How do policy makers, columnists,
and editorial writers in the West - in particular the
United States - view Pakistan's political system in light
of the inaugural address by President George W. Bush?
A quick consensus emerged
among most analysts that General Musharraf's political
system, notwithstanding his own description of it, was
not strictly seen as a democracy. In fact Pakistan was
being lumped together with some of the more authoritarian
regimes in the world.
"When opposition to
tyranny has been at odds with security or economic policy
- in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia, in
China - the Bush administration of the past four years
consistently chose to ignore and excuse oppression,"
wrote The Washington Post in an editorial that appeared
a day after the speech. Even President Musharraf's domestic
opponents would not call his system or his style of governance
"tyrannical" or "oppressive" but that
was the description used by several analysts in America.
If the Pakistani system
did not qualify as a democracy, should Washington, following
President Bush's pledge to bring freedom and liberty to
the world, work to change it? If Pakistan is to be nudged
towards a system that is different from the one it has
in place today, in which direction should it be pushed?
Or should Pakistan be left alone to find its own way as
long as it continues to help the United States in its
fight against Islamic radicalism and international terrorism?
The Washington Post had
an answer to these questions which was echoed by a number
of other commentators. "Anyone judging by Mr Bush's
speech yesterday would have to conclude that US policy
towards those countries, and many others, is on the verge
of a historic change. If not, his promise of the 'greatest
achievements in the history of freedom' will be remembered
as grandiose and hollow."
This was a severe indictment
for Pakistan and an invitation to Washington to begin
to adopt policies that would bring about change in Islamabad.
It matters for Pakistan how it is viewed by opinion makers
and policymakers in the United States.
There is a great deal at
stake in Islamabad's relations with Washington. What is
at issue is not simply how much economic and military
assistance America will be prepared to provide Pakistan
as the latter struggles to revive its economy and place
it on a path of sustainable growth and development for
years to come. How America looks at Pakistan will also
determine Islamabad's relations with a number of counties,
and most definitely with India.
A good working relationship
with the United States will give Pakistan the confidence
to work out its differences with its large neighbour.
The United States has much greater leverage in both India
and Pakistan when it is seen to be even handed; a tilt
in one direction or the other can have a significant impact
on how Delhi and Islamabad shape their relations with
each other and with the rest of the world.
It was the United States'
mild hostility towards Pakistan in the 1990s that was
a factor in Islamabad's decision to support the Taliban
in Afghanistan. Insecurity can always lead to irrational
behaviour although to the architects of that particular
policy it seemed like an appropriate response.
In analysing how America's
stance towards the world would change if President Bush
and his team were serious in pursuing their "freedom
and liberty" agenda in their foreign policy dealings,
questions were most often asked about Washington's relations
with China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran,
and North Korea. It was recognized that there was a great
deal of difference in the political systems that operated
in these countries.
Under Russian president
Vladimir Putin, the country seemed to be veering towards
authoritarianism. He placed curbs on the media, harassed
large businessmen, abandoned the system of elections for
choosing provincial governors, and became more aggressive
in projecting the Russian influence over what Moscow called
the "near abroad". President Putin was resentful
of the way the West had influenced the electoral process
in Ukraine. He ultimately - but very reluctantly - accepted
Victor Yushchenko as the duly elected president of Ukraine
and allowed him to take office on January 23, 2005.
Notwithstanding this change
of heart, the Russian president was not pleased with what
happened as a result of the "silent revolution"
in which a very large number of citizens had simply refused
to accept the results of the previous election that was
widely regarded to have been rigged. It was well known
that the Americans in particular but also the Europeans
had provided money, help and training to the grassroots
organizations that had used "peoples power"
to persuade the outgoing president Leonid Kuchma to agree
to another poll.
There was much rejoicing
in liberal circles that a quite revolution rather than
military confrontation had brought about change in Ukraine
and moved that country towards democracy. Even President
Bush paid an oblique tribute to this development when
he said in his inaugural address that "it is the
policy of the United States to seek and support the growth
of democratic movements and institutions in every nation
and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny
in our world".
China also presented a
problem in pursuing what some analysts had begun to call
the Bush doctrine. The Communist Party continued to control
the state with an iron hand. It was not prepared to allow
a great deal of freedom to the media and had no hesitation
in suppressing the news that was regarded as inimical
to its security concerns. Chinese have long memories.
They were mindful of the fact that it was the outpouring
of affection for Hu Yaobang, once the party secretary-general,
at his funeral that led to the Tiananmen Square incident
in June 1989.
When Zhao Ziyang died in
January 2005, after remaining in house arrest for 16 years,
the Chinese feared that his death could once again galvanize
the Chinese youth and get them to demand an opening up
of the political system. Should Washington encourage such
a movement as it had done in Ukraine when it had become
so dependent on the Chinese economy for its own economic
health and when the Chinese had been fully cooperative
in Washington's war against international terrorism?
Egypt also posed a serious
dilemma. It was the second largest recipient of American
aid; under the long-serving President Hosni Mubarak, it
had walked a fine line in the dispute over territory between
the Palestinians and the Israelis. Washington regarded
Egypt's voice to be the more moderate one in the Arab
world. But there was a problem. Muhammad Ata, the mastermind
of the September 11 attacks on the United States, was
an Egyptian who was deeply resentful of the authoritarian
ways of the Mubarak regime.
President Bush seemed to
be speaking for people such as Ata when he said that "America
will not pretend.. .that any human being aspires to live
at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other
governments by making clear that success in our relations
will require the decent treatment of their own people".
Will Washington follow
through these words with actions that resulted in persuading
the Egyptian president to think again before presenting
himself at the head of another ticket in the next presidential
elections? Would the United States be ready to aid civil
society in Egypt as it did in Ukraine to open up the system?
Or, conversely, would Egypt's usefulness to the United
States in its approach towards the Middle East override
this ringing cry for freedom?
The Bush doctrine about
promoting freedom and liberty was put to an early test
within a couple of weeks of the inaugural address. On
January 31, the Egyptian authorities apprehended Ayman
Nour, the leader of a new opposition party - the Tomorrow
Party - that had called for the establishment of liberal
democracy in that country.
Nour was roughed up by
the security forces and sentenced to 45 days in prison
on a charge of forgery. "In standing for Mr Nour,
Mr Bush would be supporting homegrown constitutional reform
aimed at the creation of a parliamentary system of government,
to be chosen in a fully democratic election," declared
The Washington Post in yet another editorial.
Saudi Arabia, another country
that practised politics very different from the one President
Bush was advancing as a cause for the entire world, was
closely allied to the United States. It was one of the
main suppliers of oil to America, and was in some ways
the major presence in the Muslim world. It had also joined
the American war on terrorism. But then there was considerable
restiveness in the Kingdom as people - in particular women
- wished for greater participation in political processes
and in the country's economic life.
Saudi Arabia also had a
poor human rights record and its legal system with public
beheadings of those convicted sometimes of petty crimes
did not suggest a rapid march towards modernity. At the
same time, the Saudi government had used its enormous
resources to promote the orthodox version of Islam that
it practised, not only to such other Muslim countries
as Pakistan, but also to Muslim communities in America
and Europe. Did the Bush doctrine apply to the kingdom?
How should President Musharraf
respond to this challenge? His style of governance is
widely misunderstood among the liberals in the United
States. It is a stretch to include Pakistan with Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, China and Russia as a country that has gone
completely off the democratic track. It is necessary for
Islamabad to do a better job of explaining what it is
doing in the field of political development.
Democracy cannot be imposed
from the outside; it cannot suddenly take root. Even the
outpouring of enthusiasm by the Iraqis for the polls conducted
on January 30 is not going to usher in democracy in that
unfortunate land. It will take patience and perseverance.
Institutions that must be in place before democracy can
flourish take time to develop.
This is also the lesson
of Pakistan's experience. Elections did not produce democratic
governments in the country. Pakistanis went to the polls
four times between 1988 and 1997 and each time they chose
a government that, in terms of quality of governance it
provided, was worse than the one before. The assemblies,
political parties and the judicial system were not able
to constrain the wayward behaviour of self-absorbed politicians.
This brings me back to
the example of Ukraine. If America and its president are
really interested in promoting democracy in the world
they should work with the institutions and civil society
to cultivate behaviour that would promote democracy. That
is precisely what was done in Ukraine. Islamabad should
welcome assistance in developing a democratic culture
in the country. That would be a real contribution.
