THOUGHT UNDONE: A Tale of Two Dictators: Musharraf, Mugabe and the Dangers of Absolute Power

It's often best to reflect on certain issues once the storm is over and the dust has settled. I'm going to try it on the recent events surrounding two dictators and their dictatorships, much in the news recently: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.

Both have much in common. Nothing perhaps more significant than the hope and optimism the two generated for their people on coming to power. Mugabe overthrew the colonial British, while Musharraf overthrew the colonial locals (corrupt, decadent, feudal democrats). Both promised freedom and development to their nations. Both glowed and basked in the glory of their place in the sun, until things began to unravel. And with no checks and balances on their power, the unraveling took on a more dangerous form. And their lies the danger of absolute power, never mind the benevolent smokescreen.

Governance is a difficut art and often even the best tend to come up short. Dictators are no different. Except that we can't change them. Dictators tend to be liberal as long as you agree with them. Any serious opposition, and they tend to want to crush it, never mind the democratic intent. Mugabe hasn't turned violent or suppressive recently vividly depicted by the press photographs of the battered face of Morgan Tsvangirai. He crushed a revolt by the Ndebele speaking people of Matabeleland way back in the 1980s. Musharraf too has gone about ruthlessly suppressing regional opposition, most famously in the state ordered assassination of prominent Baloch leader Nawab Bugti.

Freedom of the press, or other institutions of the state, like the judiciary for instance, is another sham in these regimes. Freedom is about the same as for an animal in a zoo, okay in confined spaces. Mugabe feels free to expel, intimidate or even kill the press reporters he doesn't fancy. Musharraf while not so bad (but then he's been around for less time), too doesnt think highly of independent opinion. The Chief Justice of Pakistan recently found out the hard way, earning the sack for questioning the military regime on its human rights record. The media which backed the judge saw their offices vandalised, and freedom clamped down upon. One of the more subtle methods being the slow withdrawal of government advertisements from prominent anti-government newspapers, thus choking their resources. The state can also put pressure on other private actors like industrialists to follow their No-Ad byline in such a system.

Oh, and lets not forget the false enemies, the straw men which keep the likes of Mugabe and Musharraf going, well past their 'best before' dates. It would be the 'white man' or the long gone British for Mugabe, or India and its intentions to nuke Pakistan, for Musharraf. The trouble is that they ignore the trouble within, and deflect attention towards the irrelevant. Yet, some people buy it, I wonder why?! Or maybe it isn't such a wonder. Its just simple self-interest. Those small groups who profit from the regime within the country are collaborators, and the rest suffer from the age old problem of collective action: who's going to organise them cohesively? Important actors outside the country are relevant too. Powerful countries back these regimes for their own self-interest. Nigeria and South Africa continue to prop up Mugabe fearing an improbable but possible backlash on their domestic politics, while the US and the West does it with Pakistan, allegedly fighting terror together, more likely like dosuing a fire with oil and then fighting it with more fire. The rest, like in the UN are vetoed, and some like in teh Commonwealth are simply impotent.

So the regimes survive and prosper as the people suffer. Yet the dictator's unshakable belief in themselves ( hubris if you ask me) to be seen as the 'true democrats' doesn't seem to blinker. The only instrument to prove the point seems to be a sham election ,or a ridiculous referendum, which give people no real choices, either because their is no opposition (or they have tapes on their mouths), or because the questions are so cleverly phrased (in referendums) that they have only two answers: yes and yes!

So don't ever be fooled by a dictator because he'll get you by the throat later, if not sooner. It's only a matter of time before the whole edifice of state begins to crumble. It has already happened in Zimbabwe. One feels that it may be a matter of time in Pakistan.

The only rays of hope: civil society groups. Let's everyone back the Catholic bishops of Zimbabwe who have taken the lead in calling for free and fair elections in that country (or alternatively for the incumbent regime to face a mass revolt). Let's everyone back the lawyers of Pakistan who have taken to the streets demanding greater freedom and accountability for the judiciary and for the rest of the country, from the military regime in Pakistan. A utopian hope probably. They should actually demand that the military return to the barracks or that the people will push them there.

It isn't all wishful thinking. Nepal has rid itself of an autocratic and dictatorial king through a popular uprising. Ukraine had its Orange Revolution. Georgia had its own Rose revolution. The people must rise, and they must be backed politically across the globe, to restore democracy. Despite its many flaws, it is still the best political system. And despite their many mirages, dicatorships are really an unending desert of hopelessness.

It's time everyone recognised that. Don't even spare a second to praise Mugabe, Musharraf, and the like. You give them a hand, they will take your arm, then your limbs, and then everything.

Comments

[Rod Flank]

Yeah. Only just that Mugabe didn't overthrow the British (except in his own mind) but the racist UDI gov't of Ian Smith.

[HMN]

It seems that Musharraf is not only beleaguered by fundamentalists and lawyers in Pakistan but by poor commentary. Dhiraj, your commentary is indeed very poor. To compare Musharraf and Mugabe is like comparing Vajpayee and Mandela. After all, both are democrats. But one is a Hindu fundamentalist while the other is a modern icon of freedom.

Musharraf and Mugabe may share an alliterative similarity but that's about all. Unlike Zimbabwe, where the economy has nosedived annually at a rate of about 7-8% (not to mention, the inflation rate of a whopping 1000%), Pakistan under Musharraf has experienced the second fastest GDP growth rate in Asia, at about 7-8%. In a span of about five years, he has managed what few leaders, democrat or despot, have achieved in decades: he has enfranchised the middle class. By scrutinizing the demographics of economic growth in the State Bank report, various World Bank, IMF or ADB publications, Dhiraj, you can enrichen the quality of analysis of your missive.

Musharraf is, in many ways, a victim of his own success. The urban middle class is now clamoring to define discourse. It should be noted, however, that the masses have not taken to the streets. That is because people want food on their table. Only outside commentators privilege intangible principals over livelihood, over sustenance. Do note that neither Fareed Zakaria nor the chastened Francis Fukuyama would make the sort of conflation and conclusions you make here.

Secondly, the media has enjoyed the sort of freedom that few dictatorships have ever seen. In fact, Pakistan's media is freer than many democracies, including Russia or India. You don't have to take my word for it. You can go through every single newspaper in Pakistan for the last six months, or the last six years for that matter, and compare it to those of Indonesia, Egypt, Russia or India. This may be an easier exercise than the one I suggested earlier. You may also want to report that the it a member of the media generation, the America return twentysomething CEO of GEO, the largest news channel in Pakistan, who catalyzed the rescindment of the retrograde, Zia era rape law. This is a very tangible example of the momentum of Musharraf’s media policy. For more, do read my column on the Media Generation on 3QuarksDaily.

Your analysis, Dhiriaj, is not only empirically wrong, but it is in a way also morally compromised.

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Dear Hussain,

Its a pity to see a liberal like yourself compromising with an illiberal regime. You would have found good company in the many Germans who backed Hitler during the inter-war years, as he resurrected the German economy, and how, only to turn its new might against innocent people. You want to talk about economics. Well Pincohet recorded good economic growth in Chile while slaugtering his opponents, Mugabe did too (read up your economic history, Zimbabwe was the best performing Afircan economy in the 1980s),while killing his opponents. And Hitler, as i said earlier, of course, turned around a a Germany which was much worse off than current day Zimbabwe after WWI into an economic superpower. Perhaps then you also support what these men did, just like you are supporting Musharraf. Morally compromised, moi?!!

I think i can easily put Vajpayee into the company of the democrats, not because he did anything great while in power, but rather because he got thrown out by the people of India who were unhappy with his party's fundamenatlism. I never said that democracy always throws up the best. There are bad eggs in all systems (look at George W.) but at least there comes a time when we can tell them to leave, and they have to. You onbviously don't realise this simple, but critically important fact.

My analysis is stark, and is a stark warning to those like you who fall for the charms of ruthless dicatators. It is your comment, which is empirically under-researched and morally wrong (and I am deliberately using a term stronger than 'compromised').

Don't let your nationalism ever cloud your sound thinking. Just think of Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, and Mugabe's 1980s Zimbabwe before you do.

[Asad Naqvi]

Comparing Musharraf to Mugabe is bad analysis and perhaps forgivable as a plea for attention in the hyperbole laden blogsphere. Comparing Musharraf to Hitler is dishonest, insidious and a cry for help.

I have an idea: go to Pakistan, do some research, check some facts - heck, even talk to some people. I know, it sounds revolutionary, but give it a shot.

[maniza]

Comparing Mugabe to Musharraf is wrong--and frankly an insult to Mugabe. Mugabe was truely a leader of the people and went totally wrong with absolute power. Musharraf, representing the military came in with absolute power--always had it, always will until of course he will be made to lose it. One way or the other.

And contrary to the beliefs of the English speaking Pakistanis, he was never popular. Indeed go talk to people.

No need for comparing Musharraf to anyone but himself. Compare Musharraf's actions to his statements-- You will quickly find that he is a slimy liar. Even his mannerisms, the tone of his voice--the dye in his hair---the way he grins--he's a liar and a fake. He stole a government and a country. His first act of government was illegal. He got there by stealing it. It was pure hubris when he came in and it is pure hubris as he continues. What is happening is simply the logic of that hubris. There was no other alternative open to him.

Getting confused about that is really, really sad. As for civil society groups--most of these in Pakistan are part of the very tiny intellegensia--who also for the most part happen to be entrenched in the current system of things and tend to actually benefit economically and socially from military rule. The love affair (s) with Musharraf were of their reporting and packaging. When did the 140 million Pakistanis get a chance to vote on it?
These civil society groups are in negligible numbers; and their own dishonesty and their constant marginalization by the military in favor of mullahs--makes them a very slim hope. I'm not sure if what you are referring to as civil society will prevail. Mullahs are part of civil society too- The current judicial crisis has made a hero out of someone who wasn't exactly one. But became one when his own interests were jeopardized. Nevertheless the lawyers in Pakistan are leading a very important struggle--heroic---lets see where it takes the country.

If we are not in Pakistan already those of us who can do so and are card carrying Pakistanis need to go home and join the lawyers on the streets. I hope it takes us to great things.

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Asad Naqvi, I'm afraid that you may the one who needs a reality check. Perhaps a trip to Balochistan will open your eyes.

And what is so dishonest or offensive about comparing Musharraf to Hitler. They are dicators of the same colour even if some shades are different. Hitler wasn't always known to be the monster he turned out to be. You would be foolish to trust a law-breaker who usurped power illegally, and who continues to wear his military uniform despite umpteen promises to give it up, to lead your country in the right direction. In your direction maybe, but not in the direction that would be beneficial to the ordinary people of Pakistan.

Perhaps you would do well to note these words from a German clergyman, Martin Niemoeller, who was incarcerated during Nazi Germany:

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew,

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

[HMN]

My, my, Dhiraj! It seems that my criticism of your piece has inspired even greater feats of hyperbole. You have managed to compare Musharraf not only Mugabe but Hitler. Bravo. I didn't think it could be done.

But surely you jest, sir. Surely, there is some humor in this earnest indignation. If not, perhaps you might consider a modicum of intellectual rigor to your shoddy analysis. Your previous posts suggest that you are capable of writing with certain intelligence but I would imagine that in attempting to meet the midnight deadline for Monday columns at 3Quarks, you didn't quite do your homework. Perhaps, I can help you in making a more nuanced case (and not indulge in the sort of drawing-room banter that requires rhetorical jujitsu).

You might compare Musharraf with, say, Fujimori of Peru, with Park of Korea, Mahtir of Malaysia, even Suharto of Indonesia. There are apt comparables. You must, however, do the requisite homework.

I'm glad you brought up the ever so venerable Vaypayee, a card-carrying member of Hitler-inspired but exclusively Hindu fundamentalist Black Shirt youth corps. You tell me how this innocuous tit-bit would figure into your eagerness for making comparisons. Vajpayee is also interesting in this context for another reason. By all accounts, Vajpayee lost because of his poor economic record not his fundamentalism. The majority of Indians knew that India was not shining. It was a matter of sustenance. You really must do your homework.

As for Maniza, one credits her for introducing notions of class to this discussion. It somewhat raises the quality of this discussion. She is, however, mistaken that the English speaking elite is responsible the Musharraf adminstration. I would suggest she read Ayaz Amir's opinion pieces in the Dawn (going back three weeks or three years), Ahmed Rashid's in the Daily Times, and Mohsin Hamid's recent piece in the NYT. The English speaking, like Maniza, has squarely turned on Musharraf. The Urdu and Punjabi speaking elites, however, whether it’s the MQM or the PML, remain supportive of him. Moreover, rural Pakistan seems unmoved by recent events. There are some very good reasons why people have not spilled into the streets.

Like many, I remain supportive of Musharraf as well (for the reasons I've delineated above, reasons both Dhiraj and Maniza have unamicably skirted). And if all were doing in this space is silly sloganeering that I will proffer the following declaration: I voted for Musharraf and if I had a half a chance, I’d vote for him again.

[Asad Naqvi]

This is silly. Very silly. Creative comparisions make for interesting undergraduate term papers. 3quarks deserves better.

Are you kidding by quoting Martin Niemoeller? Grade-school grandstanding at its best, not to mention insulting to Martin.
Out of respect for the victims of Nazi Germany, if nothing else, show some analytical rigor. While you're at it, throw in some maturity.

[Asad Naqvi]

To clarify, my above post is meant for Dhiraj. Dhiraj Nayyar: in your next exercise of imaginative free association, please find comparables for Anna Nicole Smith (Meryl Streep perhaps?).

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Dear Husain (and Asad Naqvi),

It is not my analysis that is shoddy. it is your comments which are short on sense. I assume that you approve of dictators who deliver economic growth at any cost, hence you approve of fujimori, mahathir, pinochet etc depsite their despicable human rights records and recorded torture of political opponents. But since none of this touches you lot, it matters little. You haven't explained, except rhetorically, why Hitler cannot be compared to Musharraf. Didn't Hitler deliver food, and economic prosperity to his people?! Shame on you for supporting dictatorial regimes, and supporting political torture, and that too on the venerable 3QD.

Incidentally, since you seem to want to bring up India, let me tell you that India has done much better than Pakistan on its economy (over the last 8 years), with its democratic system. so trust me, democracy can deliver better than authoritarianism.

Vajpayee lost for reasons of fundamentalism and the carnage in Gujarat but this you wouldn't know since you tend to not analyse things deeply. If you care, i could email you relevant substance on this 'notion'.

Asad, you're even shorter on sense than Husain apparently is. You are the one insulting Niemoeller, not me. It is your limited IQ which fails to see the depth in his 'silly' words, meant to warn the likes of you. Perhaps then you should try reading 'Matin Brun' or 'Brown Morning' by the french author Franck Pavloff. You will probably find this short book, written in the form of a chilling fable, apt for school kids. But for the one million people who have bought and read this book (not to mention the countless university level reading lists its on), it is a chilling reminder of how never to fall for even the slightest bit of authoritarianism, lest you fall for all of it.

But I suppose this is difficult to explain to some of the Urdu and Punjabi speaking Pakistani elite.

Good luck with your vote and support to musharraf.I am glad that some of you have absolutely no regard for your own liberties of thought and action (let alone that of others). Neither of you, Husain or Asad, have distinguished yourself through your completley ridiculous, ludicrous, under-researched, unanalytical,careless and simply dangerous interventions to my post.

[HMN]

Dearest Dhiraj,

How dare you privilege sustenance over whatever silly notions you profess? How dare you tell us that the material well-being of a child is not significant? Shame on you, buddy.

Indeed, the sentiment that drives your piece is shared by the present Bush administration. After all, both Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies. And East Timur is also a democracy. If your analysis cannot distinguish between qualities of different systems of government, then it is shoddy.

In an article in the NYT yesterday, a East Timur native is quoted as saying "Democracy won't work if people are hungry." Put differently, economic enfranchisement is a necessary prerequisite for political enfranchisement. Popularly elected Mugabe has presided over one the worst economic disasters of this century.

But why am I wasting time giving you a lesson on economics? You've struck a silly rhetorical pose and are compelled to defend it by making sillier claims. The reason I have not entertained your Musharraf-Hitler analogy is because it is stupid. I'll repeat: it's stupid. You can indulge yourself by conjuring even more preposterous analogies but I want no part in it.

I would love to get into a discussion on India, a country - as somebody on this blog put it - is a wonderful place if you're an urban, North Indian Brahmin. That India is the world's biggest democracy is a fact but the quality of democracy is very poor. For fifty odd years, India's retrograde socialist economic policy has rendered millions malnourished, diseased, crippled, dead. There are vast swaths of your country that are ungovernable from Kashmir to Assam to all the provinces touched by the Maoist insurgency. The lower castes - the Untouchables - and minorities grate under the tyranny of the self-congratulatory elite.

I could go on but it seems to me that you are satisfied rhetorical jujitsu, satisfied with stupidity. Perhaps, however, if we meet we can start again because the tenor of this discussion has seriously nosedived.

My warmest regards and best wishes, and don't forget to do your homework.

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Husain,

You may choose a dictatorship over democracy, which is a pity but its okay. It doesn't do you much good though to damn my analysis just because you don't agree with my views on freedom and democracy. I'll stick to my guns. they are perched on the high ground.

And if you think democracy doesn't workif youa re hungry, come to India my friend. I'll show you around personally. Perhaps youa re unaware that the two largest political parties in India's largest North Indian state are dominated by backward castes and the 'untouchable dalits'. The upper caste BJP stands a distant third. In the South of India, lower castes asserted their political rights decades ago. Democracy is slow but even in a poor country like India it is very strong. The north Indian brahmin you talk about (and i am not one!) doesn't even botherto vote anymore. The right to vote is almost exclusively used by the poor to assert their views on their system.Plenty of studies show this. So please do your homework instead of reminding me to do mine. I should mention, at this stage, that I have done extensive work in the area of democratisation, development economics and political economy over the last 10 years, which probably leaves me with a lot more knowledge than you assume that i have in this subject area.

And I am appalled that you continue to think that political freedom and civil liberties are silly issues compared with sustenance. I am clearly in discussion with someone sold to dictatorships so what is thepoint of my reasoning with you? None, your continually rhetorical response seems to suggest.

[maniza]

Dear Hussain,
hi!
You voted for Musharraf? And you'll vote for him again? Great--but when did a General hold fair elections? And what was the real turn out for that election? Can you give me the actual percentages of the population that turned out to vote?

You participated in a shameful hoax and are saying you would be glad to do it again.

Thanks for not chewing me out and crediting me with raising the quality of the discussion by introducing notions of class for this discussion.
But you point out that I am mistaken that the English speaking elite is responsible the Musharraf administration and suggest that I read the opinion pieces in the Dawn (going back three weeks or three years),in the Daily Times, and Mohsin Hamid's recent piece in the NYT. Shall I read these in urdu, punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhi or pashto--or in English? We've been referring to people as English speaking--as a proxy for the elite. English is a beautiful language--I am privileged to be able to speak it and write it somewhat. But it is a privilege and its reading and writing is limited to the very few in Pakistan and they are their master's voices. The image that comes to mind is of Dick Cheney disembarking from the plane on his recent visit to Afghanistan carrying the hard copy book with the title towards the camera "A History of the English Speaking World Since 1900." Huge book, heavy--and Dick Cheney was carrying it off the plane as a thousand camera flashes exploded and sent the message out. A picture's worth a thousand words--and thousands of stories---of slave kings and slave warriors. Us English speaking elite.

And Musharraf has been in power for seven years--of the writers you mention why should I read their recent columns--what were they saying over the past seven years? The writers that you mention--all masters of their craft-----were I think--everyone of them--waxing poetic for the most part about the General when he had his turn at a coup.

The Pakistani elite and their turncoatism--the image that comes to mind is of day laborers waiting at the corner and surging forward as the Gringo in the pickup truck arrives--pick me--pick me--I can do the job for you! I know I'm insulting day laborers by comparing them to the Pakistani elite. I apologize.

But the Pakistani elite take their queues from higher authorities--and turn their sails as the wind turns. Under Zia and the US strategy of jihad in Afghanistan--they were making hay--hand over fist--by being more Islamic then God himself--now those very same people are busy scrambling to become sufis and Buddhists.

"The English speaking, like Maniza, has squarely turned on Musharraf," you say. I'm totally inconsequential but I turned on him the day of his coup d'etat. I have not turned on him at all---he has lived up to all my expectations so I haven't turned on him at all, I believe in his character and his motives--I have faithfully resented and despised him. He has lived up to all my expectations of a dictator's hubris and its logic.

MQM and PML are both creations of the military. And both however, now that decades have passed have quite a lot of legitimacy in their constituencies given the marginalization, rigging and targeting of PPP. And yet--if elections were held today--rural Pakistan--would vote PPP.

Moreover, rural Pakistan seems unmoved by recent events you say. Are you sure about this? Why don't we take a vote? Elections, elections, elections--only way to find out what rural Pakistan thinks.

And why haven't people spilled out on the streets? Look who is spilling out-- who isn't being tear gassed--who isn't being harrassed-- or molested--dandas in hands (for petessake), ninja looking---. These creatures covered from head to toe in black---God only knows their gender are being allowed to kidnap people hold them hostage--demonstrate on streets--------------while lawyers protecting the constitution are being arrested, tear gassed, beaten and molested.

Don't get to involved in the benevolent and enlightened dictator he is nothing of that sort. He has disappeared people and he has activated wars in two provinces--there is sectarian killing and bombs go off whenever he needs to show that he is the one bastion against all the 140 million foaming at the mouth fundamentalists in Pakistan. That is the picture he has created for the west--that he cultivates and trots out as needed.

You voted for him? And you'll vote for him again?
Do you remember how he responded--- at the time when a woman got up at a public meeting in New York to confront the General himself about the rape cases in Pakistan and the rapists that the government was protecting. The General's unvarnished response and threat to the woman who dared to confront him was the real character of the Dictator baring his fangs. He responded to her by saying "I'll come after you with all the force I can use." I would advice the woman who he threatened, to have a Clint eastwood like moment "Go ahead punk make my day".

A person who refers to women as the weaker sex, has on his mind the paradigm of overpowering others, with all the force he can muster.He responded to her by saying "I'll come after you with all the force I can use." He had said--in a public meeting! A person who speaks like this is one who uses force whose paradigm is that of weak and strong. If we were to strip the General of all his paraphernalia of tanks, guns and military might and put him in a room one on one with another person of an opposing point of view and then ask the General to persuade that person to his point of view, how long do you think before the General when unable to use words of persuasion would resort to physical violence to overcome the other person? How long before the General would start assessing the other person's physical strengths against his own? For him might is always right. Teaching people a lesson and humiliating others with sheer force. That is his paradigm. It is also the paradigm of rape. And in this paradigm it is not a matter of gender, it is everyone who opposes him. Gender specificity of the crime only illustrates the entire paradigm.

Most molesters and abusers aren't witnessed by others except the victim. However, in Pakistan, the General is used to jirga justice of public molestations. He said this in front of an entire assembly of Pakistani and American citizens who witnessed this drama. Did they do anything of substance--at the very least did they stop attending his banquets?

One would have thought that was an ideal moment--a gotcha moment! If no one could get rid of him for the for the coup; or the manipulation of the constitution; or the almost complete take over in Pakistan of the military of almost all of the private and public sector; or 9/11 happening on his watch; the sectarian killings on the rise; the kidnapping and murder of a WSJ Journalist; the sheltering, aiding and training of extremists including the Taleban; the "nukes- are -us" scandal; the folly of Kargil; the crimes against Pakistani citizens....then at least they could have gotten him on this, this public threat, shown him that it did takes a village. But in that instance it was a village of the rich--and he serves or served their purposes well.

General Musharraf has lived up to all my expectations. He has lied throughout these past 7 years. And he has defended the indefensible and accused the victims and the vulnerable. And will continue to do so. He lied when he became the fourth military burglar to ransack, rape, exploit and manipulate Pakistan's civil liberties and democracy. This is the terms of reference that a dictator comes with, those who think otherwise are the ones who are fools. The terms of reference for a military dictator uniformly require that his major characteristic be that he not have a kernel of truth or decency in him and that he remain in general guided by the principal of self interest and power grabbing. The Terms of reference for him require that he constantly represent himself as the bastion and bulwark against madness and mayhem. and that, it is his mindset alone and no one else's, mirrors that of his puppeteers and masters geo-political needs. In this and other things General Musharraf matches the traits of his predecessors.

You voted for him? And you'll vote for him again? Great--but when did a General hold fair elections?

You participated in a shameful hoax and are saying you would be glad to do it again.

[aguy109]

Maniza’s criticism of Musharraf is strait out of an old Maoist text book: She dismisses his supporters as part of the “very tiny intellegensia”. Intelligent people are always suspect and are likely to be infected with counter-revolutionary tendencies. Pol Pot in Cambodia singled out “the very tiny intellegensia” by their corrupt habit of wearing glasses, and he sent them all to terminal re-education.
Maniza also tells us that the “English speaking Pakistanis” (not including herself, she receives her revelations direct from the sky-gods of Marxist-Leninism) are ‘confused’ (another beloved Marxist-Leninist word for people who have the wrong ideas, and cannot make sense of the facts by themselves) about Musharraf’s popularity “The lawyers in Pakistan [who] are leading a very important struggle” against Musharraf are aparently not part of the “very tiny intellegensia”
Apart from being backed by the intelligentia, Maniza reminds us that Musharraf has committed the horrendous crimes of smilling and using hair color. Maniza has a real point here: no thinking person or democratic government can possibly countenance such acts.
Clearly, anyone criticized by Maniza must be doing something right. More seriously, can one really demand strict Western standards of democratic and political behavior (ha!) of the leader of a country with such a history of coups, ousted democratic governments, corruption and insurgency? Where many areas are under partial Taliban control?
As HMN points out, Musharraf has achieved economic growth and tried to reduce the dominance of Islamic law. In spite of the undeniable tendency of power to corrupt, Musharraf may well be the least worst option available to his people.

[maniza]

Surely you can argue better? Like Dhiraj said--I've got no problem I AM on a higher moral ground then you on this.

Why not talk about free and fair elections. Why not?

Dismissing intelligentsia? And that too Pol Pot style. Wow. Did I do that? I used the term in relation to the civil society in Pakistan. Its a small group. Do you think it’s large? I mentioned it because that was cited as a hopeful place to oppose Musharraf. I said it was very small. Do you disagree? Do you see the vast majority of Pakistanis as educated intellectuals? Have they been allowed that privilege?
Next you’ll compare me to Hitler for some word that you’ll pick out of my twenty paragraphs above. And all this because I oppose Musharraf quite fundamentally. Ooopsss I used the word fundamental(ly) Next you’ll be calling me---wait for it---wait for it-------Khomeini!
And really, did I begrudge the General his smile did I call his “smiling” a crime? I pointed to these as clues to his slime and fraud. Let me repeat what I said earlier “Even his mannerisms, the tone of his voice--the dye in his hair---the way he grins--he's a liar and a fake.” Oh and let me add to that--the medals he decorates himself for--for the great hero commando that he was--he's a liar there too! Ask the boys in the army. And he's no different in all this then anyone who would forcibly take power.

To be against a dictatorship; to shout for elections and democracy; to point out the hypocrisies of a few educated people in a majority of people who are kept willfully from education--a few because the people who can afford to have an education which is worth anything are almost a handful in Pakistan--the vast majority are denied a decent education--pointing this out---makes me a Maoist, Leninist--Pol Pot regime supporter--and makes me a character straight out of a Maoist textbook?

[Asad]

Dhiraj, Dhiraj, Dhiraj,

You lack all sense of proportion. Comparing anybody to Hitler requires a lot of groudwork - you have done virtually none. Think about it. If you want to do more than just impress at a graduate student party then take the time to know your subjects (Nazi Germany or present day South Asia). Whats "chilling" are your irresponsible comparisons that seek to stop any questioning with forced gravitas. Luckily for you, Fox News is still hiring.

Quoting Niemoeller in this context is absurd - if you cant see that then you need help.

Unfortunately the blogshphere is full of shrill voices like yours that scream to the heavens and wallow in their righteousness. It's apparent that you know little of history, much less of the facts on the the ground today. When you have a minute, get off your armchair and do some real work. Until then, have a glass of cold water, take a deep breath and grow up.

Best of luck.

[aguy109]

Being on a higher moral than Musharraf is easy, when you're not in power. In a country like Pakistan, divided as it is by deep ideological and social rifts, there is no firm ground, at this time, for a truly democratically-constituted leadership to stand on. Musharraf may be somewhat corrupt and is certainly a prime manipulator, but at least he is pragmatic and not a fanatic like Zia was. The situation recalls that prevailing in Turkey, where the Army always retains its control over the sources of power, no matter which party controls the government. The result is highly imperfect, riddled with injustice, but at least it works.
I call you a Maoist, Maniza, because you prefer chaos over a flawed, partially effective government, and if there were 'truly free' elections in Pakistan, chaos is probably what you'd get.
I don't like your dismissive attitude to the intelligentia, because history has shown us that the intelligentia of any country, and not its impoverished majority, are always the best hope for progress.

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Dear Asad,

You are not only lacking in depth but also in sight. Your myopic view of history as well as the future astounds me.

If you can't see sense in Niemoeller then you need to go back to junior school. get yourself a new education.

you obviously don't care about the countless number of people who are tortured, killed or abducted by the regime of pervez musharraf. You clearly don't have even the basic human qualities of empathy and sympathy.

And since you continue to get shriller trying to defend your argument, while only rhetorically countering mine, with absolutely no substance (where are your arguements my 'illiterate' friend?!), I think you need the glass of cold water, not to drink, but to pour over your head! Perhaps you will waken to some sense then.

And while youa re about all of this, why don't you get off your armchair and don a military uniform?! It may even suit you!!

Warm regards,

Dhiraj

[Asad Raza]

Dear Asad Naqvi,

Please post as "Asad Naqvi" in the future to avoid confusion between the two of us. Thanks.

[HMN]

Thank you for the invitation, Dhiraj. I was in India last year and wrote about my jaunt extensively on 3Quarks. To reciprocate, I invite you to Pakistan as well. I too will personally take you around.

Please, however, do not misconstrue my position. You may perceive the world in a binary way, democracy versus dictatorship, Miller versus Miller Light, but I don't.

Here's an analogy. My position is like Chris Rock's: "No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I'm conservative about, I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime - I'm conservative. Prostitution - I'm liberal."

And Maniza, this discussion seems to have inspired much earnest indignation. You have marshaled a surprising volume of anecdotal evidence. Suffice it to say, we disagree.

Musharraf, Zindabad.

[Dhiraj Nayyar]

Husain,

Thanks for the invitation. I will take it up, seriously.

Glad that you have clarified your moderated stance. I still disagree with you, because freedom isn't something I am ready to compromise on. As i have repeated many times, if you give an inch, a lot more can betaken away at any time. But you are entitled to your view all the same.

I do hope that Musharraf doesn't let you down in the years to come!

Warm regards,

Dhiraj

[maniza]

Hussain,
I was beginning to feel rather miffed--and ignored--you hardly responded to anything I had written except a comment or two thrown my way with what had a whiff of being almost kindly and gentle--I was hoping for the more cutting back and forth that you have bestowed upon Dhiraj. Stilted, wrong, and misguided as it is.

And now of course everything I've said about a Military Dictator's crimes so far is dissed by you as "earnest and anecdotal". While by implication what you write in praise and defense of the General is compelling and substantiated evidence?

Please can you give me the examples of what you consider his achievements--?

And while we're at it--let's get back to the voting and democracy part of this--I trust that after voting for General Musharraf you chose to stay on and live in Pakistan? Asad Naqvi you? Or do you like me, enjoy democracy elsewhere?

This is really an important question--don't you think? What is it that we prescribe that we wouldn't want to follow and live in ourselves?

[Hektor Bim]

aguy109,

The situation in Turkey does not "work". It leads to chronic warfare by the state against its own citizens (which we see for Pakistan in Balochistan and the tribal regions now) in the form of periodic upswings in violence, scorched earth campaigns and huge numbers of internal refugees.

It's only with the intercession of the European Union and the increasing emasculation of the Turkish army vis a vis political affairs that the situation is calming down. Of course, the army is striking back and wishes to invade its neighbor Iraq to distract attention from its own internal repression and rebuild its political standing.

The Turkish state periodically has threatened and/or invaded many of its neighbors, and a large part of that is the military dominance of its government.

The history of military governments in Pakistan is not a happy one, so I am surprised that somehow you think this strongman is better than all the previous strongmen Pakistan has tried without success.

[aguy109]

Hektor, I bow to your greater knowledge, but I still think things would be even worse if these states, Pakistan and Turkey, were to break up into ethnic sub states (Kurds, Beluchis etc). This is a viscious circle where ethnic revolt leads to reliance on a strong army, which leads to more oppression and more ethnic revolt, and so on. This is going way off topic but it always galls me that Turkey is still condemned by everyone for occupying N. Cyprus in 1974 and that no one gives her credit for the fact that that invasion brought to an end many years of viscious bloodletting between Greeks and Turks on the island.
I was trying to say that the only choice in some countries is between the Bad and the Worse. Do I know which is which is Pakistan? Maybe not.

[Tihmur]

Dhiraj Mian is not a bad person. He is just Indian. That is why he is writing what he is writing. It is also the reason he is ignoring what happens in his own country. He will never write an article on Dr Manmohan Singh being the Dr. of Evil. He wont because he is Indian. He will talk about Balouchistan but wont be talking about Indians killing one lakh Kashmiris in the last fifteen years. There are five lakh (500000) troops there! No where in Pakistan is bad like. Hindustan hides its problems better than Pakistan. People like Dhiraj Mian make sure.

Watch out for Hector Bimbo. I picture him to being an fat ugly guy who is always scratching his crotch area.

Naqvi sahab, I miss your writings.

[maniza]

DAWN May 7, 2007 By I.A. Rehman

WHAT happened in Lahore on Saturday night and on Sunday morning and all along the highway from Islamabad to the Punjab capital over 24 hours has no precedent in Pakistan's history. We have certainly witnessed bigger congregations and quite a few incidents are on record when thousands of people waited for six to eight hours for their leader's appearance at the meeting venue. But the crowd that waited for the Chief Justice at the Lahore High Court, and outside its building, was in a class of its own. And so was the occasion.

Several features of the campaign launched by the lawyers' community against the outrageous assault on the Chief Justice, his office and his person both, have revived the political discourse that had been stagnating for quite some time. The lawyers have silenced the doubting Thomases who had questioned their capacity to sustain the agitation. The issue of justice has caused something of a miracle by drawing all political parties that merit this title together. A thoroughly rattled establishment is in visible panic, e.g., the blocking of roads on Saturday, the arrest of hundreds of activists, and the blocking of TV channels in Sindh and elsewhere. Students of democratic politics are thrilled at the spectacle of the first public movement since the glorious days in 1968-70 that is free from abuse of belief. The luminaries of the Bench and the Bar who sat through the night at the Lahore High Court, as if stung by Mr Ayaz Amir's in-house Punjab-bashing, added to the dignity of their robes. Above all, a demonstration of popular will is a tonic all polities need for their health.

All these points and the visual feast the TV channels have offered must have caused a riot of memories in the minds of old tamashbeens such as the present writer. At the moment three bits from of a torrent of recollections are demanding priority recapitulation.

It is possible that Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan enjoys driving.

Perhaps a long drive is an effective antidote to the greatly debilitating frustration that has been the lot for many years of lawyers standing up for democracy, rule of law and people's rights. But I have a feeling that the quality of satisfaction seen on his face yesterday reflected vindication of his theory of political action.

A couple of days after the dismissal of the Benazir Bhutto government in August 1990, I tried to pick his brain as to what had happened. But he was already looking ahead. In fact he was concentrating on the purchase of a small jeep that he might need during the election that was due in three months. The idea uppermost in his mind related to a strategic response by a popularly elected prime minister to her sacking by an arrogant head of state. Instead of flying off quietly to Karachi, he thought his leader should have travelled from Rawalpindi to Larkana by train (as had been done by her father). The party workers and others would have turned congregations at stops along the route into a decisive demonstration of the people's will. In the jargon of tennis the presidential shot could have been turned into a half-volley.

This strategy is based on the only political sound response to any authoritarian diktat. It recognises the people as the sole authority to determine their destiny and the way the state must function. Implicit in this strategy is a rejection of the idea of seeking a settlement of political issues in courts, a practice that has undermined democratic politics and the independence of the judiciary both.

The proof of the pudding, they say, is in its eating. At this point one can only say the lawyers have not failed in serving the right dish. Barrister-plus Aitzaz Ahsan has good reason to sport a broad smile.

Another recollection relates to Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan's theory of superior judges' need to respect public consensus in their moments of trial.

In his brilliant, and still valid, introduction to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, he had warned us against yielding to those who seek to prohibit treatment of constitutional matters as political issues. One assumed he was endorsing US Chief Justice Taft's view that all constitutional interpretations had political consequences. He had also noted that "in exercising their discretion, in keeping executive power within checks, in interpreting the laws passed by parliament, the judges, whatever they may say to the contrary, are constantly engaged in making political choices," and quoted Lord Hailsham: "Judges cannot choose the work they do; they have to come to a decision one way or another on all litigation which is brought before them. If they assume jurisdiction, they are in politics, if they decline jurisdiction, they are in politics. All they can hope to be is impartial."

While attributing the Indian judiciary's firmness in defending the theory of basic structure (of the constitution) to the fact that "democracy as well as the court had become firmly entrenched in the Indian system of government," Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan observes: "This is not to advocate that the courts must take a long rap while democracy grows roots. The judiciary can provide invaluable guidance to the democratic process and at times even help it along… All that is being argued here is that in these early and troubled times the judiciary would be better advised to move along with and not against public consensus…"

The time to concede the learned Attorney-General's plea seems to have come.

The third piece of memory has senior friend the late Abdullah Malik on the centre-stage. In May 1981 he was in the Kot Lakhpat Jail, punished as one in a large group for not doing to General Ziaul Haq what their political creed demanded. Although living conditions were by no means harsh, one of the refrains in his conversation was advice against starting an agitation, and facing the risk of imprisonment, in hot weather. The argument that quite a few political battles had been fought in hot periods (Plassey, the uprising of 1857, the partition holocaust) was not contested. Still, he wished that marching along the Mall or time-out in Kot Lakhpat should be scheduled for cooler days.

What would have Abdullah Malik said about the lawyers who have been out under a blazing sun – and that too in black – that absorbs heat as against the political nabobs' white that repels heat (among other things).

"Forget the heat," he might have said, "ghurmas is what matters". He might have even thanked the black-jackets for reviving the wonderful expression.

[maniza]

Can we get some more responses from the ardent supporters of General Musharraf?