Source: IPS / Nov 28 1999
PAKISTAN: The Democracy Debate
by Beena Sarwar
LAHORE: Fiery critics of deposed Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif from among the media and non-government organisations have joined the new regime headed by army chief Gen. Parvez Musharraf. The inductment of at least two such activists into the federal and provincial cabinets has sparked off opinions ranging from downright disapproval to cautious acceptance among media and NGO circles.
Omar Asghar Khan, federal minister for environment, tourism and culture, and Shahid Hafeez Kardar, finance minister for the Punjab, have been outspoken critics of Pakistans nuclear and foreign policies, and now seem committed to helping the new chief executive implement a more progressive agenda for the country.
Both have resigned from the non-government organisations in which they held posts, and are now being keenly watched by their former colleagues to see whether they succeed, or whether they leave the new set-up if they find themselves blocked as many expect. Much is also expected from many other cabinet members at provincial and federal levels, given their track records in their respective fields.
At least three of the women in the cabinets stand out for their work in education, like the outspoken Anita Ghulam Ali in Karachi, the grassroots rural school organiser Zubeida Jalal from rural Balochistan, or the education NGO director Shaheen Atiqur Rehman in Punjab. A fourth, the respected law professor Shaheen Sardar Ali from Peshawar is known for her work in the womens rights and religion area.
But it is Omar Asghar Khan and Shahid Kardar who are likely find themselves the focus of much attention, given their open political stands. And it is their old colleagues who are most sceptical of their chances of success, despite the fact that these ministers will be supported in much of their work by other like-minded cabinet members.
Despite their lack of political constituencies, the new cabinet members tend to be uncontroversial because of their clean records and commitment to various social causes. In fact, it is being said that the country has never before had cabinets in the provincial and federal set-up with so many clean and committed members.
However, Pakistan NGO Forum, the apex body of five coalitions of NGOs in the provinces and capital, in a recent press release following a national meeting, was quick to state that the activists who have gone into the cabinet are not there as NGO representatives, but in their personal capacity.
But the NGO Forum also expects that the ministers inducted from its ranks will not lose sight of the agenda they have always believed in, of strengthening civil society, said Khawar Mumtaz of Shirkat Gah, a Lahore-based womens resource centre that is currently the secretariat for the Forum.
Were caught between principles and practicality, she added. We have to deal with a military government, and we have to engage with it, but we cannot condone a military set-up. There is also a clear consensus that the Nawaz Sharif government should not be restored. We want rule of law, but we also want accountability.
This was the consensus at the end of the day-long debate at the national meeting, attended by many representatives of the Forums over 2,500 member organisation, said Mumtaz.
In its statement, the Forum also called for a restoration of democracy, and demanded that the military regime should state what measures it was taking and to set a time-frame towards this end.
She believes that the ministers who have gone in from NGO circles faced a conscience problem. They want to make a positive contribution towards the new agenda Pakistan appears set to be following, but are known for their anti-military stances. At the same time, they dont want to continue criticising from the outside if they are given a chance to go change the system from within.
But many believe that the fact that activists have accepted ministries is a non-issue. Among them is economist, educationist and peace worker Haris Gazdar, 35, who spends half his time at the London School of Economics where he is a research fellow, and half in Pakistan doing field work.
Gazdar believes that the real issue in Pakistan today is conflict between vested economic interests. Military dictatorships and civilian rulers have provided various mechanisms for mediating these conflicts. Both have failed, he says, predicting that they will fail again.
Responding to the question of whether the military set-up in Pakistan should be supported because it is being presented as an alternative to talibanisation, he says that this debate, of liberalism versus fundamentalism is about ideologies than can be used for mobilisation.
Both liberalism and fundamentalism have been used in the past (and at the present) by the ruling classes. If today fundamentalism of a particular variety is falling out of favour of the ruling classes it is partly because of the fear that it is driving out of control. Also makes bad copy in the WSJ, FT and the Economist, he adds cheekily.
The real fear, he suspects, is that fundamentalism might provide a coherent ideological and organisational vehicle to the other side in the class conflict -- that the powerless may gain power through fundamentalism, although he doubts that fundamentalism has this revolutionary potential in Pakistan, given its divided and divisive character.
He advocates not getting confused by the fundamentalism versus liberalism debate, or the democracy versus dictatorship debate. We should have democracy, whether it works or not, because it is the very basis of all modern political institutions. But the task of real democrats and progressives is not to defend Nawaz or Benazir because they won elections, and then Musharaf because appears to fighting the Mullahs.
Surely the task is to expose the anti-people and anti-democratic character of both military and civilian rule as it has been experienced in Pakistan, and also expose the anti-democratic and anti-people nature of both fundamentalism and liberalism as experienced in Pakistan.
Gazdar suggests that those working for democracy should have their own agenda to fight for real democracy, and points out that the situation didn't change on 12 October. We should be opposed to military coups, and shouldn't conciliate with them, but as a political strategy why should we waste our energies on supporting the coup or opposing the coup. It is somebody else's game, we are bystanders, and the real issue is conflict between classes and other social conflicts. The main question is where you stand on that and what can you do about it.
(ends)
Return to: October 1999 - Military Coup in Pakistan: Analysis & Reactions