Why this unending political restructuring?

Ayub Khan put an end to that charade of democracy and declared Martial Law or a one man rule. First thing he did was to construct, bit by bit, an authoritarian structure called Basic Democracy. The centre of the system, where all power resided, was the dictator. The people had paper rights under his 1962 Constitution. Reality behind those rights was a judiciary subordinate to the President -- as was bureaucracy or the Army. He ruled for over 10 years but faced two challenges: Other generals and the common citizens never gave his rule legitimacy. East Pakistanis were louder and more determined; they insisted on their rights. In the West Pakistan too people converted the 1964 Presidential election campaign into an agitation under Miss Fatima Jinnah. After that popular discontent grew and in 1968 a few sporadic incidents soon morphed into an agitational movement and East Pakistan flared up by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's trial. Soon a political agitation of exceptional intensity gripped the country, demanding the reintroduction of ordinary democracy without any adjectives, Basic or any other.

But in the nick of time, Army produced another dictator who seized power from Ayub. The latter had accepted most of protestors' demands but Yahya preempted him and later events resulting from his bunglings and blunders are wellknown. His short career encapsulates what all dictators try to do: he began by giving a free election to please the people. Despite his cynical intentions, voters set all his schemes to naught. Two big parties emerged. Both were anxious to take power. His clumsy tactics in East Pakistan finally took the shape of military operations against Awami League and the people of East Pakistan. A civil war ensued and that led to a war with India and finally to defeat and dismemberment. Some argue that purpose of Yahya's political architecture was to get rid of East Pakistan and to rule West Pakistan ever happily thereafter. The proof of his wanting to go on ruling was that on 20th of December 1971, he circulated his own Constitution. But a revolt in GHQ and generals chose a civilian politician, ZA Bhutto, to become the Martial Law Administrator in place of Yahya.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Bhutto was a leader of PPP that had won a majority of West Pakistan seats in National Assembly that finally met after Bangladesh emerged. For first two years, Bhutto ran a presidential system but had to take everyone on board after 1971 jolt to prevent West Pakistan disintegrating. Wisely, he chose parliamentary democratic system, though his own prepossessions and proclivities were authoritarian. He proceeded to amend his own (1973) Constitution to rule like a dictator. But he decreed cascading reforms, mostly well meaning but ineffective. He made much of two land reforms, none of which was implemented to dispossess any big landlord; only a small number of landlords lost some land, usually barren. But large sections of landed gentry retained what they had. Big aristocrats continue ruling the roost to this day. But Bhutto's rule came to an end in just over seven years and was hanged for his pains.

Ziaul Haq made sweeping changes in the political structure, though the fib was that the Constitution has not been abrogated; it is only in abeyance. Virginity of Pakistan democracy, such as Bhutto had theoretically established, disappeared in thin air. Zia chose to wrap his detestable dictatorship in Islamic raiment. He initiated an unending national debate over how un-Islamic democracy is. He spent a fortune on propaganda against democracy. His Islamic laws were all penal in character except the changes in the Law of Evidence. He opened the door wide to religious and political contention. His politics divided the people in various bradarees, sects and ethnic entities so that new organisations will take up some of the space occupied by traditional centrist parties like Muslim League and PPP. He nominated a toothless Shoora and called it Parliament. That was the pith of his Islamic restructuring. All power was located in his person and every aspect of social life was under the control of the government. He ruled for 11 and a half years and did his best to de-politicise the society.

An abiding feature of all political restructuring by military dictators is that they favour non-political elections. The reason is because politicians solicit votes on the basis of their programme and policies; parties come centrestage. When individuals go to their neighbours and ask for votes for purely personal reasons. Willy nilly, he appeals to their bradarees or tribe or sect or maslak. This is a prescription for dividing the society and for preventing political parties from emerging -- by draining away the life blood of a political party through banning political activism by the citizenry. All Martial Law and authoritarian regimes have prevented free politics: political meetings and rallies have been the betes noire of authoritarian rulers.

Little needs to be said for the five political governments that followed Zia's death. The first was dismissed by himself. The second, third, fourth and fifth were run by Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif -- originally a protégé of the Army but later outgrew his political antecedents. He today stands for total ouster of Army from the political sphere and admits his own fault in trying to improve upon Zia's supposedly Islamic political system in order to make his own power supreme through another Constitutional Amendment that was prevented by the Army. This system is tailor made to concentrate all powers in the President who was expected to be the military dictator himself.

But the Army quickly discovered that influencing a nonpolitical President was no big deal. They operated through the President and had all the four succeeding governments dismissed prematurely.

Zia's structure continues till today. What General Pervez Musharraf has done is to revive the system as it was, with all the special powers of the President. Although Musharraf in altered exigencies does not talk much of Islam; but enlightened moderation or a moderate and modern Islam is what he promotes. But has all the un-trammelled powers of Zia's system plus all safeguards Musharraf and Army thought they needed, thanks to the Supreme Court. He now is the sole master of the political system; judiciary, parliament, bureaucracy and Army obey him implicitly.

The point is his methodology is redolent of how Ayub and Yahya conducted their politics. Like Ayub he held non-political elections for his local governments. He seeks like all of them to keep the people divided along the lines of bratharees, tribes, sect or even maslak. Politics is not for the common man. Parties are to remain confined to their own confabulations in drawing rooms, press statements or interviews to the media. They are prevented from holding public meetings and taking out processions by devious means. It is a different matter that Musharraf cannot take back freedom from the press and media, though his regime has its own preferred ways of dealing with troublesome journalists. Partly journalists have won it the hard way and partly the US wishes to make it impossible to run as tight a ship as Ayub, Bhutto or Zia ran.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.