A profounder crisis persists

But is that all the crisis there was? True the supposed silent majority does not care much about who the President or PM is; it is too engrossed in its daily grind. A sorry tale hangs by this popular apathy. It is an outward sign that people have given up on who governs or how; they no longer care who governs and whether he is a subordinate to an Army officer. They are not exercised by tales told by idiots. They have seen enough: a long succession of basically dictatorial regimes. Not that they have not protested or tried to assert themselves. But like Sissyphus, each time they fought the hurdle, they were pushed back to square one -- sometime beyond

The record is known. First twenty-five years of Pakistan did not see a general election because the civil and military bureaucracy was mighty afraid of the Bengali majority and which is why constitution-making became a snakes and ladder game: the original Constituent Assembly made three attempts to produce the Basic Law and the third one had all but succeeded. A dictator sacked the Constituent Assembly just before it could cut its Ts and dot the Is. Even when a Constitution could be written and passed in nine months, it lasted only two and a half years, despite Bengalis having surrendered their majority claim merely to have a free election. Naming a date for the polls led to the demise of the 1956 Constitution and the Noon government.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Thereupon began a succession of Men on Horseback. Four of them came and the fourth has also fathered the current 'system'. It is meant to satisfy powerful foreigners as being democratic while power will stay safe with the military chiefs. This fourth gentleman is having to face rowdy opposition because times have changed: while Zia began his constitutional skullduggery after he had brutally suppressed the MRD movement. His system gave all controlling powers to the President but it gave only an appearance of democracy; it lasted 11 years after his death. Despite rowdy opposition, Musharraf too looks likely to succeed in doing a Zia on this country.

So where is that profounder crisis one was talking about? The widespread apathy is the ruling establishment's own foundation. But popular withdrawal produces a crisis that is much graver than what the politicians, in and out of uniform, are grappling with. Thoroughgoing disenchantment with the politics of dissent and struggle initially seems harmless. Sad results of their past struggles have produced the perception of being utter nobodies and not being the stakeholders. Indeed they became a General's subjects. A feeling of being irrelevant and impotent takes hold over the general mass of the people.

The experience is telltale. Apart from partial struggles in both wings and the 1953 provincial election in East Bengal, Ayub era saw two powerful protest movements: 1964 election campaign became a mass protest. Then in 1968-69 a protest movement of rare intensity shook Pakistan to its foundations. Later the election campaign in East Pakistan in 1969-70 almost became a liberation movement. What happened? These movements brought in General Yahya Khan; it was a slap in people's face. Yahya and Pakistan's ruling establishment in their hubris rejected the results of 1970 election. There was hell to pay for rejecting the people's verdict; Pakistan was dismembered and Pakistan Army suffered its most ignominious defeat.

Bhutto, for all his democratic credentials, ruled like a despot and castrated his own party. In his arrogance and lust for a two-thirds majority, he subverted the people's verdict that brought forth another raging and tearing movement against the theft of an election. The net outcome was the third Martial Law that hanged Bhutto for good measure. Zia faced MRD movement despite his successful dividing tactics. Islam-loving parties stayed away. The movement was crushed and the wounds on the Sindhi psyche are still fresh. Zia's 11 years spawned a system that subordinated democracy to Army Chief. That lasted 11 years after him.

Military's fourth incursion looks more like a twice told story. Musharraf is busy discovering the alchemy of preserving military supremacy within an elected system. Zia system's 13 years saw five dismissed Prime Ministers and four general elections. But each poll was less than kosher. Musharraf is still in initial stages with one questionable election under his belt. This backdrop is known to the people, most of whom may be unlettered but are not fools.

Being of no consequence and that my vote avails me not is a feeling generates irresponsibility and induces waking sleep. This enables the dictators to get away with democracy's murder. Honest politics dies with it. But when and if a real Crisis grips the country, people are likely to stay quiescent and passive; they may not save anything: the system of governance or the government. If another adventurer strikes and tries to take over, the people will do absolutely nothing: as was the case with Ayub's overthrow by Yahya Khan. Look closely at this non-performing government and the general bestrides it. Nobody would come forward to defend it if another General came along. And few can pretend that Musharraf-Jamali regime is delivering anything -- other than implementing WB-IMF ukase.

Look more closely. How far does the writ of this government run? It is obeyed by classes who meticulously obtain radio and TV licences, who need a national IT number and a passport. The really rich and the poor do not care a hoot for the Islamabad crowd.

The rich can buy their own security and pay their way more easily than by paying taxes and depending on the state (police). The poor have no worries about their security and have little stake, except the worry where their next meal is to come from. Since the state can be of no help in this legitimate worry, he too disregards the state. Actually, the absence of tax paying culture has been nurtured by the preemption of genuine democracy; it does not come naturally to a people. They have to go through a long and disspiriting experience of a remote, non-responsive and authoritarian ruling elites before this disconnect between the rulers and the ruled occurs.

Once this nonchalant popular response grows as a result of long authoritarian rules, many consequences flow. Nobody feels like paying taxes. Nobody wants to respect and obey the law because most can see the rich and big not paying their dues; they see no reason to please the rulers. Crime rates climb; for, if high prices and joblessness increase common man's economic hardships crime beckons. Crime syndicates emerge and flourish. Look at Karachi for what is likely to happen everywhere. State machinery, from a constable through customs and excise to policy-making apparatus, everyone is for himself and corruption increases. In Karachi a veritable loot is the order of the day, including in the narrow literal sense. The country is progressively becoming ungovernable -- not to say less worth governing.

How does this disconnect between the people and the (unelected and unaccountable) rulers occur? Well, obviously an illegitimate government cannot have close and vital links with the people; it comes through a side or backdoor -- and against popular wishes. Such governments have to go on telling lies and they survive by cheating the people through spin. Cheating processes are opaque for bystanders. But those cheated soon find out and rue the day they believed in the seductive words of the cheater(s). Equally, when people's desires and needs are not heeded and the rulers' spin doctors palm off empty rhetoric as the panacea, a terrible reaction sets in: the people mentally dissociate themselves with the whole dispensation. Alienation occurs.

This sharp reaction grows quicker after the suppression of a movement, such as MRD's or when an election is sought to be subverted. When Yahya went against the 1970 election an alienated people broke up the country. When Bhutto tried to steal an election, reaction was terrible. The establishment has now evolved a softer method of subverting election in order to get desired results. Look at 1988 election: it brought in Benazir when a Muslim League government was overthrown. In 1990 an IJI, set up by the Army, kept Benazir out. In 1993 Nawaz Sharif was defeated and Benazir was given a second chance. In 1997 Nawaz Sharif was again favoured to punish Benazir. The pattern is neat and effective.

What we now have in Pakistan is an advanced stage of quiet but pervasive alienation, made more humiliating by perceived subservience of the military to American desires. Pakistan is also in hock to the creditors through the IMF. The Oct 2002 polls were not transparently free; people and foreigners saw administration's distorting hand in the results. Even so, maximum number of votes were secured by PPP and PML(N). Where are they? Turncoats of PML(N) or PPP have now formed a government as a façade for Gen. Musharraf's power. This is subverting an election; net effect is rejection of popular verdict. Just ask: Were the people voting Jamali and Co to form the government? Don't think popular sentiments will remain uninvolved. Here too election's verdict has been spurned in essentials, obtaining desired results; it is in part similar to 1970 polls. Given the disenchantment of the people having long reached the level of alienation, one can only wonder at the depth and dimensions of the crisis that faces Pakistan. Jamali government's crisis was puny, a storm in golden cups.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.