As I See It
The 2008 resolution
One more atrocity by terrorists and an irretrievable loss for Pakistan! The great promise that Ms. Benazir had to offer to this country now remains with us only as frustrated aspirations. Benazir's assassination was a tragedy waiting to happen, she knew it and all of us knew it. To carry on regardless in the face of such imminent and terminal danger requires special courage, for which no eulogy can be enough.
The demise of one of Pakistan's foremost political leaders force-multiplies the need for the correcting the fault-lines in our national psyche before they permanently scar the future of the country. On January 1, 2008, we are in deeper trouble than we were on January 4, 2007, when my article "Resolution for 2007" was published.
For those in power at every level of governance, dereliction of that responsibility will be catastrophic for the nation they govern.
The prime resolution for 2008 must be to hold free and fair elections, January 8, 2008 needs to be delayed, probably till March (and maybe even later). On January 4, 2007, I quoted Musharraf, "elections will decide Pakistan's destiny." I had said then: "One believes that it is the way the elections are conducted that will decide the country's destiny."
A year later, that has not changed. The events of the past year have shaken the confidence I had in the beginning of 2007 that Musharraf still had both the vision and courage to fulfill this destiny. He has become isolated from those who could bring to his attention unpalatable facts, which, once upon a time he had welcomed.
I have only just realised that I did not meet him once throughout 2007. Musharraf's earlier successes are now increasingly being overcome by his failures. Every day that goes by puts us deeper into a mess.
As someone who values his friendship, one now acknowledges with a heavy heart that he must seriously re-evaluate his own position. While conceding it could well be otherwise, almost everybody believes that free and fair elections cannot be held while he remains president. That is not only the feeling of the intelligentsia, it is an overwhelming public perception.
With Ms. Benazir's tragic assassination, the stakes have gone up exponentially for the country. For whatever reason this represents a watershed of sorts, a crossing over of the fail-safe line between the Musharraf who used to find solutions and the Musharraf who has now become part of the problem.
In 1999, he rode into town on a plank that wanted accountability of those who had looted the nation in 2008. Those he had named are now contending to form the government that he intends to preside over as president.
Bangladesh only avoided direct military intervention because the COAS Bangladesh Army, Gen Moeen Ahmad, and his immediate colleagues are averse to imposing martial law, even on the "Chief Executive" pattern a la Pakistan.
A civilian caretaker government, supported by the army, is conducting accountability across the board to cleanse the democratic process. Because of its impartiality, it has the support of the masses.
In the "Bangladesh Model," the army is nowhere to be seen. Not one army officer is in any post tenable by a civilian. Pakistan desperately needs a genuinely neutral caretaker set-up, and the country's future existence depends upon the set-up being credible.
The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) must be appointed by consensus of the major political parties. What good is a democracy if the election machinery is politically tainted and the credibility of the elections are likely to be called into question? All candidates for offices must be screened by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), as to whether they are persons of integrity and character, their assets (and those of their close relations) are correct as stated and acquired within the means of their livelihood, and also that they have been paying due taxes on their earnings. While this was done to an extent in Pakistan, it still has lot of loopholes.
The last National Assembly and the present Senate have a number of controversial and corrupt individuals; do we want this situation to persist? If any person gives a false statement about his (or her) assets, he (or she) must not only be disqualified, he (or she) should also be tried and convicted for perjury.
All aspiring candidates must also sign an affidavit re-affirming his (or her) allegiance to the integrity and sovereignty of the Federation.
Our indirect Senate elections are an enduring disgrace, an insult to the name of democracy. And shame on us for closing our eyes to the open auction for Senate seats! This can be avoided only by having direct elections.
Majority vote and proportional representation are basic requisites of a democracy. Without a clear-cut majority of 50% plus one vote in any constituency, there should be "run-off elections" between the first two candidates. For countries beset with religious, sectarian, ethnic, etc. schisms, a run-off election is mandatory.
Even India's successful democracy is now showing signs of coming under stress; see the Hindu-Muslim divide in Gujarat that Chief Minister Modi exploited recently to get a major BJP victory.
On the first-past-the-post system, a powerful minority will always come to power, as is the case in more than 80% of the seats in our National and Provincial assemblies.
Over the years, as the majority of the people become frustrated about their choice ever coming to power, less and less people have tended to go out to vote. Because of this abstention, a powerful minority is eventually transformed by default into a majority.
The numbers involved, and the clear choice between two candidates in a "run-off vote," make an election difficult to rig and manipulate.
To avoid marginalising of smaller parties, and frustration thereof, it is necessary to give them a voice in Parliament through "Proportional Representation," i.e. 50% of the available seats should go to the losing candidates of the political parties on the basis of the percentage of the total votes cast.
The institutions of the president and the chief justice must be balanced to prevent "winner-take-all" in a democracy from becoming a "camouflaged dictatorship." The president should not be a political entity, he or she being elected by exercise of adult franchise. The chief justice should administer a financially independent judiciary, with NAB under his authority.
Democracy envisages genuinely elected, "clean" representatives of the people eventually coming to power, "vital ground" for the unity and integrity of the country. If President Musharraf goes through with the electoral exercise on Tuesday January 8, 2008, to quote his words, "come hell or high water," that is exactly where this country will be, somewhere between hell and high water.
The tragedy is that, as predicted in January 2007, we could well get a "revolution" in 2008 as a mass protest kicks in. On December 27, 2007, the mobs got a glimpse of the "rewards" of widespread and mindless violence; having tasted blood once, how long before the mobs return to become man-eaters? Pakistan, as it was in 1947 became history in 1971; can we take chance of history repeating itself?
Ikram Sehgal is an eminent Pakistani political analyst and columnist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments