Election drum

Two aspects of the General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s speech on Martyrs’ Day that remain the subject of media debate are his belief that a competent democracy that delivers real results is the sole guarantee against future dictatorships, and that the ‘war on terror’ is Pakistan’s war.

While he is right in saying that display of integrity, competence and sense of responsibility by democratic regimes can forestall military dictatorships, it is amazing is that he – a General – had to point this out. Why didn’t the politicians realise that ever?

Isn’t it a fact that, beginning 1958, all military take-overs were preceded by destructive social and financial chaos caused by a combination of cronyism, incompetence and corruption that every democratic regime (the last regime breaking all the previous records) indulged in?

Opinions differ on whether the damage done to Pakistan’s economy and its global image by the last regime should have been watched silently (by those who could stop it) to ‘support’ democracy because, to many, it seemed “prioritising democracy over Pakistan”.

The blame for democracy’s dismal record – otherwise the least bad governance system – doesn’t rest only with the politicians; self-proclaimed ‘democracy defenders’ who weren’t vocal enough about improving the quality of governance in democracies carry a fair share thereof.

What the General-turned-democrat Musharraf too finally paid for was ill governance – reckless deregulation of economic activities and markets that, like the Ayub era, benefited the capitalists at the cost of the ordinary by pumping up a balloon that eventually burst.

Politicians contesting the 2013 elections learnt no lessons from past bad governance because all that they do is blame each other, often using language wholly unbefitting of political leaders. Their emphasis is on picking holes, not on offering rational solutions to Pakistan’s problems.

Not surprisingly, while political parties continue to spend millions on media campaigns, none bought space in newspapers to publish at least the highlights of their manifestos. Perhaps, the idea was not to let the voters assess the rationality of the parties’ rosy promises.

Like the election campaigns of all previous failed regimes, the current campaign is a mud-slinging contest backed by huge posters displaying nothing except photos of the party leaders, slogans, and election symbols. Is this a fair basis for seeking votes on merit?

In a fair electoral contest, besides the transparency of the electoral process, it is mandatory that political parties disclose their manifestos in detail to let the voters decide about the rationality and practicality of the remedies the parties offer for peoples’ problems.

This crucial element is virtually absent. Yet, political parties and the establishment seem determined to hold elections on time. What are we trying to convey via this stance? Are elections just a ritual for handing over governance to a clan or a bunch of jugglers?

Letting such campaigns go on ensures empowering an undeserving regime. The Chief Election Commissioner too is concerned only about maintaining law and order on the election-day because failure therein (nothing else) could damage the credibility of election results.

Pakistan is on the brink of financial and administrative collapse – a scenario calling for clear statements by political parties about how they will go about avoiding it. Ambiguous stands on these issues imply a quest for power, not for delivering results.

Political parties have not disclosed precise strategies and implementation timeframes for cutting the fiscal deficit, rebuilding exchange reserves, containing inflation, encouraging investment and employment, reviving local government system and, above all, plugging the energy and power shortages.

Nor do they talk about setting up country-wide networks of vocational training centres despite the fact that, as per the latest OECD and WB reports, nearly a third of the 15 to 24 year old youth population in South Asia is NEET (not in employment, education or training).

Nor do you hear about detailed plans for optimising the potential of fruit, milk, meat and seafood processing sectors (and so of the related sectors) that could employ the uneducated millions and prevent their joining the ranks of criminals and terrorists.

Based on historical facts dating back to October 1973, General Kayani isn’t wrong in owning the ‘war on terror’. After Sardar Daoud sacked Afghanistan’s King Zahir Shah, with the help of some in the Afghan Army, Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, Ahmad Shah Masood and Gulbadin Hekmatyar launched a coup to topple Daoud.

But after the coup’s failure they fled to Pakistan along with their supporters. The PPP regime led by the late Z. A. Bhutto provided shelter to this lot, and Brigadier Naseerullah Babar set up a guerrilla war training camp for them. After being trained, in 1975 they were sent back to Afghanistan to launch another coup that failed too. The PPP regime didn’t realise that, being conversant with the Afghan history, the Soviet Union wasn’t keen on ruling Afghanistan; all it needed was access to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf, which could be provided via a road and rail corridor to Gwadar via Afghanistan.

Instead of confronting the Soviets militarily, they should have been asked to build a seaport in Gwadar, and allowed, along with Afghanistan, to use it exclusively for trade and commerce, but pro-Americanism injected into the system back in 1950 blinded every regime to the regional realities.

The folly committed in 1973 was compounded by General Zia who pushed Pakistan into the Afghan conflict in exchange for US backing for his illegal regime and in 1995, the PPP regime helped create the Taliban. These were the sins whose cost kept escalating.

Pakistan now faces the wrath of these elements because it sided with the US after 9/11; they are targeting the PPP, ANP and MQM because, when in power, these parties didn’t force the US to stop its drone attacks on Taliban hideouts. But that’s only part of the publicised reality.

These parties will perform poorly in the 2013 elections due to the massive corruption during their term in government that made Pakistanis more miserable than ever before. These parties are detested not just by the Taliban but the majority of the voters.

But courtesy terrorist attacks on them (coolly attributed to the Taliban), these parties may get sympathy votes and remain minority stakeholders in Pakistan’s politics. However, what is yet to unfold is the impact of PPP’s smear campaign against PML-N as General Zia’s legacy, and its continued links to the Taliban.

PTI, which doesn’t carry a political baggage and has not been targeted by the Taliban, blames the US for the ‘war on terror’. How the West responds to the next Pakistani regime wherein PTI and PML-N may end up with a significant stake is anybody’s guess.