>From the frying pan into the fire

Democracy cuts both ways

Author

“Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.”

— Clement Atlee

It’s been 60 years since former British prime minister Clement Atlee uttered those famous words, and since then no one has better captured the benefits and challenges inherent in the democratic form of governance. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current crisis of “democracy” in Pakistan. Democracy is inherently, as Atlee put it best, “effective if you can stop people talking;” and democracy in Pakistan at this point may not be in the best interests of either Pakistan itself or the Western liberal democracies that support Musharraf. The Minister of Truth therefore recommends that in the short term, Musharraf’s juvenile tactics be condemned publically, but backed privately, for the sake of southeast Asian political stability.

“Democracy” in Pakistan is a subjective term. Since its partition from India in 1947, Pakistan’s democratic track record has been spotty at best. There is an undeniable link substantiated in fact between the majority of Pakistan’s past rulers and the involvement of the nation’s military. Thus, in order to understand the current kerfuffle, it is necessary to comprehend Pakistan’s political system.

Pakistan is federal republic, and like Canada, inherited its parliamentary traditions from the British. The executive branch is comprised of a prime minister as the head of parliament and a president who acts as the head of state. While the prime minister should hold more legitimacy, it is in reality the president who holds de facto power, often backed by the military and intelligence agencies of the country. The legislative branch is a bicameral system, with an upper house (Senate) and lower house (the National Assembly). Under Musharraf’s tenure, the executive has reduced Parliament “to a facile talking-shop,” according to the Economist. The judicial system mirrors our own in terms of hierarchy; however, the Pakistan Supreme Court lacks constitutionally guaranteed powers to check the other branches of power. It’s with the judiciary in mind that the current crisis stems.

The Pakistani Constitution was amended in 1997 to prevent the president from exercising his ability to dissolve the lower house of Pakistani parliament. This in turn meant that the president could no longer dismiss the prime minister along with the lower house. However, many grew disillusioned by the power gained by the office of prime minister, which had constitutionally eliminated any checks and balances against its power. This directly led to Musharraf’s ascension to power in 1999, which was welcomed by the majority of Pakistan.

Jump ahead to late 2003, when the Pakistan’s constitution was again amended, this time to reinstate the president’s power to dissolve the lower house of parliament and thus the competing prime minister with it. The critical new stipulation, however, was that in order to prevent an abuse of executive power, the decision to dissolve would have to be accepted or denied by the Pakistani Supreme Court. Thus, a step in the right direction for democracy.

And this is where the problem stems from. Internal Pakistani politics aside, Musharraf looks poised to become president for a third term. However, Pakistan’s constitution allows for a president to hold office for two consecutive terms only, which the Pakistani Supreme Court has made unequivocally clear to Musharraf. After a year of squabbling between the executive and judiciary, the situation came to a breaking point on Nov. 3, 2007, as the political stability of Pakistan deteriorated substantially. Before the Pakistani Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of Musharraf’s upcoming third term, the president declared martial law, dissolved the National Assembly, suspended the constitution, censored the media, and arrested members of the Supreme Court, forcing them either to resign or take a new oath of allegiance to Musharraf. So much for democracy.

Looks like Mr. Atlee was onto something, after all. Rather than continue the democratic discussion, Musharraf read the writing on the wall and usurped power once again by pre-empting any chance of Pakistani judicial independence.

But — Western governments should not simply condemn this move and urge Musharraf to play by the rules. Musharraf’s tenure in power is all but over, but the question must be asked: who will replace the President-General? By taking over power in such a brash and flagrant manner, Musharraf has sealed his fate and political career by turning every political faction in the country against him, and is likely alienating his own support within the military establishment. It’s not a question of if Musharraf can hold on to power, but rather it’s a question of for how long. Thus, Western countries cannot expect Musharraf to say he’s sorry and place his fate in his opposition’s hands.

Rather, the best course of action at this point is for Western countries to hedge their bets by supporting Musharraf’s potential successors, even if that means supporting them in their attempts to subvert Pakistan’s democracy (or at least what’s left of it). The stakes are too high to simply sit back and ask Musharraf to play by the rules. Pakistan is in an unstable part of Asia, its military has nuclear capabilities, its educated elite are being imprisoned for supporting democracy, Islamists are operating with increased veracity throughout the country, and leaders of democracy like Benazir Bhutto cannot leave their homes without facing assassination attempts. While democracy is desirable, it doesn’t look like democracy can flourish quite at this time.

Therefore, the Minister of Truth recommends that Western governments follow the situation very closely and be ready at a moment’s notice to jump from Musharraf’s sinking ship. Out of this powder keg will emerge a new leader, one who will have enough popular support to rule. A strong relationship must be fostered with them, with the twin purpose of keeping down Islamists and anti-Western ideologues in the country, while simultaneously maintaining oversight over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Once Musharraf is ousted from power, hopefully then discussion can lead to democracy. Until then, it looks like there is going to be nothing but coercive silence in Pakistan. And that’s not the kind of silence that Mr. Atlee would approve.

Michael Silicz is the comment editor of the Manitoban and is a student of political studies and law.