Who will bell the cat?

In Pakistan what obtains is a military-controlled political system with symbols of a democracy. This system has no soul: the power of the voter to freely change the governments at regular intervals. What can be felt is the military's unseen but ubiquitous hand behind all the decisions taken by the socalled parliament, federal cabinet and the bureaucracy; what emerges out of the system always conforms to the wishes of the military and General Pervez Musharraf. All budgeting is for their benefit. Which is the reason why the military controls the government. This reality is now perceived by the political parties, the intelligentsia, political thinkers and indeed much of the civil society. But this is not to say that the regime lacks support: It is supported by (a) feudals, (b) industrialists, (c) financiers (d) the higher salaried and (e) some of the richest professionals.

The balance of power in the society favours the military. It controls all the nodal points of the economy and politics. It has efficient agencies to ensure making the will of the military high command prevail over the rest of the society. The society as a whole has proved to be weak, divided and powerless in comparison with an Army-controlled regime. It has been so for long.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The strength of the Army is not merely the near monopoly of physical force. It is also able to manipulate the political processes and order or reorder the economy the way it wants. The fact that the Army in Pakistan has operated in collusion with (a) the United States' governments (through their Viceroy, of course); and (b) World Bank and IMF (that are again controlled by the US). So, effectively Pakistan belongs to the Army commander, United States and IFIs. It also enjoys tactical support from religious parties that operate as secret supporters of the military in emergencies while acting as opposition. Normally, this triumvirate is the real power that the people of Pakistan are pitted against.

Army's power equals people's weaknesses. The Army agencies know the art and craft of keeping the people divided; that encourages fissiparous tendencies so as to divide the people, ensuring that the military-controlled government stays in power. In this they have much successe behind them. There is scarcely any fissiparous tendency or secessionist trend that has not been linked with the Agencies. As for the maulvis of various sects; they eat out of the hands of spooks of this or that outfit. Hence the need for having several Agencies.

The political parties are anyway divided. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto went for each other and made a laughing stock of themselves, apart from being tarred by propaganda of corruption. In retrospect, they can be seen as having been fooled by the bureaucracy (agencies) into wasting their energies in destroying each other, and discrediting the idea of democracy itself in the bargain. They handed over the useful image to the military of politicians as being corrupt, petty minded and inept.

Given these facts, the central contradiction between the civil society, comprising thinkers, intellectuals, NGOs, universities, trade unions and political parties, on the one side, and the military-dominated government apparatus, on the other, emerges clearly. This is inherent in the situation ever since the military was able to subordinate the political system to its will and interests. The army is solidly united and an effective instrument in the hands of a scheming General. The politicians are divided on many issues and technicalities. Ideology is a major dividing question. As for the results, the management of the economy since 1999 has resulted in high inflation rates the and opposition stays out in the cold endlessly.

It is true that the Musharraf regime for a brief period of three years, did improve some of the micro-economic indicators, as desired by IFIs, including the inflation rate. But once the initial kudos were earned, the regime engaged in an orgy of arms spending. News trickles of Pakistan buying so many billion worth of this or that hardware all too frequently. Some other expenditures do not make headlines. Despite claims of having lowered the inflation rate, it remains poised to rise to dangerous levels, perhaps beyond the 9-10 per cent level. But the main contradiction has, for not being rectified through political processes, has graduated into polarization -- which eventually may result in a clash.

This is dangerous. A clash between the people and a non-democratic regime, controlled and supported by the Army, is a fearful prospect, though it may not be eventually avoidable. Non-democratic power cannot be given away to anyone as a gift. People have to win power. If democracy has to come, it will come despite tough resistance by the military-controlled regime. The danger of bloodshed is thus implicit.

But it is possible to manage the polarization and avoid a direct physical clash between the two sides. Remember the usual tricks of bureaucracy and the agencies: They can go on buying time until the point when others become exasperated and cry 'no more'.

Agent provocateurs incite the people to take to violence. Destructive political struggles ensue and worse can happen.

It is to be hoped that the civil society and intellectuals will firmly advise the people to beware and avoid physical violence. So long as the struggle remains peaceful, it can only do good. Violence has to be eschewed. This is a point most civilians easily see and agree upon. The difficulty lies with the rulers.

Every non-democratic regime, faced with a popular upsurge for more freedom and democracy, employs tricks to incite the people to violence. Such governments love to go for the opposition once it becomes violent. It is easy to call the opposition terrorists and suppress them brutally. This is the job that an Army does efficiently. Efficiently? This is not the word. So long as stray individuals resort to violence, the authoritarians succeed in suppressing them. But once a lot of people take to violence, a civil war ensues. Who will win becomes a matter of time and circumstance.

It is a murderous prospect that should be avoided. It is not good for the people; it is not good for any regime. But every regime should know the art that a classical gentleman practises: he knows when to count his chips and go home. History does record the success of overwhelming force over the people, but not always.

The world is chockful of non-democratic regimes. But there have been cases where superior brute force was defeated. In China, Mao defeated the successors to Sun Yat Sen, the high priests of Chinese nationalism. In Iran, the Shah's strong army was defeated by Ayatollah Khomeini. More revolutions have come through non-violent political struggles by occupying the high moral ground first. Remember Gandhi. South Africa is one other. The people's power has been demonstrated to be a super power in Nepal.

The best course therefore is for both sides to learn from history and know where the changing balance of social power is going. That should be assessed coolly by the regime as well as the political parties that claim to lead the people.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.