Why the Compromise Collapsed
By Mohsin Hamid
I was among those Pakistanis who believed that the emerging compromise in our country among rival political forces was a good thing. I had hoped that General Pervez Musharraf would become a civilian president and begin a transition away from military rule. The Supreme Court would acquiesce in this arrangement, giving the judiciary time to consolidate and build upon its newfound independence. Under the watchful gaze of the courts and the private television channels, elections scheduled for January would be more free and fair than usual. Perhaps a bit optimistically, I had also hoped that Benazir Bhutto, who had been allowed back in the country, and Nawaz Sharif, who had not, would both be permitted to contest the elections. Not that I hold either of them in particularly high regard, but excluding them would undermine the point of the polls -- to allow Pakistan's people to choose the parliament most to their liking.
Until this past week, all this seemed possible. It would have resulted in an imperfect situation: a country with a less than ideally selected president, but a civilian one; the reemergence of two less than entirely savory political leaders, but ones with the support of broad swathes of the population; a judiciary and media less than fully satisfied with the status quo, but increasingly free to shape the future for the better. It would not have solved Pakistan's problems of poverty and militancy overnight, but it would have brought the vast majority of Pakistanis into one tent. Instead, Musharraf has imposed a state of emergency and suspended the constitution. Pakistan is back in a situation where the will of one man in a military uniform supersedes that of 160 million of his compatriots, and where power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Much of the blame for the current predicament must of course rest with Musharraf, whose actions have contributed to a poisonous and divisive atmosphere in the country. But Musharraf is not alone in his aversion to compromise. Many in the judiciary, the media and the political opposition have seemed desperate to provoke precisely the sort of crisis that Pakistan faces today. Perhaps they are now congratulating themselves on successfully sticking to their principles, but the country faces a more worrying future as a consequence of their intransigence.
Pakistan is deeply divided. There are multiple competing visions for the future. The only way of determining which of these visions is legitimate is to see which has the support of a majority of the population. That requires fair elections, which in turn require a strong media and judiciary -- both of which have been weakened by the declaration of emergency.
I have friends and family members for whom Musharraf has great appeal. But people like me, relatively well-off urban professionals educated in English-language schools, must be wary of the instinct that causes us to seek forms of government that appear to protect us from the will of the country's majority. Majority rule may well be corrupt, chaotic, and disruptive to our particular economic interests. But it is also the only way to prevent the country's long-term slide into anarchy. The urge to look to Musharraf as a savior is short-sighted. The military cannot on its own win the battle against extremism for two reasons: parts of the military are implicated in creating some of the extremists in the first place, and the military does not have the same "soft" reach into every district of the country that the major political parties do.
Of course, the military will have to be part of the solution. It has absorbed such a large proportion of the nation's resources for so long that it is today the most powerful arm of the state. But the political parties also have a vital role to play, for without them it will not be possible to reengage a substantial majority of Pakistan's population and isolate the extremists.
The declaration of emergency represents a failure to compromise. Yet compromise remains Pakistan's most pressing need. Musharraf should go ahead with his plans to step down as army chief and hold elections in January. Restrictions on the media and crackdowns on protesters should cease. As for Musharraf's opponents, they would do well to recognize that the country is worse off now than it would have been had they been more flexible a week ago.
(From: TIME Magazine)
|