The fading democracy of Pakistan
05 July 2007
by Christian McPhate, Contributing writer for AnaiRhoads.org
AnaiRhoads.org - The 21st century has seen a number of world changing events, but the attacks on democracy within two nations has begun to threaten the strands of freedom within the global community. And as the towers fell to the earth, tearing away the protective fabric of our democracy, another tear appeared in the blanket of freedom.
On June 20, 2001, Gen. Pervez Musharraf formally appointed himself president of Pakistan to the shock and disdain of the citizens of his democratic society. No elections. No campaigns. With the vanity of a dictator, the general stepped in, disregarded the constitution of his people and began solidifying his position of power, ignoring amendment after amendment by bypassing the will of the people with the will of the military.
And this was not the start of the "dictator-in-the-making" Musharraf.
On October 12, 1999, General Musharraf removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office (against the constitutional procedure) after he attempted to dismiss the general and appoint Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director Khwaja Ziauddin to the coveted position.
Constitutional law allowed Sharif to remove General Musharraf and appoint another to his position. However, senior army generals refused to accept Sharif's decision and sided with Musharraf, whom then had the prime minister put on house arrest and then later exiled him from the country.
According to reports released by the military-controlled government, an order from Sharif's administration would not allow the general's plane to land at the Karachi airport. Yet, the military controls the airport in Karachi. So how could he not land? The incident never went to trial, and the new government never levied charges against the former prime minister.
Reports indicate that a disagreement between Musharraf and the former prime minister, centering on Sharif's desires to use diplomacy instead of war with India over the region of Kashmir, initiated the downward spiral of Pakistani democracy.
Former President Bill Clinton released this statement on October 13, 1999:
"The events in Pakistan this week represent another setback to Pakistani democracy. Pakistan's interests would be served by a prompt return to civilian rule and restoration of the democratic process. I urge that Pakistan move quickly in that direction."
Since the time of the take over, Musharraf has slowly maneuvered his supporters into positions of power while ignoring the foundations of the Pakistanis' government—the Pakistani Constitution.
The honored document for any "legitimate" nation is the country's most important foundation and establishes a system of government that includes: a 100-member Senate, a 342-member National Assembly, a civilian-elected president and a prime minister (normally the leader of the largest majority of the National Assembly).
The people of Pakistan were outraged and some filed petitions in 2000, challenging the general's acquisition of the presidency. And yet, Musharraf was one step ahead of the opposition and issued The Oath of Judges Order 2000 that required Supreme Court judges to take a new oath of office and swear allegiance to the general-elected ruler.
In May 2000, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered Musharraf to hold general elections in October 2002. However, the general held a referendum in April 2002 and extended his presidential term for five more years. A majority of Pakistani politicians boycotted the referendum.
After the corruption-filled and rigged elections and a 30 percent lower voter turnout, Musharraf appeared on television and apologized for the "irregularities" in his referendum.
The PML-Q, a pro-Musharraf party, won most of the seats in Parliament. And yet, the other political parties effectively deadlocked the National Assembly for more than year before Musharraf finally promised to step down from his position as general and leave the army by December 2004.
He broke his promise and with the help of his supporters in parliament, he mustered enough votes to pass the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, which legitimizes the general's coup and many of the dictator's decrees.
During this volatile time of change, Musharraf sided with the United States against the Taliban government of Afghanistan (after he was given an ultimatum) and agreed to give three airbases for "Operation Enduring Freedom" to America.
While moving to solidify his friendship with the states, he made moves to try to save face with his people. First, with his appearance on The Daily Show in September of 2006, where he promoted his book, "In the Line of Fire: A Memoir," about the Bush administration and the threats levied against his country.
Musharraf claimed that former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had said, "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age" and Secretary of State Colin Powell's stated, "You are with us or against us."
The Bush administration has yet to comment on the accusations.
In March 2007, Musharraf stated that he intends to stay in office for another five years, and the military-elected president took steps to make his statement a reality by removing Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, under allegations of abuse of office. Musharraf placed the chief justice under house arrest before finally exiling him from the country as well.
He was the top diplomat of the people and respected within their society.
An outcry from the citizens of Pakistan could be heard around the world as the realization of their fading democracy settled into their hearts, souls and minds. And while the people take to the streets protesting, lawyers boycotting trials and still… the military-elected president continues on his way, making changes to the constitution to fit his needs while ignoring the will and cries of his people.
Shekhar Gupta, an Indian commentator, suggested that Musharraf would have been wiser to shed his uniform and campaigned as a civilian in a free election.
After several military coups in the past, the citizens of Pakistan are tired of military rule. The gap between the upper and lower classes continues to widen at an alarming rate, and Musharraf continues to manipulate their freedoms of speech and expression… their rights to be free.
I have a journalist friend from Pakistan, and he just returned home from his country with dire news about the situation for his people. He explained law and order were non-existent, corruption filled the streets and more than 75 percent of working class people are jobless.
He stated that Musharraf forces the Chief Supreme Court Justice of Pakistan out of office and kicks him to the curb like a common criminal because he did not support Musharraf's decision to change the constitution and allow military commanders to hold the position of president while serving as a member of the armed forces.
And with government privatizing 90 percent of the public sector and the jobs being given to relatives and friends of the military leaders, the Pakistani people are unable to climb out of the poverty hole of desperation. The politicians are all sharing the wealth with each other—instead of the people.
This disastrous spiral begins to turn black as militant groups, like the Taliban, come into the country and begin setting up schools, hospitals and churches for the citizens that the military-controlled government forgot. And a new generation of jihadists is recruited into their ranks and released upon the world.
And what was the United States answer to this outcry from a failing democracy?
On Jan. 16, 2007, Deputy Secretary of State John Negronte told reporters that it "is one of strong friendship and trust for and with the government and the people of Pakistan. We believe we have an excellent partnership."
And the future president-elect candidates are trying to defend Musharraf by stating that if he left office, the radical Islamists would assume his mantel of power—even though the religious fundamentalists have never gotten more than five percent of the peoples' vote in the past 60 years of democracy.
With the Bush administration announcing its support of the mastermind behind the stripping away of constitutional rights, the anger boiling within Pakistan is threatening to explode across the international scene and further hurt the fading image of the United States and the face of true democracy.
Newsweek's columnist Fareed Zakaria, boldly stated, "The real problem in Pakistan is dysfunction, and the only institution that works in Pakistan is the military."
But with the military controlling every aspect of society, how could it not work? The armed forces control the educational system, the real estate, the petroleum, the water and power supply and the construction companies as well as the banks.
And yet, our ambassadors travel to Pakistan and barter with a military-elected government—instead of the democratically elected government of the people. The military represents more than 700,000 personnel while the country of Pakistan has a population of more than 160 million people.
Who is the current government truly representing? The needs of the people, or the needs of the military controlling the people?
"Look, we are living in the 21st Century," my Pakistani friend explained, "and we need to make bridges between the countries—build bridges—not create oceans. The American president is increasing the waters instead of bringing together."
While President Bush continues to spew his words on the importance of freedom and democracy to the international community, his actions have shown the world different.
And with the president's misconstrues of the truth (weapons of mass destruction, the Patriot Act and the connection of the Iraq war and Halliburton), the shortsighted incompetence of his administration, his complete disregard for the American peoples' consensus, the widening gulf of the lower and upper class within our own country and the monopolizing of the media outlets, one begins to wonder if the same spiral of destruction might be breeding in our own backyards…
Ones' actions always speak louder than ones words.
More Articles...
| 
