As we develop our political culture we must remember that in an Islamic Republic, the Quran provides the constitution and the life of the Prophet (PBUH) is a living tradition and manifestation of this constitution. We can also learn from western democracies, which have nurtured these political traditions in the last three centuries. For instance, in England there is no written constitution but a deep sense of adhering to the traditions. It was the pressure of these customs that forced Vice President Al Gore, during the 2000 presidential elections, to abandon his constitutional right to seek re-counting of the votes in the state of Florida. He could have done that by submitting a petition to the US Supreme Court. In hindsight he would have been elected president if he had chosen that path but by doing so he would have weakened not only the legitimacy of his own presidency but also that of President Bush if the vote turned out not to be in his favour.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the right forum to define the constitutional articles in letter and spirit. But while it exercises this right it should consider the impact of its decisions on the development of democratic traditions. For instance, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ has legitimised the unlawful rule of military dictators. Similarly, taking oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) has raised questions about the impartiality of the judges. Seeking written guarantee to ensure the continuity of service of government officials is another example of a tradition that could damage the balance of powers between the constitutional pillars.

In the recent political crisis, some prominent lawyers have rightfully come forward to present the case of the elected government in contempt charges while another group of lawyers have criticised this action. Ironically, some of these criticising lawyers, on the other hand, have considered it their moral obligation to defend the actions of a US citizen responsible for a mysterious memo sent to Admiral Mike Mullen. These contradictory actions from prominent members of the legal fraternity strike at the heart of developing a political culture based on principles and ethics.

The media plays a critical role in developing a tradition of politics by allowing the politicians of all stripes to debate their respective ideologies and educate people to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, one of the compulsions of the commercial media is to attract larger audiences, and hence more advertising dollars, by dramatising important political debates and turning them into personality feuds. It is the similar compulsion of being the first to break a news story that pressurises editors to make public announcements without carefully collecting and analysing the facts. A cordial meeting between high stake players presented wrongly can create disagreements and create wrong perceptions without any chances of repair. The media has to come up with a code of conduct that helps in building an environment of trust, fairness and mutual respect among political stakeholders.

Politicians have the highest and direct responsibility in building a political culture that is a guiding light for the future generations. In their personal conduct, they have to set the highest standards of adherence to the law, constitution and social values. If their car is towed for wrong parking then instead of cursing the policemen they should apologise and pay the necessary penalties. In their debates on policy matters, they have to remember that it is not a personality clash but two sides of a coin. They have to remember that their constituents understand that they have to balance the competing interests of their constituency, political party and national interest. It is not expected from them that they will always be right but that they will try their best to fully understand the issue and come up with the best solution. Personal attacks and name-calling produces a bad taste and hinders the chances of a compromise that is usually the outcome in politics.

As voters, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the politicians and assume that they have honourable intentions in presenting their policy position. If we are sure of the mal-intention of a politician, then we should not vote for that person or party in the elections as by electing them we become part of the conspiracy.

We are a four-year-old infant democracy so it is not unusual for us to make childish mistakes. But as a nation we should try to nurture this child to grow and become an adult rather than kill it at infancy.

Deception has been a key element in strategy ever since tribes waged war against each other. Generals take a great deal of trouble to conceal their true intentions from their adversaries. Basil Liddell Hart’s masterpiece of military history, Strategy:

The Indirect Approach, chronicled how great commanders have used deception to outmanoeuvre their enemies.

So using ruses to outwit a foreign foe is not just acceptable, but a job requirement for higher military command. However, what are we to make of generals who use similar techniques against their own political leadership?

Over the years, the Pakistan Army has come to adopt a posture that faces both external enemies as well as real and perceived
internal foes. By expanding its role to defend Pakistan’s ideological frontiers as well as its physical ones, it has become enmeshed in internal and regional politics to a degree very few other military forces have.

By becoming major players in domestic power politics, our generals have become sucked into a vortex of murky ploys that, apart from discrediting the forces they lead, also distracts them from their primary function. And by transforming domestic opposition into an enemy threat, they rationalise extreme, and often violent, action against members of civil society.

Thus, in the name of national security and state ideology (whatever it is currently), dissenting nationalists and extremists are made to disappear, often never to return. Journalists are threatened, allegedly kidnapped and occasionally killed, as well as bribed. Politicians are blackmailed and browbeaten.

Operation Midnight Jackal, mounted by Brig Imtiaz Ahmed (Billa) and Major Amir in 1989 to destabilise Benazir Bhutto’s government, is one example of the length the security agencies are willing to go to impose their control on the political system. The conspiracy was exposed, and its author, Brig Imtiaz, has confessed his role on TV.

Asghar Khan filed a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court, requesting it to look into the allegations that the ISI had financed many politicians in the 1990 elections to block Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from winning. In response to the petition, Gen Durrani, the ex-director the ISI, gave details of the sums he had authorised, and the leaders who had been paid.

Following these sensational disclosures, the Supreme Court has put the case on the back-burner despite continued demands that it be heard. But in their wisdom, their lordships have decided that other issues merit their attention more urgently than Asghar Khan’s explosive petition.

Over the years, the security establishment has been aided by religious parties and the higher judiciary in its efforts to subordinate the political system to its own ends. The former views the army as a lever to further its politico-religious agenda as it has very little support among the electorate, as proved by its regular defeats at the polls. The latter tagged along willy-nilly, giving legal cover to a succession of coups.

So it was refreshing to hear the chief justice emphatically reject any possibility of granting yet another constitutional indemnity to a future military adventurer.

During the ongoing tension over memogate, it has become clear that the army no longer has the stomach for an overt coup.

Musharraf’s long rule has tarnished the military’s image, and the generals know all too well that they don’t have any answers to the country’s many problems. Much better to let civilians take the flak. And the global climate is not conducive to coups: a military takeover would have severe political and economic implications.

In this context, the army’s ability to impose its will is limited: even though the generals loathe Zardari, they can’t easily get rid of him. Hence the steady build-up of pressure on the government through the mysterious memogate conspiracy.

But Mansoor Ijaz, the American businessman who first broke the story, remains a shady, discredited figure. For years, he has been vociferous in his attacks on the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agency. Indeed, he has gone to the extent of asking the United States to consider tough action against them in the wake of the Abbottabad raid last May. When he bombastically speaks of his intention to “speak truth to power”, he forgets that he is making his accusations under the protection of the real power in Pakistan: the military.

We may never discover the truth behind the whole wretched story. But this is the nature of plots planned and orchestrated by secret services around the world. The one thing we do know is that it has greatly weakened this government, and has virtually forced it to concede to early elections. Given the army’s traditional antipathy to PPP governments, it would not shock us greatly to discover its hand in the plot.

Certainly, the actions of the security establishment indicate that they have seized the opportunity offered by memogate with both hands. Whether they were complicit or not, they have chosen to ignore Mansoor Ijaz’s earlier venom in their haste to hamstring the government and force its early exit.

In this effort, they have the backing of much of Pakistan’s media and the chattering classes. An old friend, and one who normally opposes military intervention, gleefully took a bet with me that the government would be sent packing in a matter of days. But now that there seems to be a cooling off, he had better be prepared to pay up.

However, whatever the outcome of the memogate saga, the gloves are off, and the government has been fatally weakened. An insignificant foreigner with a dubious background has been allowed to destabilise an elected government. Once again, the army is in its full political mode.

One way to restore its image of impartiality would be for the Supreme Court to take up hearings of Asghar Khan’s petition. This might help stop the army from dabbling in politics. But ultimately, it will only stay in its barracks if civilians begin providing good governance.

The soap opera of Pakistani politics is at a crossroads. The actors have changed but the theme is the same: the lines are once again drawn between the establishment and the democratic government. It seems that we are ready to complete the circle and go back to the starting line. The reasons for the overthrow of the government will be the same, i.e. corruption, bad economy, risk to sovereignty and the law and order situation. We must wonder why this is happening to us every few years. Are we incapable of managing a democracy or function normally under civilian rule?

It is a fact that our politicians refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past. The biggest impediment in their lack of intellectual development is their big egos, which are easily malleable, and their chronic impatience to gain access to the seat of power by hook or crook. Corruption is not limited to the public representatives but it is expected that they will somehow control their dishonesty while other segments of society can engage in it without apprehension or fear. The majority of the current cadre of politicians were groomed under military dictatorships, which genetically tie them to the wishes of the establishment no matter how much they try to extricate themselves from it. On the other hand, the mean-spirited verbal fights on the national media tell us that there is something larger at stake than serving the people selflessly. The animosities in the end spill over to the streets between the diehard supporters of these politicians affecting everyone that has no particular interest in their fight.

In the long run, democracy is certainly a better form of government but in the short term it produces nepotism, tensions between state institutions and distorted foreign relations. The source of these ills is lack of trust and rapport between the elected representatives and the bureaucracy who are the real managers of the country. In a stable democracy, the role of the legislature is to formulate policy, which is then implemented by the bureaucracy under their watchful eye. Legislators should have no say and influence on day to day decisions but they get engaged in it, producing tensions and corruption. To have influence on decisions they try to get their favourite bureaucrats transferred to choice appointments and award promotions without merit, which further deteriorates relations. On the other hand, during military rule the bureaucrats are able to function more independently and are able to get things done with little interference from a morally tarnished dictator. This provides the bureaucracy a vested interest in the failure of democracy and re-emergence of a military dictator. They achieve this objective by going slow during civilian rule in delivery of social services, creating social unrest and intentional waste, producing larger budget deficits.

Soldiering is one of the most honourable professions in the world. Our Generals must realise that keeping one eye on the seat of power and the other on the borders is creating a security risk for the country. The Abbottabad incident, terrorist attack on the GHQ, attack on the Mehran Naval Base and November killing of 24 soldiers, to name just a few, should give our corps commanders pause that they are not able to perform their duty of protecting the state. Their focus should be to make sure that our soldiers are adequately trained, equipped and managed to fight enemies that are circling us from all sides. They should leave politics to the civilians. Protection of an ideology is the responsibility of all citizens and no army can protect its erosion so that should not be the reason to intervene in domestic affairs. There should not even be a question of the army’s involvement whether President Zardari stays or leaves or whether elections are held on time or early. Investigation of federal crimes, including treason, should be the responsibility of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) that should then prosecute the culprits and seek judgements from the Supreme Court (SC) for these crimes.

It is not impossible to break the vicious circle of a dictator followed by a weak democracy and then a repeat of the same. The recipe is quite simple but difficult to implement because it requires cooperation and mutual respect from all institutions. The first step is for the managers of the three legs of democracy, i.e. the legislature, the judiciary and the executive to realise their constitutional roles and not overstep them. This will only happen when capable and honest leaders are allowed to prevail in all three functions. A capable judiciary will rise up when merit is instituted in the selection of judges. The executive will get stronger if the bureaucracy is allowed to function without political interference and the establishment of merit in its selection.

In order for a creditable legislature to emerge, it is important that political parties institute democratic values for the emergence of leadership from the grassroots. This leadership will have a better understanding of the people’s preferences and will be eager to protect their public mandate, which is hard earned by toiling for years. With the emergence of a vibrant media it is now possible that voters can learn about the credentials of candidates when casting their vote. It is incumbent on them to stand up and ensure that their votes are properly counted.

Building a nation requires hard work and engagement from every citizen of the state. We mistakenly assume that the honesty of one segment will be enough to produce a chain effect that will change the destiny of the nation. The change agents are usually a small number of people but they have to be from all segments of society linked through a common ideology. The nation is waking up to realise this but the string to link all these is still missing. Until then we will have more of the same.

Russia, a previous era superpower, does not have the global capability but its military operation in South Ossetia, in 2008, has demonstrated a resolve to safeguard its strategic interests and regional influence. Its economy is heavily reliant on the export of natural resources and lacks depth in the manufacturing base. It has a long history of diplomatic experience in large parts of the world. Its Christian Orthodox culture is unique and different from Europe in language, dress, cuisine and rituals. A large segment of its population, about 80 percent, is Russian, which provides social uniformity. The potential for social disorder exists in the form of discontent among people seeking freedom of speech and political liberalisation as evidenced in the recent election protests. The re-emergence of Putin as the likely president for the next 12 years will give rise to an aggressive and nationalistic Russia. Despite an upward momentum, Russia’s leaders realise that it is not yet ready to assume the role of a global power.

China with its large population, vibrant economy, and entrenched culture is the most likely contender for global superpower status. But China lacks international diplomatic skills, presence in multilateral organisations, and understanding of other cultures. Militarily China is still at least three decades away from achieving global reach. The rise of the urban middle class is exerting social pressure on its existing government structures. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has started the introduction of democracy for electing city officials but it is yet to be seen whether this is enough to satisfy its people. At its current stage of development China understands that it cannot assume the role of a global power. Its leaders realistically define China as the most developed developing nation.

Now if the two likely contenders for a multi-polar world are not ready to stall US influence, then who is? The answer may lie in a Russo-Chinese alliance. The two countries have collaborated in the communist era and can learn from their past mistakes to be more effective this time. In the last decade they have formed economic and political alliances. The only missing piece is a platform for military cooperation. It may not be too far off in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) that is fast emerging as a challenge to the influence of NATO in South and Central Asia. Russo-China will have global military reach and diplomatic influence to create an effective barrier to US influence. The new multi-polar world would be one versus one plus one.

In this new world some countries will play the pivotal role of a bridge between these two power centres. These will be India in South Asia, Turkey in Europe, Brazil in South America, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and South Africa in Africa. These countries have growing economies, geostrategic locations, and diplomatic goodwill for arbitration of disputes. The rest of the countries will feel increasing pressure to become satellites of one or the other power centre. Multilateral organisations like the UN, the WTO and the World Bank will become platforms for resolving disagreements between satellites.

The recent announcement of US forces’ deployment in Australia, approval of the presence of US bases for 10 years beyond 2014 by the Afghan jirga, increased sanctions on Iran by the west, the Arab Spring and NATO strike on Pakistani soldiers have accelerated hardening of positions for the emergence of the second Cold War. For a Cold War it is important that for each US advantage there is a balancing advantage available to the Russo-China alliance.

In Europe, Russia has successfully stalled the expansion of NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine. In Central Asia it has reasserted its influence through security agreements with the former USSR states and the creation of the SCO to maintain its relevance to Eurasia.

The west’s emphasis on sanctioning Iran will move it into the Russo-Chinese camp that will ease Chinese anxiety over uninterrupted supply of oil in return for a guarantee that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons. This arrangement will provide a cause for the continued presence of US forces in the Middle East. Israel will be given up by the US as a strategic partner in return for the goodwill of the Middle Eastern masses. Israel would move to the Russo-Chinese side as a balancer to the US influence in the Middle East. US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta’s comment about Israel’s diplomatic isolation gives an indication of US thinking. The Palestinian bid for a UN seat is another piece in the American strategy. Israel’s military cooperation with China, and diplomatic alignment with Russia, is an indication of the shifting trends.

In South Asia, as the US moves towards India as a strategic partner, it seems it has decided to push Pakistan into the Russo-Chinese camp. Russia and China have gladly accepted this by endorsing Pakistani membership in the SCO and providing diplomatic support after the recent NATO attack. Reduced US military presence in Afghanistan will be balanced by limiting supply routes through the north, thereby creating a Russian influence on every US move.

It may hurt the egos of Pakistanis but we must realise that in the grand diplomatic chessboard we are a piece, not a player. To become a player a nation has to have economic and military independence, social cohesion, and diplomatic reach. This leaves Pakistan with limited options. If it continues on its path of a security state, then the Russo-Chinese bloc would use it as a constant irritant for the US presence in Afghanistan. The other option could be the path chosen by Germany, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. This would entail an inward focus on the part of Pakistan to embark on a path of nation building. It will be better for Pakistan to try to balance the interests of these emerging power centres and not tilt too much toward one or the other side.

Memogate is an indication of the fragility of our institutions. One person with questionable credentials has destabilised the political environment of the eighth largest nation by population.

To add to this sense of crisis, David Cameron’s veto of the proposed treaty, or fiscal pact, at the historic EU summit convened to rescue the euro has caused consternation among his critics. Simultaneously, there is a misplaced triumphalism among right-wing Euro-sceptics of the Conservative Party. Although Britain is not a member of the Eurozone, it is an important partner of the European Union. Hence any decisions taken to drastically change the rules will affect Britain and its huge financial sector.

This British step threatens to drive a wedge between the island and the mainland. And yet, as Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, said: “You can’t on the one hand ask not to be in the euro, and at the same time wish to be part of all
the decisions affecting a currency you don’t want, and often criticise.”

The Financial Times quoted a diplomat who put the British position even more succinctly. He likened Cameron’s negotiating stance as a man “attending a wife-swapping party without a wife.”

The truth is that ever since the euro went into convulsions following the near-collapse of countries like Ireland, Greece and Portugal, many Brits have quietly savoured the fact that they did not join the euro when it was first floated. But any hope that the UK would be isolated from the crisis proved illusory. Economies are so interlinked today, especially in Europe, that they cannot be insulated from problems in the region.

A key weakness in the whole concept of a common currency was that member countries retained much of their fiscal autonomy, and borrowed and spent pretty much as they pleased. This is despite a notional cap set by the EU on budgetary deficits. This meant that individual members were free to set their own interest rates, and control their monetary affairs.

Under the new treaty, this will change, with Brussels extending its control to ensure that EU members keep their house in order, and follow strict spending and borrowing guidelines.

If and when the treaty is ratified, member countries would have to surrender a large part of their fiscal sovereignty. It may well be that some states are unable to maintain the spending limits imposed by EU bureaucrats in Brussels for domestic political reasons. In such a situation, it is entirely possible that some members might opt to leave the EU.

If Britain continues to stand outside the Union, refusing to abide by the new rules, the others might decide to expel it entirely.

Other states have said they would accept the new treaty after putting it to their citizens for approval in national referendums.

There is no guarantee that Europeans, battered by months of sharp fiscal cuts, would vote ‘yes’.

While these internal deliberations are going on, the markets will not sit still. Facing a prolonged period of uncertainty, it is entirely possible that traders will sell certain government bonds at heavy discounts, putting pressure on these economies by raising the cost of borrowing. The European Central Bank is now committed to offer banks easy credit to maintain their liquidity. This will ease fears in financial institutions that are heavily exposed to sovereign debt from peripheral countries like Greece and Portugal.

In a sense, this crisis might end in the realisation of the dream the founding fathers of the Union had of a politically united Europe. As so often, Britain will be the odd man out. In 1963, when the Union was first launched, General De Gaulle, then president of France, blackballed Britain. For many Europeans, Britain was seen as a Trojan horse for America, given their close relationship.

And even after it did join in 1973, it did so with many reservations. There has always been a large number of Brits against the many rules written in Europe that affect everyday life in the UK. A host of health, safety and labour regulations have raised the cost of doing business. Often, EU human rights and immigration laws have overturned local legislation, causing anger over this loss of sovereignty.

For Britain, this is a moment of truth. Finally, it is being asked to answer a question it has long avoided: is it part of Europe or not? Traditionally, Brits have always talked of Europe as a distant land with quaint customs. For centuries, Britain has fought wars on the continent without being invaded. It has profited hugely from the EU through the free movement of capital, goods and labour.

The sticking point here is Cameron’s refusal to allow the EU to set rules that might injure Britain’s banks. But for the EU, it would be unthinkable to allow British banks to operate in European financial markets under a different set of rules. So basically, the British agricultural and manufacturing sectors might be made to pay to defend the banks.

Perhaps most tellingly, a recent poll revealed that a majority of Brits believe their children will be worse off than they were.

This pessimism is grounded in the bleak economic landscape ordinary people face: average workers have seen their real incomes fall 7 per cent since the recession began two years ago. And in an increasingly cold winter, a quarter of British households have fallen into ‘fuel poverty’, the term used to describe a situation when families have to spend over 10 per cent of income on energy bills.

Finally the Tory government has woken up to the need to create jobs by investing in a public works programme. Economists have been advocating this Keynesian approach for months, and even now, only 5 billion pounds have been allocated for extra capital spending. Most economists believe this is too little, too late.

But increasingly, the real decisions affecting the British economy will be taken in Brussels, and David Cameron will have very little say in the process.

To start the journey of change the most important riddle for us to solve is the unity of purpose. After 65 years of our independence we are still confused whether our founding fathers were seeking to establish a secular state for a Muslim nation or an Islamic state. It is important that we resolve our differences on this important question and come to an agreement.

The basis of the independence movement of Pakistan was the two nation theory which defined a nation based on Islamic faith. To convert this concept into a political movement, Allama Iqbal became instrumental in bringing back Quaid-e-Azam, from self-imposed exile in England, to assume its leadership. Allama also became the political mentor to Quaid-e-Azam. Quaid understood the paradox faced by secularism whereby the religious motivations of individuals can not be extricated from their political decisions. Without this understanding it would be impossible to imagine that he will assume leadership of a liberation movement based on religious definition of a nation. After the independence religion has become the unifier of a diverse group of people with long histories of separate languages and cultural traditions. In the absence of this string to connect there will be no Pakistani nation. We should accept this reality and focus more on understanding the true Islamic concept of a Social state.

For the above theory to be valid it is important to resolve the disagreements between various schools of religious thought. These differences can be eliminated by adopting Quran as the basis of our social contract as all sects have an agreement on the text and its centrality to the Muslim lives. It is important to note here that Quran is a forward looking book. This requires that each generation should engage with it to interpret its message according to the contemporary thought. Western civilization is conducting an extensive research on Quran based on the prevalent knowledge of science and technology while Muslims are still looking backwards to establish an archaic society. To establish a progressive society, we have to liberate Quran from the shackles of traditionalist Maulvis to embark on the path of understanding and enlightenment. We should emphasis on reading Quran in native languages to enable the masses to understand the message while maintaining the Arabic recitation for spiritual meditation and prayers.

To eradicate corruption we have to first realize that this parasite has infiltrated deeply into the roots of the nation. Every member of the society is engaged in one or the other form of corruption limited only by the reach of their authority and influence. All of us have to be conscious that corruption is like a bad karma, every corrupt action comes back to haunt us in one form or the other. It benefits no one and affects everyone. Honesty and integrity as a social policy are the best approach to survive and progress as a society. In communities corruption produces inflation, dilapidated infrastructure, produce loss of dignity, moral decline and ultimately loss of sovereignty. In the individuals it produces anxiety, stress, paranoia, diabetes and heart illness. So it is better to act with honesty and lead a contented life. It is important that we realize that corruption in a society starts from small things like breaking a line at the passport office or not respecting traffic rules at the middle of the night. Famous Chinese philosopher Confucius has written a full chapter on how a society is corrupted by misspelling the name of a state official. We are committing far graver acts and expecting the society to somehow remain healthy. At the government level it is important that salaries of state officials are raised to a level where they can lead decent lives but at the same time those committing corruption should be severely punished. It was the recipe adopted by Singapore to develop itself into a rich and prosperous nation.

Corruption has prevented us from engaging in high precision manufacturing or produce premium priced products. For instance, consider a machine that has 10 parts each manufactured by a different vendor. Just 1 % corruption by each vendor will produce a machine that has 10% defects. Pakistan is one of the top producers of cotton but has not been able to produce high quality spindles locally. And the main reason for this failure is the prevalent corruption in the society.

In the political arena we have to progress from politics of inheritance to politics of merit. We have to move from politics of power to politics of people. The will of the people is not only important to elect public representatives but it should be an ingredient of the political parties as well. A 25 year old should not become chairman of the majority party just because he was born to the chairman of the party. Similarly, party tickets should not be awarded based on back door deals rather local voters and party workers should be asked to recommend qualified candidates from among their midst.

Pakistan needs change in mind set to build a dignified nation rather than pursue political slogans that does not mean anything by itself. Let us all agree to change ourselves first before we ask the other person to change. That’s the first step.

Originally published in The Daily Times Lahore.