The Return of Musharraf

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/16577/the-return-of-musharraf-2/

Former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, is all set to return to Pakistan by March 24th, after the interim government takes over the reins of Pakistan. Listening to the numerous interviews being broadcast on Pakistani channels, one gets the impression that he fervently believes he will don his shining armor, mount his white steed and ride into the country to save it. But does he ever once pause in his righteous declarations to ask the question: Does Pakistan want him back or does he believe that Pakistan needs him back?

The Pakistan of today is a country rocked by tragedies on a daily basis. It is a nation cruelly divided along religious and sectarian lines. The rich and the poor are separated by an ever widening gap, and the middle class is slowly disappearing. Despite all of these tribulations, the people of Pakistan are resilient. They still look towards the future with optimism and courage. This one trait is repeatedly exploited, especially by eloquent, chest-thumping, yarn-spinning politicians.

When Musharraf left Pakistan,  it was considered a win for the democratic forces in the country, a country stunned and reeling by his draconian measures. At that time, all his actions seemed to be concentrated on securing maximum powers with the presidency and securing himself as the President. The NRO, the suspension of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, all contributed to events that led to his hurried departure before possible impeachment proceedings and in his wake he left behind a deeply divided and heavily armed people.

The government that followed proceeded to weakened the country further and now the people of Pakistan are, once more, ready to welcome as savior the person whom they sent into exile. Is this hopeless optimism  or is it surrendering to what may be considered the lesser evil?

For arguments sake let us not dwell in the past. Lets ignore the adage that those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Let us put the NRO, Lal Masjid and the assassination of Nawab Akbar Bugti aside and look at what Musharraf is promising now. Well, one thing we know for sure is that he promises to return to Pakistan within a week after the interim government takes charge and then he plans to participate in the upcoming elections.

Musharraf promises that,  given a team of citizens selected by him, he has the capability to put Pakistan on the path of progress within the year but he doesn’t outline any specific programs or the names of those he would wish to work with. When asked about his support in Pakistan, he invariable quotes the figures from his facebook page. He does not name potential allies, individual or parties. Either he has no plans or he is holding his cards close to his chest. But until the big reveal comes, at times, it seems that his entire campaign is held together with spit and prayers.

With all this ambiguity it is sometimes hard to put faith in a potential leader, especially someone who has been tried and been found wanting. But sometimes a political span becomes relative in its success or failure when compared to even worse situations. Sadly, Pakistan is at such a crossroads.

Musharraf does have his positive points. He seems to be unafraid of articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution which will ascertain his eligibility to be elected. He claims that he knows how to lead from the front and cites his performance in the army as proof. That is irrefutable. He says that he can bring Pakistan back on the path of prosperity without showing any specific plans and expects the masses to follow him. I have to commend his optimism and faith.

I, for one, am cautiously optimistic. He plans to give the people of Pakistan the option of a third party in the elections. He hopes that his return will give APML the boost that it needs to play with the big boys. That, in itself, will be positive development. I hope and pray that, even though he doesn’t admit it, he realizes that he did make a few mistakes when he held power. These mistakes should be key in formulating his new playbook. And even though we are used to giving everyone second--and sometimes third chances-- for once I hope that the one whom we chose as our saviour actually makes it his job to save Pakistan.

Democracy: nothing but a politicians catch phrase.

          http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/15663/democracy-is-nothing-but-a-politicians-catch-phrase/


Our world today seems to be in a constant state of revolution. Somehow, revolution brings a romanticized solution to all that is wrong with a corrupt bureaucracy.  Whoever promises the most drastic changes, the most extreme improvements, the most cacophonous, clamorous, and deafening rhetoric, is guaranteed a captive audience and an avid following. One thing that these masters of spin can count on is the common man's desperate desire for a better life, their despairing hope that the world has something finer to offer -- if only they can find a charismatic, catalytic leader to make change happen for them.

We, the man on the street, also known as the citizen and the unit most in need of the aforementioned “better life”, are the most vocal advocates for a revolution. According to public opinion, revolution will bring democracy, and with democracy will come peace, lawfulness, good fortune and prosperity.  What we fail to realize in our desperation is that a government of the people and for the people does not begin and end with democratically-held elections, but must continue on as democratic governance. These are assignments of accountability, not appointments of entitlement.

In our hunger for change we listen for the word “democracy,” which has become nothing more than the politician’s catch phrase, a perfunctory buzzword, a siren song. We fail to realize that democracy is a form of government for the people—and people are different in every country. Thus, by default, the democracy of each country must be tailor-made for its population and not the copy of another countries’ governance. Laws necessary and successful in one thriving democracy might prove to be abject failures in another. This could be due to differences in culture, history, religion, and other myriad possibilities.

We have to study our chronicles, the good along with the bad. We have to analyze what worked and what failed miserably within our own country to see what we want and what we desperately need. When we look democracy through a theoretical paradigm invented by the West, we see something that we yearn for, but which might not be the solution for us. Our form of governance has to be as unique as our nation.

Instead of looking for a leader from among us, we look outward and upward for guidance, and so we have become a nation of followers. We will willingly march behind anyone who peddles a dream, but we never feel worthy enough to form a movement around our own dreams. So we pin our hopes and our hearts on anyone who is willing to lead us, never questioning loyalties, agendas, or ulterior motives. As a result, we are either left heartbroken and bitter, or continue fiercely loyal and blind to the obvious charade.

A revolution has to come from within the masses. We have to push away from the wall against which our backs have rested for the longest time. The elite lack the will to recast a state that seems to be working well for them. They may start the journey with an honest enthusiasm, but lose their convictions somewhere along the way. Leaders have to come up from within us, from our roots, our kin. Until then, we will continue to be the fodder for another’s revolution.