Khan ensured that no opponent of his was elected as a basic democrat. A number of politicians were disqualified under the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO).
Going apolitical with Zia The local body system remained inactive till 1979, when it was revived by General Ziaul Haq, again in a quest for legitimacy. Local body elections held by his regime empowered those traditional political families who had switched loyalties and pledged support for the regime.
As with Gen Ayub before him, the Zia government disqualified all candidates who were thought to be opposition loyalists (in this case the PPP) or even sympathisers. To achieve this task, Gen Zia set up a parallel election authority for conducting local body elections, called the Local Government Election Authority (LGEA). Headed by pro-re-gime judges and run by pliant officials, this body superseded the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Devolution of power with Musharraf Upon assuming power, General Pervez Musharraf unveiled a seven-point agenda to `fix` the country. A key component of his scheme was the devolution of power to the local level, but in doing so, the General bypassed the federating unitswho are the de jure creators of the federation.
Critical to Musharraf`s plan was the creation of a coterie of loyalists at the local level. The new system was to produce a large number of councillors, nazims and naib nazims, all of whom were only effectively answerable to the General.
Accountability now rested not with people`s representatives, but with the General`s person; district governments were given immense powers to the extent that they could defy provincial governments.
The local body system was so important for Gen Musharraf that he visited 18 districts in the country`s four provinces to create his clique of loyalists. The general pledged unprecedented powers to local body institutions and he was true to his word: district administrations not only enjoyed more fiscal autonomy, but even subjects that constitutionally fell under provincial domains at the time education and revenue, for example were handed to the districts.
In the 2001 local body polls, most candidates went unopposed because the General`s opponents were discouraged from filing nomination papers for the polls; there were 20,076 councillors` seats in 18 districts and about 2,041 seats were uncontested. As a result, 3,937 candidates won unopposed.
There were 5,734 seats for women and no one contested the election for 3,106 seats; some 1,710 women were elected unopposed. While Musharraf`s team argued that they actually wanted to empower women, labourers and peasants, in reality, 48pc of women`s seats remained uncontested in 2001 while 65.48pc of labour seats remained vacant.
The 2001 local body polls were held in an extremelyrestrictive atmosphere. In an attempt to bring only loyalists to power, the military government placed a ban on normal electoral activities. Candidates were given only 10 days for electioneering. No corner meetings were allowed, displaying banners and pasting wall posters were barred too. Even the use of loudspeakers was banned. It was not possible for candidates to go door-to-door for seeking votes.
Only handbills were allowed to be circulated among masses in a country with 60-70pc illiterate people. The voting process was so confusing that in some constituencies, the majority of votes cast were cancelled or rejected.
Another dynamic to emerge from the 2001 elections was that 90pc of the nazims, naib nazims and councillors came from traditional powerful political families. In practice, Gen Musharraf`s local government system had created fiefdoms for local landlords and influential people. Several district assemblies came into being, and money was doled out directly. Many misappropriated and misused funds, but there was no auditing and monitoring system to keep any checks on this.
Delaying democracy? There is an American aphorism which says `bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don`t vote`.
If we change this in the Pakistani context, it should read: `Bad politicians are sent to Islamabad by good people who manoeuvre votes.` The local body systems introduced by various dictators withered away as soon as these men were dislodged from power.
No one can deny the importance of the local body system because it is a tier of the government through which the dayto-day problems of the people relating to water supply, street light and cleanliness, maintenance of recreational places, issuing birth, marriage and death certificates, etc. can be solved at the local level.
But the local body systems introduced by military regimes were flawed and self-serving. They not only created political crises but also delayed the natural growth of this very impor-tant tier of the government. The biggest drawback of the systems introduced by Gen Ayub Khan, Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf was that power never trickled down to the people because the military regimes wanted a unitary system of governance at the national level.
Ayub Khan hinged on the idea of `basic democracy`, Zia spearheaded an apolitical local body system and Musharraf harped on `devolution of power` to a grassroots level. Ayub, Zia and Musharraf`s local body systems brought new loyalists, proxies and protégés of old established parties but by and large excluded the masses from the political process and administrative affairs. The so-called third tier of the government that the military rulers introduced headed for disastrous consequences because of this self-centric approach of the dictators.
All dictators tweaked the system as per the needs of their time. Their survival was tied to excluding the common man from governance and decision making, even though the illusion created by all dictators was that they were now including the common man in the processes of governance. Thus they used the local body electoral landscape to forestall the entry of protagonists to the power corridors.
The concentration of power at the higher echelons of the government led to authoritarianism that also suited the traditional ruling class. The entire political discourse was lost in a maze of structural problems because of absence of the primary tier of the government.
Past experiences in local governance have also taught us that there is a strong need to improve the relationship between provincial governments and local body institutions.
The military rulers` love for over-centralisation undermined the federating units. The military rulers gave provincial powers to the local administrations and local powers to the provincial governments. During the earlier phases, there were no clear spheres of administration because the local body systems imposed by the military rulers infringed on provincial powers.
For example, during the Musharraf regime, municipal administrations were given funds to initiate mega projects like expressways, flyovers and underpasses while the provincial governments were slammed for not providing funds for garbage collection, maintenance of public recreation facilities and urban planning. Meanwhile, the city administrations absolved themselves of their responsibilities and demanded provision of more funds instead of enhancing capacity to cope with rain-related and fire emergencies.
There is a need for clear demarcation between jurisdictions of provincial and local body administrations. This is necessary because the district nazims, who mostly were influential people of their areas, victimised their political opponents.
The irony was that civic amenities like public parks and playgrounds, etc. remained in shambles while the nazims kept demanding that the powers of the chief minister for example, controlling the police be given to them. The districts and city nazims were so powerful administratively and resourceful financially that even former MNAs and MPAs preferred to be nazims.
After the landmark 18th Amendment, the local body system has become a provincial subject. Balochistan made history in 2013 by conducting the country`s first ever local bodypolls on party basis. It was also the first local body election held under a political dispensation. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa held polls on May 30 with additional features of village and neighbourhood councils. Sindh and Punjab have completed necessary legislation in this connection and are planning to hold LB elections by the end of this year.
But for these systems to work, the enforcement of an effective monitoring and accountability mechanism is imperative for the strong local body system. When power is devolved from the top echelons to the lower tiers of government, there must be check and balances to know how public money was spent. And this is not possible till the local communities are made strong and local administration is run from the local body institutions, instead of from the autaqs of waderas, pirs and mirs as has been the historical practice.
The much cherished objective of good governance can be achieved when the local body system is deeply rooted among village communities and adapted to modern needs. The third tier of the government can then be a platform to improve local politics, economy, culture and society at large. • 

The writer is a member of staff.

He tweets @manzoor_chandio

Nawaz Sharif seen facing major challenges

By Manzoor Chandio
Written for UPI.com

KARACHI, Pakistan, June 5, 2013 --Economic issues, domestic polarization, regional conflicts and a tradition of military intervention present Pakistan's new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, major challenges as the country makes its first transition between democratically elected governments since independence, experts say. Sharif is marking his third term as prime minister.
Throughout the campaign, he cited poor governance, deteriorating law and order, breaches of sovereignty, corruption, inflation, power cuts, unemployment and increasing poverty as issues his government would tackle.
"Pakistan, both as a country and society, has been confronted with these concerns for a long time," Khalida Ghaus, managing director of the Karachi-based Social Policy and Development Center, told UPI Next.
Ghaus, whose organization works on development and growth issues, said these concerns relate to political stability and governance.
"These concerns have been focus of governments in the past but they failed to develop consensus. It all depends on how they are dealing with financial problems and informal economy," she said.
"It can't be done with a magic wand. Pakistan needs to be focus on socio-economic stability," she said.
Reining in Pakistan's informal economy will be one of Sharif's principal economic challenges, Ghaus told UPI Next, adding that issues that are linked, such as power shortages, unemployment and inflation must be dealt with simultaneously.
Manzoor Isran, who teaches political science at Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, a Karachi university, said the country cannot deal with all the problems it faces at one time.
"Its kitty is empty and its capacity is limited to deal with the plethora of problems," Isran told UPI Next.
In addition, he said, it will need outside help.
Sharif's government, he said, "will need massive financial injections."
"Saudi Arabia has offered $15 billion of aid in the shape of oil on deferred payments, but this only related to electricity, when Pakistan is facing so many problems on different platforms," Isran said.
"It is facing so many traps: the trap of unemployment, poverty, energy, corruption, extremism and terrorism, conflicts and trap of institutional breakdown. It needs wise politics to pull the country out of those traps and offer people some relief," Isran said.
Politically, while Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party won a provincial assembly majority in Punjab, Pakistan's largest province, the provinces of Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan will be ruled by other parties.
The Pakistan Peoples Party won in Sindh and cricket star Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf won in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In Balochistan, Sharif's party is negotiating with the Balochistan National Party and Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party, a Pashtun nationalist party, to form a coalition government.
"All four provinces have a different mandate," Ghaus said, but added that political consensus is needed to bring the nation together.
"First the government will have to create consensus at the society level. Then to achieve political consensus. Things do require process. There can't be quick solutions. No shortcuts should resolve problem," she said.
Sharif may be the person to solve the crisis, she said, pointing to the importance of the relationship that develops between the federal and provincial governments.
"Let's see how the things unfold at the federal level and how Mr. Sharif is developing relations with provinces," Ghaus said.
Isran said Sharif has to be cautious on policies "in the light of centrifugal nature of politics," saying Pakistan is now facing a "volcanic" situation. He cited nationalist pressures in Balochistan, as well as instability in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Analysts see a similar situation in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
These provinces, Isran said, suffer "from the brunt of terrorism and worsening law and order situation."
He said the central government must adopt a "holistic approach" to address economic and political issues.
Asked how Sharif will deal with domestic insecurity, highlighted by the May 18 assassination of PTI leader Zahra Shahid in Karachi, Isran said "given the violent nature of the politics of Karachi," Sharif's government will certainly face law and order problems.
In the past, he said, "Sharif had to face resistance from Karachi" but now he will face "tripartite opposition," referring to the Muttahida Quami Movement, Pakistan Peoples Party and PTI.
"Law and order is a provincial issue, but the center cannot remain oblivious, keeping in view the economic position of Karachi," Isran said. "However, for the peace and tranquility in Karachi, Sharif has to work closely with PPP and MQM and instead of showing any hostility, he has to offer olive branch to them."
"If we have a couple more transitions, a major chunk of Pakistan's problems will be resolved and democracy will be strengthened and parties will grow more mature, tolerating each other and accepting each other's mandate," Isran said.
The thorniest foreign policy issue facing the new government may be Pakistan's role as a frontline state in the U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts in the region. Sharif has called for restraint, in contrast to Imran Khan's PTI party, which labeled President Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Asfandyar Wali Khan, president of the Awami National Party, "American stooges," and called for the shooting down of U.S. drones within Pakistan's airspace.
"It will not be easy for Mr. Sharif to strike a balance between his pacifism and the security establishment's stubbornness," Tauseef Ahmed, head of the Mass Communications Department at the Federal Urdu University in Karachi, told UPI Next. "Mr. Sharif believes in resolving issues through dialogue and the army is opposed to it. The army believes we're a nuclear power and should maintain a minimum deterrence."
"It will not be possible for Mr. Sharif to strike a deal with Afghanistan without taking the Taliban onboard," Ahmed told UPI Next. "There are reconciliation efforts, like the Qatar initiative, but Pakistan has reservations over it. The military wants its upper hand in any peace deal with Taliban."
Under the 2012 Qatar Initiative, promoted by the United States as a vehicle for initiating talks with the Afghan Taliban, the Taliban opened an office in Qatar. Pakistan was asked to bring Pakistani Taliban to the table, but it has failed to do so.
In addition, Pakistan's historic dispute with India over Kashmir -- a bone of contention between the two countries since 1947 -- continues.
Days after his May 11 electoral victory, alongside congratulations from world leaders, Sharif received warnings from the commander of the militant Hizbul Mujahideen, an Islamist separatist Kashmiri group that supports the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, Syed Salahuddin, over announced planned talks with India over disputed Kashmir.
In several interviews with the Pakistani and Indian press, the Mujahideen chief warned Sharif that compromise on Kashmir would not be tolerated.
The group has bases in the Pakistani-controlled Kashmir region of Azad Kashmir, and has called for Kashmiri independence through armed struggle.
"No government in Pakistan, whether it is Nawaz Sharif or anybody else, will remain in the chair if it abandons the Kashmir cause," Salahuddin told The Indian Express May 16.
"The biggest issue is Kashmir, which is very much close to the heart of the security establishment which still controls the country's foreign and defense policies," Ahmed told UPI Next.
"The military is opposed to a free trade agreement with India and wants to prolong the issue of Kashmir for its own benefit," he said.
"Kashmir is the pretext for the past military interventions and ousting of civilian governments," Ahmed told UPI Next.

Women faced major hurdles at polls

By Manzoor Chandio
written for UPI.com

KARACHI, Pakistan, May 20, 2013 --Women in this month's Pakistani elections were intimidated or blocked from voting in some areas of the country, but many say their families compelled them to vote - usually for their husband's or father's choice of candidate.
Bachal Khatoon, a Sindh woman in her 50s, cast her ballot as her husband instructed. Her father used to control her vote when she lived at home, she said.
She told UPI Next she did not know the candidates well. Therefore, she said, I voted for the candidate who is only known to my husband."
A record number of Pakistanis went to the polls to elect Nawas Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League party, despite a Taliban ban on women's participation.
Human rights activists said women in tribal and rural areas were not able to vote in large numbers but some urban polling stations saw the largest female turnout in the country.
Election officials say 44 percent of women are registered to vote, even though they comprise 52 percent of the population. Only half of those registered cast ballots. A very small number of women ran as candidates, even though provincial and national legislative seats are set aside for them.
Women's rights activist Sahar Majid told UPI Next that Pakistani women are still a long way from casting their votes freely. She said millions of women were prevented from casting their own ballots because of their sex.
Approximately 35 percent of women in Sindh, 25 percent of those in Punjab and 10 percent of those in each of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan voted independently, according to a survey by the Sindh Democratic Forum, a group advocating political equality for women and minorities.
Poor and landless men fared little better, and were often coerced into voting for feudal lords and tribal chieftains.
"We are in a transformative phase where even men are not free to vote. A large number among them vote for their landlords and clan chieftains," Sind Democratic Forum director Zulfiqar Halipoto said, "So how can we expect their women would vote freely?" he asked.
Two Karachi men, Faizullah and Mohammed Khalid, told UPI Next that they did not put pressure on their wives or daughters to cast their votes.
"My wife likes the manifestos of the Pakistan Muslim League of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and I also think the PML is the best party," one said.
Nonetheless, Pakistani television recently reported that a man in the Sargodha district of Punjab divorced his wife because she voted for the Pakistan Muslim League instead of his party, the Pakistani Movement for Justice or PTI, led by former cricket star Imran Khan.
A Karachi woman, who would only give her last name, Parween, told UPI Next she liked the personality of Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistan Peoples Party leader and prime minister. So, Parween said, she voted for her party. Her husband voted for the same party.
"You see Taliban killed Bhutto because she was a woman leader. When she could sacrifice her life for us, we must vote for her party," Parween told UPI Next.

The rise of people's media

By Manzoor Chandio Oct 2, 2011

A piece of news or information is no more the property of the so-called ministries of information or media barons. New technologies have set free the information from official controls and ‘mainstream media’ newsrooms.
Often called liberating technologies, the cell phone, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have assumed the role of new modes of disseminating information. They have allowed every citizen to become a publisher or a journalist. Today the first source of information is a mobile, instead of newspapers or TV channels, where one receives breaking news.
We live in a world profoundly changed by the combination of technology. In the developed world, most people now depend on their cell phones for information, as now they can access newspaper, radio, TV, a blog, all from their cell phone. In the West, newspapers are issuing their cell phone editions because of decreasing circulation despite free print editions, as despite being free, fewer people now read newspapers or switch on to TV for information.
Now people don’t have to wait for newspapers or TV channels to air their story where most of the air time is allocated to politicians who have delivered nothing in their constituencies. They can themselves publish, broadcast and exchange news through their blogs, YouTube and cell phones. They can broadcast stories of their untidy streets on YouTube without having to request the mainstream media and debate their issues and concerns about police sluggishness, corruption and judicial inaction. The new media has enabled the people to have their say and express their views publicly. The internet and mobiles have opened new possibilities for the mobilisation of stagnant communities.
With access to social media and through ‘innovation journalism’ people can bring about changes in society and exercise checks on governance. Now everyone who has a cell phone can have a say in the community or at the global level.
Another advantage of social media is that it lacks censorship. This liberation of information is actually moving people closer to free expression which will definitely help promote democratic values and performance of civilian institutions. Social media has the power to significantly mobilise people for social and political change considering the fact that over five billion cell phones are in use in the world.
With the advent of social media the role of newspapers, TV channels and radio as sources of information is being curtailed.
Conventional journalism (newsroom journalism) is no longer a gatekeeper of mass communication and knowledge dissemination. “As the impact of print and broadcast diminishes, gate-keeping is evaporating, and the business of journalism has joined the innovation economy,” believes David Nordfors of Stanford University, California.
At an international conference on innovation journalism in Palo Alto, Silicon Valley, most of the speakers believed that mobiles and laptop have replaced the TV and newspapers for news. Among the educated classes, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are the new sources of information. Social media has multiplied the sources for disseminating information, and these new gadgets and new sources of information also have the power to bring about ‘revolutions’.
President Barack Obama’s election and the role of text messages in the election of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in 2003 are some glaring examples of how these new media have the power for running successful elections campaigns.
Recently, social media played a key role in bringing corrupt governments down in the Arab world. “When they write the history of the fall of Arab rulers in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, there will be a big chapter on the role of Facebook and Twitter.
Whether it’s organising rallies or simply raising spirits after years of suffering, the Arab youth and middle-classes have found their conversations on social media have given them the courage to overthrow their rulers,” comments Henley’s Hustings blog on BBC.
Social media can be used as alternative media by the people because the mainstream media is controlled by the private sector and they have their own corporate interests.
Through social media people can remain in touch and influence their politicians as well as make them accountable. They can organise themselves, take part in elections, put check on governance and run movements through social media.
Since these new sources of information can bring about revolutions, surely they can be used for strengthening nascent or instable democracies like ours. It is unfortunate that we still have a strong feudal class and each parliament has members of the same families which had been in power since its inception, while the masses have little or no representation, even though the masses are the ones who elect these feudal leaders.
In Pakistan civilian institutions are weak and unable to deliver and there is corruption everywhere. It is believed that change through technology is now possible. People can use text messages, voice mails and videos for exposing corruption. However, it depends on how communities as a whole are responding to innovation journalism. Most of the people in Pakistan live in rural areas and a large section of the population is uneducated.
Still, according to estimates, there are about 60 million cell phones in use in Pakistan and 600 million Facebook users; over 100 million smart phones are sold per quarter, while one billion Google search queries are carried out per day. These new technologies have allowed the people to open their own mobile-based radio stations for which only those from the rural areas will work as reporters which will enable them to have a say.
Marginalised segments of the society have generally been ignored by the mainstream media. Social media can give them a voice and ensure their participation in a democratic process. The use of mobile technology can also become instrumental in promoting election campaigns for those who cannot afford costly elections. They can send videos of their manifestoes and speeches on YouTube.
During the Arab spring, even CNN, BBC and other international media giants depended on social media for videos, picture and stories. Thus, social media has assumed the role of primary source of information and an alternative media for people. It has become the partner of democracy and innovation journalists need to take advantage of it by promoting the citizen’s participation in the positive use of technology.

Time to step down

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on March 31, 2008

PRESIDENT Musharraf and Chancellor Metternich of the Austrian Habsburg empire have much in common. One of the most remarkable features the 19th-century European statesman and the 21st-century Pakistani leader share is that both saw themselves as unrivalled.
Therefore they believed they must rule for as long as they wished.
Metternich said of himself: “There is a wide sweep about my mind. I am always above and beyond the preoccupations of most public men … I cannot help saying to myself about twenty times a day: how right I am and how wrong they are.”
He also thought of himself as a kind of lamp or beacon which helped people find their way around. Metternich emerged on the political horizon when Europe was in deep trouble and ideas of nationalism and liberalism were gaining currency.
He wanted to preserve the ancien regime (the old aristocratic order) which expected people to be submissive and conformist. He hosted the Congress of Vienna to preserve the old order but failed.
Musharraf also emerged on the scene in troubled times. Initially he ruled through the establishment’s age-old formulas: the doctrine of necessity and PCOs.
He began his rule as the country’s supreme executive authority and enjoyed sweeping powers as chief executive, chief of the army staff and president.
After 9/11 he became the defining feature of the Pakistan government, leading to a dramatic change in the country’s relations with the rest of the world.
He became a friend of the United States and joined hands with President Bush in his war on terror.
Musharraf managed to gather every self-seeking politician he could find to support his regime. Now they are no longer in a position to protect him.
The MQM, for instance, has changed its stance by supporting the coalition parties which are demanding Musharraf’s resignation. He held a referendum and managed to get a friendly parliament elected in 2002. But now there is a new parliament in place and it echoes with slogans of ‘Go Musharraf Go’.
Like Metternich, Musharraf depended on the law-enforcement agencies to prop up his office. The spies of the chancellor haunted and jailed many prominent Hungarian and Italian nationalists because they were regarded as agents of change.
Several hundred nationalist and liberal activists disappeared during the Metternich regime. The Musharraf government killed Nawab Akbar Bugti and Balach Marri and jailed Akhtar Mengal and Dr Safdar Sarki.
Several hundred nationalist activists arrested during Musharraf’s rule are still missing. The killing of Baloch leaders in merciless military actions led to the resurgence of the nationalist movement.
People gave their verdict on nationalist lines in the Feb 18 polls.
The Sindhis and Seraikis voted for the People’s Party, the mohajirs for the MQM, Punjabis and Hazaras for the PML-N and the Pakhtuns for the ANP.
The nationalist parties in Balochistan had boycotted the polls. Had they not done so, the Baloch surely would have voted for them. Now the PPP is forming a government in the province for the first time.
The Austrian chancellor banned many books, newspapers, journals, plays and even paintings because they were propagating a nationalist Europe. He targeted intellectuals such as professors, writers or students. Musharraf targeted intellectuals by banning many TV channels and their programmes.
He declared emergency rule, imprisoning the lawyers, political activists and civilians who criticised him.
Metternich championed the social dominance of the aristocracy. He believed the aristocrats would safeguard the old order. To preserve the old order, the Musharraf government introduced the local government system to empower feudal lords.
In Sindh, he even created fiefdoms by dividing districts to accommodate landlords who could not gain power in the existing districts. He wanted the feudal lords to act as his proxies and exercise their authority over the people.
He even went a step further than Metternich when we compare the two against the backdrop of the judicial crisis in Pakistan. He eventually bulldozed the judiciary and incarcerated several judges and the chief justice.
His one-upmanship ultimately threw Metternich into complete isolation. This thinking not only destroyed him but also the ancien regime he wanted to preserve.
Finally, he resigned when a mob stood thundering at the door of his cabinet. Almost all political parties in the country are demanding Musharraf’s resignation.
What is he waiting for? For the day when the mob will knock at his door?

manzoor.chandio@dawn.com

Give democracy a chance

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on Feb 13, 2008

“TIN-POT dictators have ravaged Asia, Latin America and Africa. They are the worst tyrants of the post-colonial period. They have destroyed time-honoured institutions and treated their people like animals. They have caused internal divisions and external confusion. The dictator is the one animal who needs to be caged. He betrays his profession and his constitution. He betrays the people and destroys human values. He destroys culture. He binds the youth. He makes the structure collapse. He rules by fluke and freak. He is the scourge and the ogre. He is a leper. Anyone who touches him also becomes a leper. He is the upstart who is devoid of ideals and ideology. Not a single one of them has made a moment’s contribution to history.”
This is an excerpt from one of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s letters to Benazir Bhutto written from his prison cell and published in a book titled My Dearest Daughter.
Bhutto’s views are as relevant and appealing today as they were 30 years ago.
These are not the most inspiring of times for democracy and human rights and the battle for democracy continues to be fought in several countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa even today.
We have recently seen the overthrow of democratic governments in Thailand and Bangladesh, the crushing of monks in Myanmar and the stealing of elections in Kenya.
There is disorder in Iraq and Afghanistan. History teaches us that tin-pot dictators neither learn from history nor contribute to it. They don’t want democracy and always go against the will of the people.
They find it easy to work with coteries of self-seeking politicians to legitimise their regimes and their policies. They demonise political leaders to depoliticise society and import people without a constituency of their own to run the government.
We have seen a couple of elections rigged in Pakistan and President Musharraf arguing that his people are not ready for democracy.
The brutal killing of Benazir Bhutto, suicide bomb blasts during election rallies and the suppression of democratic forces, civil society and the lawyers show that anti-democracy forces will not allow the people of Pakistan to take the best course for bringing democracy, federalism and constitutionalism to the country.
Ms Bhutto, who had the backing of millions of people, returned home from exile to join the battle the people of this country were waging against the rule of the praetorians. The charismatic leader could have galvanised the nation at a time when militancy seemed set to destroy the country.
A civil war-like situation has already gripped the NWFP and most parts of the region are now split by violence.
The Feb 18 election will be a battle between those who have a gargantuan appetite for power and those who want the people’s dream of democracy to be realised to build a new Pakistan and a new federation.
The country is in the spotlight and elections are being seen as an opportunity for a transition to democracy and constitutionalism.
It is time for a change, and proposals and suggestions are pouring in from abroad for the restoration of democracy.
Conspiracies and coups have usually been preludes to Washington’s interventions in the banana republics of Latin America and the Caribbean.
One hopes the same is not the case in Pakistan. The country faces a multitude of problems, including extremism.
But why should we take orders from others to put our own house in order?
In essence, the country needs to undergo a transition from military rule to a political system and this can be made possible through transparent elections that can help map out the future of democracy.
This is ultimately the responsibility of the people of Pakistan, not external forces. Over the years, questions have been asked about whether the integrity of the federation of Pakistan is in jeopardy on account of the growing disparity between the federating units.
The people of the smaller provinces are blaming their bigger partners for their woes. They complain about the appalling inequalities between the provinces.
It is time to remove this sense of alienation that has caused a sense of powerlessness and hopelessness to prevail and led to marginalised communities being rendered voiceless. The people’s faith in Pakistan will never be restored unless the state institutions are opened to all groups of people to guarantee a hierarchal equilibrium.
Seen against the backdrop of the Dec 27 reaction, the government should take sensible measures to prevent the volcano of anger from exploding. With the murder of Benazir Bhutto they have derailed the democratic process, but not the people’s appetite for democracy.
A myth has been created that Pakistan is a strong state held together solidly by the Pakistan army and the nuclear arsenal it possesses. If that logic is correct, why did the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrate? Why did East Pakistan separate?
Any attempt to manipulate elections or reject election results by the guardians of the old system can plunge the country into a crisis of a worse kind. So it is time to give democracy a chance before the country slides into anarchy.

manzoor.chandio@dawn.com

Behind the election rhetoric

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on Dec 17, 2007

“WE will build a society in which the old values of greed and advancement will be replaced by a common concern for the welfare of the whole community.”
The election manifesto of the Pakistan People’s Party for the Jan 8 polls begins with these words from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Besides repeating old party slogans (‘Islam is our faith’, ‘democracy is our politics’, ‘all power to the people’), it says the provinces will be given autonomy and due share in their resources, and that the Concurrent Legislative List will be abolished.
The manifesto, however, lacks strong commitment to empowering the poorest of the poor, the country’s women, minorities, peasants and labourers who figure prominently in the PPP’s vote bank.
It also deals only half-heartedly with the genuine issues and concerns of the people of Sindh and Balochistan, the two provinces in the federation of Pakistan that are caught in a particularly vicious downward spiral of poverty and unrest.
In the past four decades the people of Sindh have always voted for the PPP, rejecting the catchy slogans of the nationalist parties.
Benazir Bhutto, whose voice is respected across the province, could have worked for the empowerment of disadvantaged groups, but contrary to the ideals of her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto she has always chosen to surround herself with big feudal lords and gaddi nashins.
The world has entered a new global paradigm. As the rest of the country advances into an era of modernisation, interior Sindh and Balochistan are still stuck in the morass of an age-old feudal system with big landlords, sardars and gaddi nashins ruling the roost.
They have assisted and condoned human rights abuses in their constituencies, proving to be major impediments to the empowerment of the people.
They have opposed tooth and nail any move to liberate the people from the shackles of poverty and illiteracy.
In keeping with past practice, big landlords representing local political dynasties and fiefdoms have been awarded tickets by the PPP.
They have always stood for the status quo. One cannot expect them to work in parliament and have laws enacted to protect people’s rights when they continue to oppress the people in the areas under their control.
Agriculture being the only mode of production, there is a need to diversify Sindh’s economy and give it a solid industrial base, as is happening in Punjab.
Over the years, Punjab has witnessed the emergence of industrial centres in cities such as Lahore, Faisalabad, Wazirabad, Gujrat, Gujranwala and Sialkot.
Electoral support for the PPP has always been overwhelming in Sindh, but the party has never mentioned in its manifestos the need for industries in Hyderabad, Sukkur, Larkana, Nawabshah and Mirpurkhas.
Thus alone can the agro-based society of Sindh be transformed into an industrial one.
A look at the employment pattern in federal government institutions is enough to show how small is the representation of the people of Sindh and Balochistan.
The Pakistan Army, which also enjoys considerable influence in national decision-making, has been dubbed the Punjab army because it does not have many members from the smaller provinces.The same is the case with all other services, be they the diplomatic corps, the civil bureaucracy or the police.
This aberration can be rectified only by diversifying the leadership. How can this be done?
By allowing a middle class to emerge and inducting people from different walks of life into politics.
Over the years, the major political parties have perpetuated the predominance of the feudals by awarding party tickets to people from that class.
The reason: the feudal landlord is sure to win. The persistence of this pattern has not only promoted self-interested individuals but also proved a stumbling block to the advancement of rural society.
Democracy can only be strengthened by dismantling the feudal system.
There is pressing need for introducing equal opportunity and affirmative action programmes to empower the people in the rural areas.
Thus alone will they be in a position to defeat the old institutions like jagirdari and gaddi nasheeni.
Until and unless genuine representatives of the people are encouraged to enter the assemblies, and until the public has a role in shaping a leadership that can identify with the people and understand their problems, the woes of peasants and labourers from Sindh and Balochistan will remain unmitigated.

manzoor.chandio@dawn.com