New Pakistan - Blogs

A Secular State Is a Moral State

2010-03-09T16:31:00Z

Ishtiaq Ahmed, Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University, makes a great case for why a secular state is a moral state in his column for today's Daily Times.

In the last few weeks the Daily
Times has carried a number of very interesting articles for and against making Pakistan a secular state. Babar Ayaz pleaded for amending the Pakistani constitution with a view to making it a secular state (‘Amendments for a secular constitution’, Daily Times, February 2, 2010). Dr S M Rahman of the Friends Foundation took a diametrically opposite stand, debunking the secular state as an immoral entity, which allegedly focuses entirely on the pursuit of hedonistic interests and pleasures (‘Is secularism that sacrosanct?’ Daily Times, February 22, 2010). Both authors have advanced seriously considered arguments in favour of their political and ideological preferences. I fully sympathise with Babar Ayaz as he has referred to the hard facts of the brutalisation of society that has taken place in Pakistan in recent years.

Some further arguments can be adduced in support of the secular state. The basic flaw in Dr Rahman’s thesis is that instead of reviewing contemporary views on the secular state, he eclectically quotes fictional literature and with a broad sweep the history of 2,000 years of Christendom, the Renaissance, the Reformation and so on, but does not attempt a review of the development in political theory and practice with regard to the contemporary secular state.

Not only Rousseau but some other Western writers have shown admiration for the state of Medina founded by the Prophet (PBUH) and sustained for a while by his pious successors (29 years according to the Sunnis and a mere six years according to the Shias). However, what those writers have not done but which any serious and honest scholar of today — Muslim or non-Muslim — cannot escape noticing is that subsequent attempts to resuscitate the ideal Islamic state have been unmitigated disasters.

I have shown in my doctoral dissertation (‘The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan’ published in 1987 and again in 1992), that the Quran does not provide a general theory of the state or government; it at most provides a sui generis idea of a Prophet-in-Authority. The Prophet (PBUH) was a lawgiver, a law enforcer or and a law adjudicator. Upon his death the role of lawgiver was over. The pious caliphs could at most claim the right to enforce the law and to adjudicate it when it was violated. With the assassination of Ali in 661 AD, the ideal Islamic state ceased to exist.

During the pre-modern period, education, information and knowledge were restricted to very small elites, pious or corrupt. In such circumstances, societies were lucky to have a benevolent despot in power but were mostly ruled by absolute rulers; many were tyrants. One can argue that at that period in history it was but natural that some gifted individuals could make a huge difference in the lives of people. Since the Prophet (PBUH) and his pious successors were in their own time revolutionaries who tried to establish a more just society than what was present contemporaneously in the 7th century, their achievements have admirers not only among Muslims but also others. With the advances in education, information, law, constitutionalism, moral philosophy and political theory, there is no need for pinning hope on gifted individuals. Rather the need is to build institutions that ensure respect for the rights of citizens.

The modern conception of the state begins with Machiavelli — an authority that Dr Rahman probably is referring to with regard to morality. That view of the secular state has indeed visited great suffering on humanity during the period of nationalism, and the two World Wars and the Holocaust are examples of it. However, the state as an entity upholding the rule of law and itself accepting limits to its power and authority by law has a long pedigree. It origins are undoubtedly the British Isles. The rule of law meant recognition of the rights of individuals to certain inalienable freedoms. Those freedoms included the freedom to conscience and religion as well.

It is such a secular state that has evolved during the 20th century into a welfare state, and after World War II it has become truly universal, requiring equal treatment of men and women, protection of the rights of minorities to their culture and religion, and committed the state to promote the welfare of its citizens. I do not find such developments immoral in any sense of the word. On the contrary, the modern secular state prescribes a very advanced morality — that its citizens have the right to be liberated from want and hunger, illiteracy and disempowerment, which has been the lot of the mass of the people throughout history. Moreover, the modern secular-democratic state must ensure that all individuals as well as majorities and minorities enjoy the freedom of religion and conscience and the political right to choose their government. There are of course many other rights that are now part of the UN conventions and national constitutions. The whole idea is that the government cannot arbitrarily repeal the human and civil rights of citizens.

No doubt the secular-democratic state is no guarantee that its constitution and laws will never allow abuse of power — the unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by religious freaks like US President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair are some indication of the need to extend the rule of law beyond the state to international relations. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that the violation of international law that results in the deaths of innocent people is criminalised even more strongly. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been assigned the task of ensuring that leaders who are guilty of crimes against humanity and acts of genocide are tried and punished.

It represents a secular morality that is far superior to all the ‘might-is-right’ conquests that were normal when warrior nations such as the Romans and Arabs or later the Europeans could embark upon and subjugate other peoples. Secular political thought, tempered by the growing realisation that human beings have to be treated as equal and free without regard to race, nationality or religion, has created vastly different possibilities for human beings to live in peace and enjoy a life of dignity under the law. Therefore, the modern secular state is a moral state.

Focus on the Working Class

2010-03-06T23:38:00Z

President Zardari has outlined a future where our workers are not treated as servants but as partners.

President Zardari has taken the first steps towards empowering Pakistan’s working class. There is no doubt that Pakistani workers are the heart and soul of the nation and it is on the shoulders of this group of sadly overlooked people that the future rests.

But the tide is changing. President Zardari has outlined a future where our workers are not treated as servants but as partners. The government has made it clear that laws aimed at protecting and strengthening the Pakistani people are to be passed.

This past Friday, President Zardari was in Karachi where he signed two laws: one to repeal the Removal from Services Ordinance and a second to amend the Services Tribunal Act. The Removal from Services Ordinance was a bad law as it conferred arbitrary powers on the authorities in violation of the fundamental rights of workers, he said at the event.

He congratulated the prime minister, labor minister and parliament for changing the service laws. Calling himself trustee of the philosophy of Bhutto Shaheed, Zardari said time has arrived to return back rights to the people.

“We continue to be inspired and guided by the policy principles laid down in the manifesto by the Shaheed leaders,” he added. He vowed that the present government would not abandon the labor, peasants and the wage earners in their just struggle.

The President’s attitude is a welcome one, and Pakistan will greatly benefit should elected officials share similar declarations and actions.

Put Principles Before Politics

2010-03-05T18:58:00Z

Muhammad Ali Siddiqi's column in Dawn this week about Pakistan's 'New Left' must be considered by any pro-democracy individuals. Those of us who support a liberal, secular government for Pakistan in the tradition of the Quaid - and I suggest this is the majority of Pakistan - we need to work together to resist the very organized and orchestrated right wing and its potentially devastating agenda.

Take two recent examples of the right showing their true agenda. First, consider revelations about Rana Sanaullah's relationship with banned militant groups.

The recent admission by Rana Sanaullah about his association with the banned militant group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) illuminates that Pakistan is a country where a nexus between politicians and militants is still active. Since only a few political parties have picked up on this issue, it is worrying to assume that relationships between the government and militant outfits still exist. Furthermore, the core principle of any constitutional democratic set-up is that the representative of the government is an extension of the state; therefore by the minister associating with a banned militant group, the government’s policies regarding militants and terrorists have come into conflict. In understanding this, one has to realise that militants are non-state rogue actors and to combat them the resolve must start from within the government.

Next, consider the ongoing calls by Ahmed Quraishi for a return to military dictatorship, most recently even praying for a Pakistani Mao - the dictator of China who was responsible for the deaths of over a million of his countrymen.

Pakistan is a country where even democracy will fail without some iron-handed intervention to set things right. Sometimes reform can't be put to vote, as I argue in my column, A Smart Coup: Why One Last Military Intervention In Pakistan Remains A Possibility.

The right-wing, though the represent a very small part of Pakistani population, has a loud, booming voice. Sometimes their message booms with the sounds of bombs. They do not care about Pakistani people, Pakistani culture, Pakistani society. They have, it seems like, some sickness in their head that makes them only obsessed with violence. How can someone wish for a murderous military dictator like Mao to come to Pakistan and be taken seriously by educated, thinking people?

But even though these right-wing zealots represent a tiny fraction of Pakistani people, they are able to exploit the disagreements between liberal Pakistanis who fight each other over small issues. We can argue all day about whether Asif Iqbal or Wasim Akram was the better all rounder, but while we are fighting, Imran Khan is taking home the trophy!

Muhammad Ali Siddiqui's conclusion is 100% correct. We must not fight each other, but fight the real enemy:

Well-funded, armed to the teeth, and with collaborators embedded in the media and civil and military bureaucracy, religious militancy poses the greatest threat to the Pakistani people’s political and cultural freedoms. It is here that the New Left should play its long overdue role and resist any attempt to turn Jinnah’s Pakistan into a barbaric theocracy that the very name Ziaul Haq symbolises.

Different Rules For Different People?

2010-03-03T18:33:00Z

This blog has noted before that even the esteemed Chief Justice cannot pass a purity test. Obviously, this does not mean that he is not a man deserving of respect. But it does make pretty clear that certain people are being held to different standards than others. Take, for example, reports that the CoD is now being altered in order to protect the interests of the Chief Justice as well. For all the talk about treating all people the same under the laws, there still remains one man who appears to be above the law. How can this be?

Following the recent confusion over judicial appointments, there was the recommendation that the process of appointment of judges through a judicial commission that is laid out in the CoD be implemented. Only, there was one problem with this for some people: The CoD says very clearly that the judicial commission should be headed by a chief justice who had never taken oath under a PCO (Provisional Constitution Order). Sounds good, right? But wait, Chief Justice Iftikhar has taken oath under a PCO. If the CoD was implemented as written and agreed to, it would disqualify the CJ!

What is the solution, then? For the CJ to step aside and allow some truly independent person to head the commission? Of course not. This is Pakistan. Instead, opposition parties demanded to change the rules.

PML-N leader Iqbal Zafar Jhagra even said that he was chaning the CoD only to benefit CJ Iftikhar. He even said that they might not even stop there, but would enact other changes to the CoD to benefit their ends.

“It would have been unfair to send Justice Iftikhar home just for the sake of implementation of the CoD,” he said.

Hinting at more changes in the charter, Mr Jhagra said parliament was supreme and it could change the CoD.

It seems there are two sets of rules here. For some people, you are guilty even if no court in the world has ever convicted you. For other people, the rules will be changed to make sure that nothing stands in the way of your power.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop changing the rules for the benefit of one person. Implement the CoD as it was written and agreed to and do not make any changes to benefit any single person. CJ Iftikhar is not the only man in the country who can head the judicial commission, and we should not be changing the rules only to benefit him.

Let us free our women

2010-03-02T14:54:00Z

Think about this: half of a country’s population has no direct involvement in legislation, policy, development. That staggering situation is the reality faced by the women of Pakistan. Though there can be no denying Pakistan has come a long way in the struggle for gender equality, there is still much work to be done.

If the abilities of Pakistan’s women were properly utilized, the progress and quality of life of the entire nation would increase exponentially.

It is a backwards, ignorant and ugly mindset that would choose to continue the oppression of women by boxing them into roles. Doing this to our women stops Pakistan from going forward, and stops future generations from having educated, active and socially active mothers, sisters, and wives. We are holding our women back.

Imagine the shock one must feel at hearing a woman speak out against women’s rights!

It wasn’t too long ago that MP Samina Khawar Hayat, of the Punjab opposition, made the statement that women who find themselves single in their 30s should consider becoming the second wives of men who are already married. The irony cannot escape notice: while MP Hayat enjoys all the rights and freedoms of modern women, she demands that women recognize their need to be married and become secondary wives.

It would appear that there are whole political parties (and women in those parties!) who feel all women exist to be the wives of a man and to bear his children. It is a sad society that cannot see that there is untapped intellect in these individuals.

But there are more evolved and reasonable voices, too.

Sherry Rehman, senior leader of the PPP, cited a fatwa issued by Egypt’s Al Azhar, which said that the permission of the first wife was an absolute pre-requisite to a man’s wish to take a second wife. MP Hayat had argued it was not the case, that a man need not consult his first wife at all. Ms. Rehman appeared appalled at the silence from the Punjab government on this issue, and needless to say, so do we.

The fact is, women are key to progress. Pakistani women have come a long way and though they have much more to accomplish it sometimes seems the system is set up against them. Think about it, if there are female MPs decrying the idea of women being single, how can a single, intelligent, ambitious woman keep from being judged?

By holding our women back, we are essentially holding democracy back.

Positive Signs For Economy

2010-03-01T15:15:00Z

Positive signs for Pakistan's economy, even as the security situation continues to be a challenge. Last month, IMF reported that, some obstacles such as energy and security notwithstanding, Pakistan's economy looks like it is set to improve. More good news is reported today by Dawn about an economic area that has been worrisome in the past - foreign direct investment.

Pakistan aims to attract foreign investment worth five billion dollars this year, but needs to tackle reform, maximise anaemic growth and stem rampant violence to clinch its ambitious target.

Last fiscal year, Pakistan recorded its worst economic growth in more than a decade, at two per cent, and attracted only 3.7 billion dollars in investment.

Yet Board of Investment chairman Saleem Mandviwalla is optimistic despite Pakistan's immense challenges.

“Traditionally the investment pace that we had kept — which was an average of five billion dollars a year — I think we should be able to go back to it very soon depending on if the global situation improves,” he told AFP.

The primary obstacle to our economic improvement should be no surprise - it is defeating the jihadi militants that threaten safety and security, and ensuring that the world recognizes that our political forces respect the democratic process and are not going to make any coups. No companies or investors will want to put their money into Pakistan if they think it is too big a risk of insecurity.

Azmat Ranjha, the minister for trade in the Pakistani embassy in Washington, acknowledged that investment from the United States — the country's largest trading partner — had slipped because of the security concerns.

Getting security under control will be priority number one if we are going to meet this goal, but it is good to see that Board of Investment is making an aggressive move to improve the economy, even during the difficult times. There is no attitude of giving up or asking of handouts. Rather, there is an attitude that only through intelligent marketing of Pakistan as a good investment for foreign countries will we see continued improvements. Already this is paying off.

“We have to market Pakistan, we have to overcome the local issues,” Mandviwalla said, highlighting opportunities in energy generation, agriculture and infrastructure.

The top three countries providing foreign direct investment (FDI) so far this fiscal year are the United States, with 347.5 million dollars, Britain, 119 million dollars and the United Arab Emirates, 121.8 million dollars, according to the Board of Investment.

The biggest investments flowed into oil and gas, communications and information technology, and power generation, its documents said.

The investment board touts success stories such as investment from mobile phone operators Orascom (Egypt) and Telenor (Norway), Japan's Toyota, Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank and consumer product giant Procter & Gamble.

The board recently signed a memorandum of understanding with General Electric to identify energy, power, transport and water projects.

These are positive signs, and give hope for economic improvements over the year.

Right Wing Wolves in Sheeps Clothing

2010-02-27T17:07:00Z

Nadeem Paracha leaves aside his usual wit and satire today, but his column in Dawn is still a must-read for anyone that believes in Pakistani democracy. Paracha's point, in short, is that the new right wing in Pakistani politics is much more sophisticated than the military dictatorships of the past. As part of this sophistication, the right wing parties are less likely to show their full beliefs, instead hiding their intentions behind ambiguous approaches to democracy, religion, and other areas where their controversial positions might alienate the masses.

The one area in which I might disagree somewhat with Nadeem is when he says, "much of the New Right in the country is rather ambiguous about its views on democracy." While this is true for the more mainstream elements such as PML-N, there are other quite popular right wing voices such as Ahmed Quraishi who continue to openly call for an end to democracy in Pakistan through a military coup.

But Nadeem's larger point is quite correct: The 'New Right', as he labels it, has become much more slick and clever in its marketing its backwards ideology. TV characters like Zaid Hamid and Ahmed Quraishi might be peddling the same neo-Maududi’ist that have been rejected since the birth of the nation. But now they do so with expensive western clothing and fancy hair-dos. It's a classic 'wolf in sheeps clothing' approach to misleading people.

Boiling within the mix of the New Right politics and sociology in Pakistan are also characters operating as televangelists, ‘security analysts’ and TV journalists. In appearance and content they are consciously avoiding the persona of the greying guard of the old right, and attempting instead to sound and look a lot more contemporary.

Behind all their manufactured 'cool' though is the same attitude that has been responsible for all of Pakistan's ills over the decades. They may be on Facebook, but they are anything but modern. Most disturbing, though, is that even the mainstream right wing groups are providing political validation for the blatantly anti-democratic and backwards ideas promoted by smaller fringe groups - in an extreme example, Taliban.

Whereas the top tier of the Pakistani New Right (PML-N and certain senior TV anchors) are merging lofty political notions such as constitutionalism and accountability with vigilante-type ‘judicial activism,’ the second tier, mainly made up of small rightist political parties and a new breed of TV preachers and personalities, are (for want of a better word) glamorising retro-Maududi’ist and Tableeghi notions of ‘Islamic society’ by encouraging a neo-conservative reading and practice of religious texts, history and ritualism.

More dangerously though, undaunted by the obvious failure of political Islam in the Muslim world, the country’s New Right is trying to rekindle it and that too at a time when various Islamic reformist movements the world over are consciously trying to detach Islam from the political moorings it was convolutedly given in the 20th century by men like Maududi and Syed Qutb. Moorings that may have played a major role in plunging many Muslim countries in the state of cultural stagnation and political turmoil they are in today.

Let us hope that Nadeem's words do not go unheeded. We are at a moment in our history where we find ourselves at a crossroads. Backwards ideologies and anti-democratic politics dressed in fancy clothes is still backwards, and it is still anti-democratic. We have been down that path before, and sacrificed too much to get back to a place where we could rebuild our democratic, modern government. We can't let them steal this opportunity now.

Who is watching the watchers?

2010-02-24T14:43:00Z

Now that the judiciary 'crisis' has settled down and the TV progamme directors are scrambling to invent find the next 'crisis' to increase their advertising sales, one question remains: If the judiciary is watching the government, who is watching the watchers?

Munir Attaullah asks some questions that have not been talked about in his column in today's Daily Times. These thoughts bear close consideration if any good is to come out of this latest episode of political drama.

We are all well aware of the story - at least as it has been presented in the popular media - so I will spare you a retelling. But let's look at Munir's take on the new power that the judiciary has seized for itself:

I am no spokesperson for the government, nor am I privy to its thinking. But I have a lot of sympathy for the view of Prime Minister Gilani, expressed publicly but always obliquely, of the need for institutions not to encroach upon the traditional territory of others. Discreet as the prime minister may be, no one should doubt where the finger is pointed. The problem is as follows: an independent SC is now an effective check on executive excess and its attempted constitutional transgressions. But what are the checks on possible constitutional transgressions by the SC?

Effectively, none. For, the SC is the final arbiter on the constitution. So its pronouncements and actions — by definition — can never be, no matter what, legally violative of the constitution.

If the Supreme Court can truly never be legally violative of the constitution, does the constitution even apply to it? Is the Supreme Court now, essentially, above the law? What are the responsiblities of such a body? Munir says,

Such unbridled power brings with it the awesome responsibility to always act sagaciously if the institution is to retain the respect and confidence of the whole nation. At all costs the SC must avoid becoming controversial, or even appearing to be so. It is not for nothing that a policy of judicial self-restraint is universally viewed as the key ingredient for the maintaining of such public confidence.

There is an honourable place for suo motu cognisance, and for the questioning — even the directing — of high functionaries of state, by the courts. But where, in doing so you are, on the face of it, stepping into what is normally the territory of others, the guiding principle should be ‘if in the slightest doubt, do not’.

But these are famous last words, I'm afraid. Sir John Dalberg-Acton famously wrote in 1887 that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Should we not be worried about giving the SC unbridled and unchecked power? How can anything good possibly come from this?

As I said, if the superior judiciary chooses to take upon itself to decide what the price of sugar or petroleum products should be, or whether bureaucratic appointments, promotions, or transfers by the prime minister are in order, or gives direct orders to officials rather than act through their political masters, or insist some officials be sacked, it is impossible by definition for anyone to say it is acting unconstitutionally. But a political government is not that foolish not to know what is really happening in such cases: under the guise of the popular slogan of ‘providing justice to the people’, it is high politics in the wider sense.

And so it is that the government, knowing it cannot fight its battle on the turf of legality, will be forced to fight it on the battlefield of politics. In particular, a policy of incrementally making the SC politicised and controversial is very much an option (and is not the SC by its actions unwittingly aiding in this endeavour?).

Now that the SC has put itself into the political fray, Mr. Munir sees a new fight on the horizon as the government tries to rein in the judiciary's power and impose some limits on their ability to act above the law. The question, then, is whether or not we can avoid some new political drama by putting some controls on the Supreme Court's power before it gets to that point. Now, I am not so bold as to present the answer here myself. Actually, this is something that we need to work out as a country.

So, what do you think?

Judicial Coup in Pakistan

2010-02-22T18:07:00Z

For all the talk about the proper role of an independent judiciary and accusations flying that the President was meddling in judicial affairs, is this really the case? Two prominent American lawyers say no, that actually the case is that the judiciary has acted improperly. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, Washington, D.C.-based attorneys who served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal that it was Chief Justice Chaudhry who acted outside the boundaries of his office.

According to these two legal experts, the Chief Justice has been acting against the proper role of an independent judiciary and outside the boundaries of his office as part of a transparent political campaign.

Any involvement in politics by a sitting judge, not to mention a chief justice, is utterly inconsistent with an independent judiciary's proper role. What is even worse, Chief Justice Chaudhry has been using the court to advance his anti-Zardari campaign.

The most recent improper act by the judiciary was, of course their opporsition to the President's appointments. Whatever one thinks of Zardari or the appointments that he notified, there is no question that, as President, he acted constitutionally. While there have been some prominent lawyers that made some legal case against this, their reasoning was so tortured as to be embarrassing for them. The American lawyers Rivkin and Casey, not invested in Pakistan's politics, can see right through these claims.

It is well-known in Islamabad that Mr. Zardari's real sin was political, as he dared to appoint people unacceptable to the chief justice. Since consultation is not approval, Mr. Chaudhry's position appears to be legally untenable. Yet Mr. Zardari, faced with demonstrations and media attacks, let Mr. Chaudhry choose a Supreme Court justice.

Many people say that the government is acting in a way that no other executive in a democracy would behave. But this is not true. Consider the observations of the American legal experts.

When U.S. President Barack Obama sharply challenged a recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, prompting a soto voce rejoinder from Justice Samuel Alito, nobody was concerned that the contretemps would spark a blood feud between the judiciary and the executive. The notion that judges could or would work to undermine a sitting U.S. president is fundamentally alien to America's constitutional system and political culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the country's erstwhile hero, is the leading culprit in an unfolding constitutional drama. It was Mr. Chaudhry's dismissal by then-President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 that triggered street protests by lawyers and judges under the twin banners of democracy and judicial independence. This effort eventually led to Mr. Musharraf's resignation in 2008. Yet it is now Mr. Chaudhry himself who is violating those principles, having evidently embarked on a campaign to undermine and perhaps even oust President Asif Ali Zardari.

This political campaign by the judiciary has serious consequences, and allowing the anti-democratic forces that are encouraging the judiciary in its political campaign would do more than unseat the President. The actual result would be to dismantle democracy in Pakistan for the foreseeable future.

There is no doubt that the chief justice is more popular these days than the president, who has been weakened by the split in the political coalition which brought down Mr. Musharraf. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is now a leading opponent of the regime. There is a strong sense among the Pakistani elites that Justice Chaudhry has become Mr. Sharif's key ally.

The fact that Mr. Chaudhry was a victim of an improper effort by former President Musharraf to replace him with a more pliant judge makes his current posture all the more deplorable. His conduct has led some of his erstwhile allies to criticize him and speak of the danger to democracy posted by judicial meddling in politics. The stakes are stark indeed. If Mr. Chaudhry succeeds in ousting Mr. Zardari, Pakistan's fledgling democracy would be undermined and the judiciary's own legitimacy would be irrevocably damaged. Rule by unaccountable judges is no better than rule by the generals.

This is not a path forward for Pakistan, or a defense of democracy or an independent judiciary. This is only a path backward. And that is not a path we need to take.

Polarisation Greatest Threat to Democracy

2010-02-21T14:10:00Z

We have been writing on this blog for some time that the greatest threat to democracy is the political polarisation and gamesmanship being played by political parties and interests across the spectrum. We, as a nation, have seen how small disagreements between government officials and branches are blown out of proportion by political actors and media types, and each and every week there is declared a new threat to the country. The next week, after the artificial hysteria dies down, we see that there was never any threat, but only the regular discussions, disagreements, and compromises that make a democratic system work.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a respected political and defense analyst, sees the same problem - political posturing on every small issue being used as a piece in a political chess game. But democracy is not a game of chess, and one wrong move can upset not just a chess board, but the entire democracy. And if this happens, all the pieces will fall - including those banging their fists on the board.

The differences between the Supreme Court and the federal government on judicial appointments have been resolved by the conciliatory moves of the prime minister. The federal government stepped back from the tough position adopted by the presidency when it made two judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the Lahore High Court on February 13 in disregard of the recommendation of the chief justice. The Supreme Court suspended these appointments by a court order.

The prime minister’s decision to attend the chief justice’s dinner on February 16 and their meeting the next day resolved the issue of appointments of the judges to the satisfaction of the chief justice. This averted a major clash between the Supreme Court and the federal government, especially the presidency.

The executive-judiciary conflict showed that different political interests, political parties and lawyers approached the issue from a purely partisan perspective. There was a clear polarisation among the lawyers who were unable to present a shared position on this issue. The polarisation in the political class and the lawyers was on the lines of being pro- and anti-PPP. The latter projected themselves as pro-judiciary and claimed to protect its independence. However, their anger was targeted at the PPP, especially President Zardari. Most of them viewed this as an opportunity to dislodge Zardari from the presidency and remove the PPP government. They hoped that the Supreme Court would give a ruling against Zardari, paving the way for his removal. The pro-PPP political circles criticised the chief justice and supported the appointments made by Zardari.

However, a number of leaders of the lawyers’ movement (2007-2009) and others sounded a note of caution on pro- and anti-PPP emotional outbursts and warned of the dangerous consequences of confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. They advised both sides and the political activists to show restraint and settle the matter strictly in accordance with the constitution and law.

The MQM and the ANP adopted non-partisan dispositions, advising the federal government to deal with the issue with caution so that democracy is not undermined. The PML-N launched a major political onslaught on the PPP and especially against Asif Zardari. Nawaz Sharif was extremely hard hitting in his press conference, declaring Zardari as a “threat” to democracy, reviving the memories of the earlier phase of democracy (1988-1999) when the PML and the PPP accused each other of being a security threat.

This was not the first policy fiasco for the federal government. It should critically examine its decision-making system, especially the capacity of its main advisors to deal with difficult and contentious issues. It needs to adopt a mature, stable and least controversial approach and take into account all possible outcomes of its decisions rather than making policies on the basis of skewed and defective advice that causes embarrassment subsequently.

The legal advisors to the presidency should have known that the Supreme Court had the power to suspend the president’s notification. Any person with some understanding of the judiciary’s efforts to expand its domain of authority would have known that the Supreme Court would exercise this power.

Pakistan witnessed dangerously sharp polarisation in the political class, including the lawyers. This may help the politically active people to pursue their individual partisan agendas but it divides and weakens the political forces. This encourages the judiciary and the military to assert their role against the political and democratic institutions because both know that the political forces are so divided that they cannot take a unified position; rather the judiciary or the military can find support among the political circles for their policy of building pressure on the civilian government.

The high degree of polarisation in the political forces weakens the efforts to sustain democracy. The political forces need to recognise that in their bid to undercut each other, they adversely affect their overall prospects. Weak and divided political forces cannot strengthen democracy. Nawaz Sharif’s statements in the press conferences in Islamabad and in Ghotki amounted to a declaration of war on Zardari and the PPP federal government. These statements created the impression that Nawaz Sharif and his senior colleagues in the PML-N were convinced that the judiciary would knock out the federal government or, at least, Zardari. This has not happened and the PML-N will have to deal with the PPP leadership. Even if Zardari or the federal government is knocked out, what is the guarantee that power will be passed on to the PML-N?

The executive-judiciary crisis has another dimension with implications for the future of democracy in Pakistan. This can also be viewed as an attempt by a non-elected state institution, i.e. the judiciary, to restrict the role of the elected state institutions, the executive and parliament, in its affairs.

The military was the first non-elected state institution to neutralise the edge of elected federal governments and parliament. The military resents any active role of the civilian government in its internal organisational and service affairs and disbursement of funds. Parliament has no control over what the military earns through its huge business and commercial activities. The military top brass make the decisive input to major areas of security and foreign policy and often feel unhappy when various parliamentary committees, especially the Public Accounts Committee, become inquisitive about the military’s financial affairs.

Now, the superior judiciary has made it clear that the elected executive and parliament has got nothing to do with the appointment of judges. For all practical purposes, the appointment of judges to superior courts has become the prerogative of the chief justice. The superior judiciary, like the military, has its own accountability process where the elected institutions do not have any role.

The key appointments to the superior judiciary cannot be left to one person, be it the chief justice or the president. Perhaps there is no democratic country where the top judicial appointments are controlled by the chief justice and the executive is to issue the appointment order for whosoever has been approved by the chief justice.

There is a need to bring a constitutional amendment to reverse this trend of negation of elected institutions by non-elected institutions and the appointment of the judges of the superior courts should be through a broad-based consultative process with no one exercising veto power. The elected president/executive cannot be reduced to a mere signing machine. There are two options available for consideration. Either adopt the method of appointment of judges suggested in the Charter of Democracy (CoD) with some modifications or the American system that gives a relatively free hand to the president in nominating the judges of the Supreme Court. However, these nominations become effective only after confirmation by the upper house of the Congress after a thorough scrutiny and public hearing by the relevant Senate committee.

In a democratic system, the primacy of the elected institutions and leaders should be respected. Non-elected institutions can enjoy autonomy as given in the constitution but these institutions should not stretch their autonomy to become ‘independent’ of the elected institutions. Any attempt by a state institution to overwhelm the other under any pretext can cause a collapse of the democratic process.

A New Dawn

2010-02-19T14:45:00Z

by Agha Haider Raza

Over the past few days – out-of-public viewing – Pakistan has witnessed a welcoming shift in policy. With the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and Mullah Abdul Salam, the trust deficit between the United States and Pakistan or rather the ISI and CIA is slowly diminishing. With a joint effort by these two premier intelligence agencies, a significant blow has been dealt to the top brass of the Taliban. The capture of these Mullahs seems to have brought upon a new dawn upon the horizon.

by Agha Haider Raza

The arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Karachi was critical in reducing the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan. The capture of Baradar, notoriously known as the “defense minister of the Taliban cabinet”, has also exposed the vulnerability of Karachi. A dynamic city, Karachi has recently been plagued with target killings and suicide bombings along with sectarian violence running wild. There have been numerous reports of the Taliban finding sanctuary in this vibrant city, but Baradar’s capture will surely have the Taliban re-evaluating their presence in Karachi.

The love affair between the Pakistan Army and the Taliban is no secret. Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime proudly Islamicized Pakistan, which allowed a jihadist ideology to breed amongst the masses. In order for the greater ‘strategic depth policy’ the establishment blindly supported the mujahedeen, where upon the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan created a vacuum and allowed the Taliban to grab power. Due to the events of 9/11, the Army ended up in a messy divorce from the Taliban; as Pakistan was threatened by the US to denounce all association with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

However, it was not until many years after the United States had entered Afghanistan, did the Pakistan Army understand the true nature and brutality of those who supported and harbored al-Qaeda. Fearing the United States would quit Afghanistan the second her goals were accomplished, and the much needed militia for fighting in Indian Kashmir, Pakistan was wary. Along with feeling a lack in pride and a breach of ego due to the usage of US drone strikes, ties between Pakistan and the US were skeptical.

Events over the past week have painted a different scenario, in terms of governance and policy. The federal government has consistently decried the drone attacks. While publicly lambasting the strikes, it is widely believed the Army and Cabinet have approved the usage of drones in the militant-infested regions. The government (the Army has wisely kept away from discussing drone strikes) is not able to acknowledge their consent to the drone attacks due to the anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, but also because this would be a public admission of the ineffectiveness of the writ of the state.

The most recent installment of the judicial crisis has been smartly resolved by the Prime Minister’s intervention. His decisiveness in gate-crashing the Chief Justice’s farewell dinner for Justice Ramday averted the looming clash between the President and the Chief Justice from which there would have been no winners. The President’s legal advisors clearly led him towards a cliff from which he has had to retreat, but such personal and high-profile clashes between with the President also damage the standing of the judiciary. The Prime Minister’s continued ability to peacefully mediate such disputes will be crucial to this government’s chances of serving its full term.

The change in attitude of the Pakistan Army is definitely a pleasant surprise. Globally respected, General Kayani seems to have been playing a central role in this respect. Whether he is flying to Brussels meeting the top command of NATO or accommodating American Generals in his office at General Headquarters (GHQ), Kayani seems to now understand the threat and deadly influence of the Taliban. The capture of Mullah Baradar will build no doubt favor with the US, but more importantly it shows how our domestic insecurity is linked to the global dangers posed by Al Qaeda.

With the death of Hakimullah Masud by a drone strike and now Mullah Baradar’s capture, the Pakistan Army may as well be on a path of redemption. It may have taken the establishment decades to realize the toxic effect of sleeping with the Taliban, but the capturing of Baradar in a joint operation with the United States, is proving to be a blessing in disguise for the Pakistan Army. Although the establishment has a long ways to go in eradicating militants from within Pakistan’s border, we may be seeing a new dawn.

The political and military forces are forging a new alliance which is healthy for the development and revitalization of Pakistan. It is time for the PML-N league to stop waiting for the removal of a third-term Prime Minister ban and play the role of a vibrant and healthy opposition. As the leading party of the opposition, it is crucial that the N-league provides positive criticism in order to hold the government accountable. Gone are the days when we play personal politics and make decisions based on ego. The retraction of the executive order should be a wakeup call for Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain that ego has no role in politics anymore for if no one else, the Pakistani public is ready to hold all players accountable.

A movement for peace with India has been initiated as the foreign ministers are set to meet on February the 25^th. The judicial crisis seems to have been subdued, with a smart decision made by the Prime Minister in reaching out to the Chief Justice, while the Army looks to have finally woken up and is realizing the urgency in eradicating militants from Pakistan who are hell-bent on killing innocents and creating mayhem; all in the name of Islam. We are finally looking at a new dawn.

Don't Take Bush Policy Towards Dialogue

2010-02-16T15:06:00Z

The Nation has called on Pakistan's Foreign Secretary to reject the India-Pakistan talks scheduled for 25 February in New Delhi. Even though they usually like to put on a very anti-American costume, the truth is that The Nation promotes many of the same policies that the former American President Geroge Bush followed. Rejecting dialogue with nations that one does not trust - or even sees as an enemy - is the policy of George Bush. It did not work for America, and it will not work for Pakistan.

India and Pakistan will resume talks on 25 February, despite the recent Pune bombing and calls by some right wing elements to refuse to meet with India. This is good. Pakistan and India must continue to dialogue and work towards building trust and peace between the two powers. The alternative is to follow the George Bush policy of rejecting dialogue. Do we really want to go down this path again?

Obviously, the Hindu nationalist parties are calling for the talks to be closed also. This is the same wrong-thinking that is behind right-wing elements in our own country calling for the talks to be rejected. But we must not put the fate of our country in the hands of extremists.

The blast also comes just a day after India and Pakistan agreed to hold peace talks on February 25. While Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has condemned the atrocity, the Hindu nationalist opposition in India may have jumped the gun by calling for the cancellation of the proposed negotiations with Islamabad. That is what the extremists want; tensions between the two rivals work in their favour. In the interest of peace, it is crucial that the negotiations go ahead as scheduled.

It is funny how there is actually more in common between George Bush, The Nation, and Bharatiya Janata Party than there is difference. None of them wants to talk to anyone, and none of them can provide any solutions or ways forward for peace. Following their advice only leads to war and devastation. Let's take a different path this time, please.

Don't Sacrifice the Country for Ego

2010-02-15T15:17:00Z

The headlines are alarming. To outsiders, it must look like the country is on the brink of collapse. And why? Because the CJ does not like the President's judicial appointments. With the nation suffering daily attack from jihadi militants, the price of essentials rising due to inflation, the continued struggle to stabilize our fragile democratic system which is also under daily attack from would-be dictators and their peons -- why is there even an argument about whether one good judge or another should be appointed? Is it worth sacrificing the country for the CJ to satisfy his ego? Enough.

Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain sees this problem clearly, and describes the danger of putting ego before country in his column in today's Daily Times.

Does it really matter to an ordinary Pakistani who becomes the next judge of any of our superior courts? What difference is it really going to make in the life of the common man as to which judge is elevated from which court to which court? As is my wont, while stuck in traffic at one of the ‘anti-terrorist’ road blocks, I put the big question about the latest confrontation between the two major branches of government to my driver. Frankly, he had not the foggiest idea what I was talking about.

Here I must admit that even though I am reasonably well informed myself, even I have no idea what this brouhaha is all about. Are all members of the lower courts not honourable and decent judges that are well qualified to be elevated to the apex court? If indeed they are, then why these conniptions and if they are not then why do they continue to serve in the superior courts in their present positions?

Obviously, this controversy about judicial appointments is not a matter that concerns real, every day Pakistanis who are concerned more about working and feeding their families, keeping themselves safe from radical militant bombers and petty street criminals, and wondering whether or not the power will go out again at an inconvenient time.

But there is more to the story here, because while this petty game of ego takes up all the conversations in drawing rooms, it does present an actual danger to the stability of the government. And there we must ask ourselves, do we have a democratic government? Or do we have a dictatorship of the Chief Justice?

I am and have always been a supporter of a strong and independent judiciary. And as such hope that this latest confrontation is resolved before ‘bad things’ start happening. As it is, important matters are before the superior courts that need urgent resolution. I understand that the right to appoint judges is a serious matter and in the past usurpers of the presidency have used this power to bend the legal system to justify their unconstitutional actions. But are we not sort of over that period?

The republic it seems is no longer being run by some general who has appointed himself president. We have an elected parliament and head of government, a vibrant — though at times seemingly fractious — democratic system in place and a president who has been elected as prescribed by the Constitution. So what is all this angst about? Are members of our honourable courts overreacting to their own past subservience to the presidency, or is it all the fault of the president who is trying to prove that he is indeed still a powerful president?

There is still time, though, for the CJ to change course and act to put the good of the country before his own ego. Actually, he can have both. Consider if the CJ relents and announces that he is putting the good of the country before his own wishes. Will that not then make him something of a national hero? So let him be satisfied that he is saving democracy and also getting the attention he needs. After all, while there is a clear danger to this game of 'chicken,' what can possibly be the danger of allowing the President's appointments? It will not threaten the court, it will not threaten democracy. In fact, if the CJ had not said anything, nobody would even notice.

Here I wish to make a rather obvious point. Pakistan has a ‘young’ and inexperienced democratic system in place that is still trying to find its ‘sea legs’. The fact that it is young and inexperienced is partially the responsibility of our superior judiciary that in the past sided consistently with undemocratic forces.

It would then seem to an inexperienced neophyte like me that the Supreme Court of Pakistan at this point in time would be more inclined to shelter and protect the ‘tender shoots’ of democracy rather than undermine a democratically elected government, however inefficient and immature it might seem to be. For if this government is made to seem totally ineffectual then it will also make it completely incapable of governing the country.

Please, Chief Justice, we pray that you put the good of the country first. Your nation needs it.

Middle Class Politics and Corruption

2010-02-13T14:19:00Z

by Salman Tarik Kureshi

The shocked cries of “corruption!” emanating from drawing rooms and TV sets are directed towards the president and his political party. But they include all the personages we call ‘politicians’, i.e. those who seek power by way of the ballot box. Now, while no one condones the corruption of ‘politicians’ so defined, a clearer perspective would show that blatant sleaze by elected office-holders is no worse or more widespread than the subtler, institutional corruption that all Pakistani citizens experience in their interactions with state functionaries at all levels. The tax man, the police inspector, the magistrate or civil judge, not to mention the Patwari, the canal engineer, power project engineers, civic authorities or federal secretariat officials, provincial secretariats, military procurement personnel, all are notorious for requiring ‘lubrication’ to keep the wheels moving.

Thus the present squabble is between an elected but corrupt power structure and another corrupt but unelected power structure. The question is whether only the present parliament, or the very institution of elected parliaments, is at risk. To understand this, we need to look deeper. We need to analyse the social infrastructure in which democracy can be promoted and supported.

In my last offering in these pages, I referred to Dr Hamza Alavi’s thesis that, in the newly created Pakistan, a civil-military oligarchy — the ‘Salariat’ that actually runs things in the army, the districts and the secretariats — assumed an autonomous role, independent of the interests of the nation-forming social classes. This happened because, among Indian Muslims in general and within the regions that became Pakistan in particular, social structures were quasi-feudal with tribal holdovers and such bourgeoisie as existed was numerically small and financially and politically weak.

Let us then see what could have been the role of this bourgeoisie with which Pakistan was not blessed. Karl Marx, no friend of the capitalist order, nevertheless writes:

“The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part...Wherever it has got the upper hand, (it) has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations...It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals.

“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all nations into civilisation.”

And it is this vital, transformational class that, in Hamza Alavi’s thesis, lacked the numbers, institutional strength or consciousness to transform Pakistan into a dynamic, democratic nation. How and why this happened is beyond the purview of a brief article like this. But we can at least quickly analyse the elements within the Pakistani bourgeoisie.

Such big bourgeoisie as exists (textile millers and other industrialists) is relatively small time compared to its counterparts beyond our borders. A timid class, it was primarily formed during the Ayubian ‘golden era’ within the crucible of bureaucratic patronage, with the help of permits, SROs and artificial exchange rates. It was always kept within bounds by the military-bureaucratic oligarchy. Far from playing the role of a transformative national bourgeoisie, building powerful industrial and financial empires, its investments have generally remained restricted in size and scale. It did not invest in substantial infrastructure projects. More, we have seen how the profits made by our industrial barons siphoned out of the economy for investment into real estate in Manhattan, Mayfair and Dubai or tossed onto Stock Exchanges in New York, London, Singapore, even Mumbai.

Now, our captains of industry can justifiably blame inconsistent government policies, bureaucratic corruption, Bhutto’s nationalisations, political instability, bad law and order, infrastructural limitations, the power crisis and so on. But the fact of a powerless and politically inert big bourgeoisie remains the bottom line.

The middle and lower bourgeoisie divide into three separate groupings. The professional middle classes — civil and military bureaucrats, doctors, lawyers, business professionals, judges, journalists and so on — are of course uniquely powerful. These are the organic descendants of the ‘Salariat’ and it is they who comprise the civil-military oligarchy, or articulate their interests through that oligarchy. This is the social stratum that houses the Leviathan commonly referred to as the ‘establishment’, whose backbone is the civilian bureaucracy and whose forceful arm is the military. These oligarchs, lacking in political literacy, embrace Alexander Pope’s dictum:

“For forms of government, let fools contest.

Whatever’s best administered is best.”

However, they can have political opinions. In general, these are conservative, ranging rightward from elitist pseudo-liberalism (‘enlightened moderation’) to rock-solid Islamism. When elections are held, they seldom vote, believing that “corrupt, damned politicians” are incapable of running things. When coups d’état occur, they feed ‘laddoos’ to one another.

Of immediate note is the din that the various elements in this oligarchy are presently kicking up regarding the venality and corruption of the ‘politicians’, the din usually preceding another constitutional deviation.

A minority among this social stratum (among which this author must locate himself), believes itself to be anti-establishment, indulges in the luxury of intellectual debate, joins civil society organisations, certain NGOs and progressive political groupings. Quarantined under the label of ‘westernised liberals’, the members of this marginal minority are amusedly tolerated by the others.

But that is not all there is to the middle and lower bourgeoisie. Alongside the well-heeled gentlemen and ladies of the professional classes are the less fashion-conscious middle and lower business classes. These are traders and small industrialists, workshop owners and shopkeepers, cotton ginners, rice huskers, agricultural merchants and middlemen — all those who are in fact keeping the wheels of business moving — and those members of the educated petit bourgeoisie linked with them. This is a vital class, from among whom a real national bourgeoisie could emerge — if a Pakistani equivalent of Nehru and Patel’s Indian National Congress could have been wished into existence.

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the fledgling PPP in what was then West Pakistan and the Awami League in what is now Bangladesh, couching their campaigns in populist-socialist terms, were able to excite the anti-elite instincts of this incipient national bourgeoisie and mobilise them politically. But that, to take liberties with the Bard of Avon, was when we were another country and anyhow those persons are dead.

Today, the business bourgeoisie of Pakistan is politically fragmented. At one extreme, misled by pseudo-Islamic slogans, many of its members actively support jihadist enterprises. Also on the right, this is where the supporters of the religio-political parties, the 10 percent that always show up at election time, are to be found. The MQM and the ANP, in their respective provincial strongholds, draw their support from these, as do the various avowedly ethnic sub-national parties who articulate regional grievances. Mian Nawaz Sharif and his faction of the Muslim League have actively cultivated the middle and small bourgeoisie; but their political support remains mostly confined to Punjab.

The PPP, as the only political party with a significant measure of support in all regions of the country, appears to have lost its ideological moorings. Increasingly, it is perceived as a vehicle for merely an alternative elitism. In the absence of any attempt to assemble and mobilise a meaningful mass base, both the PPP and democracy in Pakistan could well be in serious peril.

From Maududi to Aafia

2010-02-12T14:02:00Z

By Nadeem Paracha

She’s being called the “daughter of the nation” who needs to be rescued from the fanged jaws of the Americans. Her name is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Pakistani TV channels and drawing-rooms are buzzing with talk of this gallant woman who was recently found guilty by an American court for attempting murder, and on whose defence the government of Pakistan has already spent a whopping two million dollars.

By Nadeem Paracha

On February 5, when Karachi became the horrid scene of two bomb attacks that killed dozens of men, women and children, leaders of various mainstream religious parties (especially the Jamaat-i-Islami) were marching up and down the roads and streets of Lahore condemning the American court’s verdict, insisting that Aafia was innocent, and demanding she be released and returned to Pakistan immediately. Not surprisingly, the Taliban followed suit.

A few days earlier, when TV channels were airing the shameful scenes of groups of lawyers outside the Lahore High Court cursing and abusing media men and the relatives of 12-year-old Shazia, who is said to have died at the hands of a senior lawyer and his family, these religious parties were behaving as if the young maid’s torturous death meant absolutely nothing compared to Aafia’s plight in the US.

Not a single rally or a word of condemnation in this respect slipped out from any of the many defenders of Aafia’s cause. Clearly, her champions are not bothered by the plight of those women who face humiliation and rape every day and then linger in a depressing wilderness and a psychological void. How come these women too are not the daughters of this immaculate bastion of faith called Pakistan?

What’s more, never have these highly vocal keepers of Aafia’s sanctity even superficially censured the aggravating antics of monsters like the Taliban and Al Qaeda at whose murderous hands thousands of innocent Pakistanis have lost their lives. None of the many women, children, and men who were mercilessly slaughtered by these monsters, it seems, were noble, good, or innocent enough to also be celebrated as the brothers, sisters, and children of this nation by the Aafia brigade.

In an excellent piece written by Anas Abbas on the issue, the writer rightly questions the validity of the vocal frenzy exhibited by the religious parties and their skewed mouthpieces in the popular mainstream media about the ‘insults’ that Aafia has supposed to have faced in custody.

Abbas is on the ball when, after pondering the Aafia fan club’s protests, he asks, “why did we not see this in the case of two other missing Pakistani women?” In other words, why such a hue and cry for a convicted felon and not a peep about women like Zarina Marri, who also went missing? Accused of harbouring Baloch nationalists, Marri was abducted by the Pakistan Army from Balochistan in 2005 and is believed to have been kept in an army torture cell in Karachi.

For that matter, why hasn’t the Aafia brigade previously taken up the case of Dr Shazia Khalid, a medical doctor and an employee of Pakistan Petroleum Limited, who was beaten and raped by Captain Hammad at Sui Hospital in 2005. She was then drugged and moved to a psychiatric hospital in Karachi. Later, she was put under house arrest and prevented from contacting lawyers, doctors and human rights officials. After her release, she managed to leave Pakistan after facing death threats.

For every single Aafia, there is a Zarina, Shazia and, of course, a Mukhtaran Mai – victims of either violent feudal traditions, untouchable establishmentarian arrogance, and the maddening forms of social hypocrisy that have been eating up the moral fabric of Pakistani society for decades now.

In the context of the unprecedented and highly subjective media attention that Aafia is getting in Pakistan, Abbas is absolutely right in asking: “Why was Shazia Khalid’s and Zarina Marri’s families never interviewed by Pakistani TV channels? Why was Shazia Khalid’s interview to the BBC never aired by the so called “free” Pakistani electronic media? Why have we not seen mass scale demonstrations in Pakistan for the justice for these two women? Why are pictures of Shazia Khalid not the highlight of every newspaper, TV channel and Pakistani activists’ blogs as pictures of Aafia are?”

The truth is, politico-religious parties and conservative flash-in-the-pans that have sprung up within the country’s electronic media and political spectrum, stand ideologically bankrupt, operating in a vicious vacuum created by the constant failure of Political Islam and ‘militant jihad’ to impose their own versions of ‘Islamic rule’ and revolution in the Muslim world.

Cleverly ignoring the brutality of an experiment gone wrong (i.e. state-sanctioned jihad and a lopsided, undemocratic mixing of religion and politics), these parties and individuals now concentrate on utilising all kinds of modern electronic and communication media.

Mainly using the internet, they bypass conventional political routes (where they have failed), and instead operate like large cyber fringe groups. But they have enough demagogic appeal to attract the commercial and ratings-hungry attention of the mainstream populist media (especially television).

They are likely to fare badly in an open (and real) democratic and political playing field, so keeping in mind the above-mentioned scenario, their constituencies cannot be found in the physical electoral geography of Pakistan. Instead, their constituencies lie in the nation’s drawing-rooms and cyber cafes.

Thus, unlike in the past when their agenda aimed to pressurise the state and schools of the country to impose their version of Islamic law and doctrine, today, these parties and individuals are reaching out to a cyber-savvy and TV-viewing audience through websites crackling with the most conspiratorial assumptions about Pakistan, Islam and their relation to the rest of the world.

The idea behind this (both directly and otherwise) is not all that new. It smacks of Abul ala Maududi and Syed Qutb’s insistence many years ago on the need to socially prepare and indoctrinate the society so it can be readily mobilised for that final ‘Islamic revolution.’

Whereas conventional Islamist organs like Jamaat-i-Islami and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood initially used university and college campuses and even the electoral dynamics of democracy for the above purpose, by the early 1980s, the JI, excited by the prospect of grabbing state power (when it was invited to join the Ziaul Haq dictatorship), short-circuited Maududi’s evolutionary Islamist mantra by encouraging Zia to implement Islamic laws and doctrines that were alien to Pakistan’s Islamic polity and traditions and thus began to mutate the society’s natural religious evolution.

Islamist terrorism today is clearly symbolic of the frustration the once heroically perceived ‘mujahideen’ and jihadis began to experience when, buoyed by the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan, they failed to convert other Muslim countries towards their brand of faith and jihad.

Interestingly, this failure and its violent consequences has seen the jihad brigade’s indirect spokespersons and sympathisers in cyber space and the media go back to the Maududdist drawing-board, that of initiating the Islamic revolutionary process on a social level, specifically through the media.

But the problem is, as mentioned before, the world-view being popularised by the sympathisers has already mutated Pakistan’s social evolution. In other words, instead of Pakistan’s social and cultural polity taking a natural and modern evolutionary course towards developing a collective democratic mindset that respects ethnic, religious and sectarian diversity and understands the elements that make a country develop a progressive relationship with other nations and peoples, the Islamist worldview has only managed to make the society collapse inwards, hiding from imaginary demons in the shape of ‘anti-Islam’ and ‘anti-Pakistan’ forces which are supposedly obsessed by the idea of destroying the country and its religion.

This is the mindset and worldview from which many Pakistanis are screening Aafia’s case. However, this worldview is blind to the fate of various Pakistani women who have suffered miserably at the hands of religious bigots, feudal lords and military regimes at home. Since Aafia’s image falls well within the precepts of this worldview (hijab-wearer, anti-America, Jew-hater, etc.), she is automatically raised to the status of being a cross between a heroine (a sort of Lady Saladin), and a helpless damsel in distress.

The truth is, if one is ready to face being socially ostracised by allowing himself to closely study the Aafia case objectively and without the crippling sight of the Islamist worldview, he is likely to concur with the American courts’ decision that, yes, Aafia was not innocent; at least not as innocent as her many sympathisers would have us believe.