Understanding Pakistan Project

Athar Osama August 24th, 2007

By: Athar Osama

One of things that I’ve often said in my writings (and otherwise) about Pakistan’s messy and un-inspiring politics is that it is one dominated by personalities rather than issues. In Pakistan, personalities, in the absence of checks and balances, have often become bigger than institutions with the result that we have failed–in the 60 year old history of our country–in creating institutions. This alone has caused immeasurable damage to the country over time.

(The picture of Bhutto and Zia on the right is one my favorite and most “prized” pictures of Pakistan’s history. It reflects, to my mind, all that is wrong about Pakistani politics and its politicians. Misplaced loyalties, individuals over institutions, virtually all of it, in just one simple graphic. This, unfortunately, is the story of Pakistan’s politics being repeated over and over again over the last 60 years. This is the kind of politics that we must all do our utmost to change)

I have a childhood friend–now a professor at British University– who was a die-hard People’s Party supporter and I remember having fiery discussions with him about the deeds and misdeeds of his cherished leader–Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He maintained, and probably still does, that Pakistan Peoples Party is the only true political party in the country and that all else is engineered by military dictators and intelligence agencies and hence is a hogwash.

With the recent talk of a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf, I decided to give him a call to see if he still stood by his leader. I wanted to know how he would now justify the actions of the Peoples Party leader Benazir Bhutto. Much to my surprise–a pleasant one, though–he was seriously reconsidering his support for Peoples Party and remarked: “ab tu saray hi aik jaisay hain ” (now all of them are the same!)

Anyways, his comment got me to begin thinking about what are the tell-tale signs of a leader’s insincerity and ultimate downfall–not just political leader, perhaps–but any leader and not just a leader in Pakistan but a leader anywhere. In other words, what are some of the signs that should tell you that it is time to ditch your favorite politician? Switch your political party? or demand a change in your party’s political leadership? If our politicians can switch their loyalties, why can’t we?

Drawing upon our rich and colorful political history, what criteria can we apply to make that decision? Based on my own limited reading of Pakistan’s history–through the Understanding Pakistan Project–here are Understanding Pakistan’s Seven Habits of Highly Dispensable Political Leaders: 

1. The leader acts as if he or she is bigger than institutions –This is one of the most long-held positions of Pakistan’s highly dispensable politicians. It is now so ingrained in our political psyche that Pakistan is left with no real (political) institutions today. The Election Commission, The Ehtesab Bureau, or The Supreme Court of Pakistan–we’ve seen it all and they’ve done it to all. Perhaps the most sacred of these institutions is supposed to the Constitution itself and when the Constitution is not safe from the whims and fancies of individuals, what is?

2. The leader tells you–and probably believes in it too–that only he or she can save the country –This is one of the most favorite positions of Pakistan’s highly dispensable politicians. Somehow the country is full of many many saviors and yet the situation has, over the years, only managed to deteriorate for all of us. It is true that sometimes–only sometimes–individuals may end up being sole saviors of nations. But when that “sweet moment” happens for an individual, though, the fact is self-evident and the individual in question hardly has to say it in public. Did Jinnah ever say with his own mouth that he was the only savior of Muslims of India? I seriously doubt. Indeed, it was written all over the wall and he didn’t have to utter a word about it. So, when your politicians tells you that only he or she can save the country, you can be damn sure that he is as dispensable as a cup of styrofoam.

3. The leader tells you that only he or she knows what is right for you and your country –Arrogance is perhaps the most common habit of a politician gone bad–not only in Pakistan but also elsewhere (remember Bush’s “you’re with us or against us?”) The beauty of a true and functioning democracy is that the politician governs by the consent of the governed. It is indeed a heartening and intensely humbling moment in a democratic system when a politician stands corrected and reminded–sometimes in quite a brutal manner–of that fact (Again, Think: George W after the 2006 Election Defeat, or Blair in his last moments in Office). In an overwhelming majority of the cases, the “wisdom of the crowds” prevails. When your politician tells you that only he or she knows what is right for you and your country, its time to press the eject button under his or her seat.

 4. The leader is chosen for his or her loyalty rather than independence, integrity, or competence –More often than not during Pakistan’s sixty year old history, leaders have chosen their successors for their loyalty rather than independence, independence, and competence. Khawaja Nazimuddin was chosen because he was deemed too harmless by Ghulam Mohammed. General Musa Khan was chosen for his loyalty to Ayub. Zia bypassed half a dozen generals to become COAS because he was deemed to be too loyal, too obliging by Bhutto. Musharraf himself bypassed two other generals who are considered by those who known them to be of much greater integrity and capability than himself. Many of these decisions have backfired and have caused serious repercussions for the country. When these decisions are made, something goes quite wrong with the system. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, Chaudhary Shujat Hussain, Shaukat Aziz…. You get the picture.
 

5. The leader makes a “temporary” compromise on a fundamental principle that defines him or her –This is another favorite one of mine. Pakistani leaders are often associated with certain “principles” that define them. Pakistan Peoples Party stands for democracy and struggle against military rule in Pakistan. Tehrik-e-Insaaf stands for justice and constitutionalism. General Musharraf, when he came to power, promised broadbased political reforms. When these principles are compromised the leader doesn’t remain the same leader any more. The leader in question may couch this compromise in the loftiest of the terms–i.e. “I am making a deal with a dictator to strengthen democracy in Pakistan” or justify it on the basis of extraordinary circumstances. True, that politics is a game of compromises but when someone makes a compromise on a fundamental principle that defines him or her, something really fundamental changes. It applies to both civilian leaders and military dictators. I knew it the day I saw General Musharraf adorning an Ajrak and holding hands with those very politicians that he had come to eliminate. When a leader compromises on a fundamental principle, it is a surest sign that he or she deserves to be shown the door.

6. The leader derives his or her legitimacy from somebody else but your vote – this is a tricky one because it is often hard to tell. As far as this one is concerned our political leaders quite often say just the right things. Nobody–not even a military dictator–claims to be beyond accountability and nobody dare question national sovereignty. Everyone acknowledges the power of the vote for it they didn’t they would not be politicians. However, the voters need to ask themselves a question:  Does this person need the goodwill of anybody else–but the electorate–to stay in power? Whether it is the Army or America, when the answer to the above question is in the positive one can rest assured that Pakistan’s interests–and those of its people–will take the second seat. So should they in our hearts and minds…

7. The leader thrives by creating a vacuum of leadership around him –This is a deep one and has many manifestations. Many a times, the leader actively creates a political vacuum around him to make himself indispensable. In other situations, you would find him surrounding him or herself with utterly incapable people (think: Law Minister Wasi Zafar, for instance) who not only provide him with bad advice but also insulate him from the reality. He or she becomes inaccessible to the masses. What is the surest sign that your favourite leader has this habit? He or she starts saying things that have no correspondence with reality on the ground. He is so far removed from those that he claim to govern that he loses the pulse of the masses thus making himself totally dispensable.

It is often said that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This is so true but, in Pakistan’s case, this must be extend a bit further. Right from the first days of Pakistan’s history, politicians, military leaders, religious leaders, and bureaucrats who have tasted power once have gotten corrupted, not just materially but also intellectually. For reason unknown to the best of sociologists and anthropologists something goes terribly wrong with them–as if they are bitten by a bug–and these leaders would start demonstrating some of the habits and signs I’ve outlined above.

Most Pakistani politicians–and I challenge you on that one–have shown one or more these traits just prior to their downfall and some even throughout their political careers. When you see a large number or all of these traits working at the same time, you almost know that a perfect political storm is just round the corner and that the days of that individual are numbered. The “political bug” has not spared even a single soul in public office. Both genders are equally susceptible. Even countries don’t matter (think: George Bush and Tony Blair, for instance)

In a sense the above list forms a series of tests–a checklist, so to speak–that one can tick-off for every politician to see how close he or she is to his ultimate demise and/or how badly infected he or she is with the political bug. It is also a tool to use while reading the political statements of our worthy politicians. Can the readers think of any other generalizable character trait, sign, or habit that our political leaders have demonstrated repeatedly as they have fallen from grace? How would Ayub Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Pervez Musharraf fare on each of these seven habits of highly dispensable political leaders?

I leave that judgement to you all…

[Editor: An earlier-abridged–version of this piece was published in The Daily Dawn on August 24, 2007.]

• Leadership , Democracy , Elections 2007 , Politics