In My View

Will Pakistan’s woes derail peace process?

A leading Pakistani commentator, Hussein Haqqani claims that the country is ruled by an ‘oligarchy.’ Pakistan’s ruling class is dominated by oligarchs who either rule by muscle or by money, but more usually, both. These are the people who still own thousands and thousands acres of the country’s arable land; enjoy the status of minor potentates in the communities they belong; or draw their strength from the mullahs. In the north west of the country, of course, the ruling paradigm is that of traditional tribal ties.

They care little about the laws of the land. For they know all laws in the country can be manipulated to their advantage; and the only modern institution of the country, the armed forces, also do their bidding to maintain its hold on power. This combine has little to do with democratic discourse; and care little about the nascent civil society.

From that light, the recent popular upsurge in the country against President, Gen Parvez Musharraf’s decision to initiate judicial disbarment against a Supreme Court chief justice, is curious, to say the least. This is an expression of popular discontent that is not being overtly led by any political party of the country. So it leaves scope for some interrogation.

And in the context of Pakistan what better place to begin the questions fly than the neoliberal school’s belief that waning influence of the political parties can be replaced by what they call, ‘non-majoritarian’ institutions, like the civil society organisations and the judiciary.

A potentially dangerous proposition, it seeks to bypass the democratic structures of a nation – they claim it is undertaken only when those institutions have fallen into disuse or altogether do not exist - and tries to empower various interest groups to the exclusion of popularly chosen politicians.

South Asia seems to have fallen particularly in the grip of such experimentations. Bangladesh confronts a similar prospect. And the ground in Pakistan seems to being created for such activism.

From the viewpoint of an analyst, it opens doors for some healthy speculation about its pros and cons. Considering Pakistan has a limited rule of law that could be upheld by the State, a tightening grip of such ‘non-majoritarian’ groups could bring in fair play, atleast at the outset.

They could also provide a fillip to the building of more enduring institutions in a country where most other bodies are conspicuous in their absence. A judiciary seeking a broader mandate can try to gather legitimacy from such international covenants, which can instill abiding values of liberal nature into a country where mosques and mullahs can declare the rule of Shariat in their compounds, in contravention to laws of the land.

But the downsides outweigh the positives. In a country where the majoritarians seldom wield enough State power, a ‘non majoritarian’ experiment can only push it to the extremes of unrepresentative and non-democratic practices. The stymied popular voices thus could seek release in more sectarian avenues, threatening the very fabric of the nation.

Some in India believe that every time, the two cross border twins seem close to seminal changes in their relations, the efforts get derailed by forces beyond the control of those who sought to lead the change. Be it the close interaction between Benazir Bhutto and the late Rajiv Gandhi or Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mian Nawaz Sharif or even now, Gen Musharraf and Manmohan Singh, any attempt at addressing the root problems ailing the dialogue between the two neighbours have always been stifled by political instability.

Reports had been emerging lately that the two nations were inching closer to a deal on Kashmir, that could lay to rest decades of animosity and ideological frictions. So the crowds on the streets of Pakistan in favour of an unseated Supreme Court judge threatens to move the focus from conflict resolution to newer conflicts that could raise grave doubts about the legitimacy of the Musharraf regime.

Add to that are sudden spurt of international concern – read, the US – about the continuing ownership of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, as exemplified in a recent New York Times report. The irony of the situation could not be missed by most perceptive observers of the country; a nation that has allowed a virtual free run to foreign investigation and intelligence agencies like the FBI and the CIA for more than five years is now being questioned whether it can safeguard its weapons of mass destruction.

People with longer memory might also remember that the current US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, when she was the National Security Adviser three years ago, had reassured the world with grave certitude that the nuclear weapons Pakistan had, were in the safest custody.

So the question that needs to be asked now is, in the sub continental context what is more important – a Pakistan subservient to the US interests, or an Islamabad that could break free from this bondage by addressing History’s embedded misfortunes.

From the Indian standpoint, it would be a prudent course to follow the developments in Pakistan closely while seeking to establish the public markers of its interest in the Musharraf regime. This could help stabilise the shaken foundations of the regime with whom New Delhi has dealt for some years, away from the public glare, to seek a lasting solution.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in