America, Pakistan, Democracy

Calling on Pakistanis to take a stand, now.

It is interesting how human beings are willing to ignore the obvious because of the way the obvious is portrayed. International media networks now have such an immense impact on the way citizens the world over perceive world affairs that it is easy to miss the meaning of what is really happening in front of our eyes.

In the space of the last 12 months, the United States has invaded Afghanistan, and is now effectively colonising it. Its soldiers are slowly securing every last inch of Afghan soil. It will take a long time to undo what the United States had itself created in Afghanistan. The now renegade mujahideen – once backed by the US – are practised in the art of guerrilla warfare. But, rest assured, the United States will not rest till it has conquered all. The charade is preserved through the savvy puppet president that the US has installed to run the country (the only thing he runs right now is a part of Kabul). The promise of a democratic Afghanistan is held out to the world, and the colonisation is seen as liberation.

The Bush team is now wooing Americans with the delicious prospect of war on Iraq. The foreign policy think-tanks in Washington DC that clearly influence the direction of the American establishment are hatching grand plans for a post-war scenario in which Iraq and Jordan become one big, happy, Sunni and therefore, anti-Iran, kingdom. The colonisation continues, with King Abdullah tipped to be Hamid Karzai's counterpart a little further west. Here, too, the promise is of a democratic and friendly Iraq, made more tempting with the slightly more exaggerated hope of a democratic West Asia.

This carefully constructed screenplay becomes downright perverse when it is acknowledged that Mr Bush's warmongering is largely aimed at securing a positive result for his Republican Party in the upcoming congressional elections. Talking war seems to be the only way to divert attention from the deepest economic slump Americans have faced in almost two decades. In the mid-1990s, while the rest of the world suffered a long recession, the US economy had boomed. But just as dramatically as it had been created, the bubble burst and the virtual economy disappeared overnight. The American state is trying to make its way out of the rubble by raising the Iraq bogey. Bush's martial attitude obviously has also to do with the outrageous influence that oil and gas companies have on the foreign policy of the United States; they realise the need to maintain control over West Asia and, increasingly, Central Asia, for their reserves of oil and natural gas

So, there seems to be a revival on the cards of the old American practice of removing unfavourable regimes and installing favourable ones. An in-depth study of the conduct of American foreign policy in Asia and Latin America would, however, produce startling projections — of how the puppet rulers of today will probably constitute the 'evil empire' of tomorrow. This is how it has been in the past, with those propped up by the United States, the mujahideen who formed the Taliban included, turning against the benefactor.

Part of the problem for those trying to maintain American dominance is that there is just that much more information floating around in the globe. Even people who have long lived on the margins are able to access news much faster now than ever before. It therefore becomes more difficult for the realities of international politics to be glossed over or airbrushed. Nevertheless, for the time being, international media networks have been able to present a picture of the world that suits the US and the Western world, in which the insistent claim of American diplomats that the US is the bastion of democracy (a delusion that has persisted since Woodrow Wilson) is perpetuated. This situation will continue as long as it is the Western world that determines what international media networks should and should not say.

Friend, then foe

The way that the world has been depicted in the past year may actually have harmed the US cause in the long run. George W Bush's division of states in terms of "good and evil" and "them and us" has caused many to question their earlier commitment to the US agenda. The recent electoral results in Germany and Pakistan – two countries that in their own right, and for completely different reasons, are important to the US – illustrate the severity of the reaction to US unilateralism.

In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder was voted back into power in spite of the fact that only days before the elections he was trailing significantly in opinion polls. Schroeder just had to assert that Germany would not support any military action against Iraq to win back the voters. In Pakistan, Islamic parties secured by far their best result in the country's short history, even getting a clear majority in two out of the four provinces, Balochistan and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Their alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), also won almost 20 percent of the seats at the centre, where no one party has a clear majority, thus ensuring that they will have considerable influence on any proposed coalition set-up. The vote was largely reactionary, based on people's deeply-felt opposition to the pro-US policy of the military government.

Some say, and with good reason, that the outcome of the elections in Pakistan is not necessarily as surprising as it may seem, and that the Pakistani intelligence agencies that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had such a huge role in creating have shown their worth once again. It is a fact that Pakistan is a country that has had its entire political landscape altered by the United States' designs in the region. The religious right as it exists in Pakistan today – that the US and others seem to be so wary of – is too a creation of the Pakistani establishment, based on the US need to be able to secure its interests in the region, in much the same way that the Taliban were friends before they became foes. As such, while creating Frankenstein, the US did not think about whether or not the monster would always be on its side, in much the same way that it did not think too hard about Saddam Hussein when he was being supported against Iran.

The US got around Pakistan's mullahs and their protests when the bombing of Afghanistan started over a year ago, but between then and now the mullahs have strategically regrouped and have had their very successful run at the polls. It is difficult to say how good the poll results have been for the US. There are signs that the mullahs are ready to back down on certain demands they have made in the past about US presence in Pakistan, and let us not forget that the MMA comprises many of the same parties that were darlings of the American establishment not so long ago. There are therefore some who suggest that the outcome of the elections was actually good for the US (and therefore for General Musharraf and the Pakistani military).

These hypotheses may or may not be accurate. Regardless, Pakistan faces a crisis because the political process in the country can now hardly be considered sovereign. Being in as strategic a location as it is, Pakistan's political course has been seriously influenced by the needs and desires of Washington DC. The fact that a party that is clearly toeing General Musharraf's line – the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid) – has secured the largest number of seats at the centre and in the Punjab Assembly amidst credible reports of pre- and post-poll rigging, indicates how severely flawed the electoral process really was. But one should expect the military to continue to manipulate Pakistani politics as US support continues to hold it up. Those who look forward to a stable South Asia must, therefore, worry deeply about the US-induced manipulations of the Pakistani polity by the country's military under Musharraf. What 'accident' lies ahead?

Democracy and dissent

The political parties that have not done the military's bidding this time around, such as the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N), even if they have gone with the military in the past, need to take stock of the prevailing situation and make clear decisions on the path to take. The absurd nature of Pakistani politics means that it is the PPP and the PML-N who potentially have the most important role to play at this juncture even though it is they who over the decades brought the country to its present sorry condition. These two parties ought to establish themselves as a credible opposition to the puppet government that the PML-Q and MMA are likely to form. Their credibility will depend on taking a principled stand against militarisation, resource concentration, and institutionalised corruption, while also being clear in their support of the rights to freedom of the people of Pakistan.

There is not much evidence to suggest that this will actually happen, that the PPP and PML-N will suddenly turn over a new leaf. It is therefore important that the respected and credible members of Pakistani civil society recognise that they have to take on the establishment, at least insofar as maintaining a principled stand on issues of democracy and livelihood, dissent and culture. Unfortunately, prominent sections of civil society have been co-opted by the military regime over the past three years. It is time for civil society to re-evaluate its strategies, and its orientation, based on brutally honest analyses of how well it has served the cause of democracy in Pakistan in the past. All too often, the intelligentsia and watchdog organisations have joined in the military's continuing assault on the political community. It is time, even if this late, to bring this practice to a halt.