The military is unveiling its proposed constitutional and electoral changes in the run-up to the general elections later in the year. But apart from the PML Yes-Men, the popular political reaction has not been enthusiastic, even though there are obvious merits in specific provisions. The abolition of the separate electorate system is an unequivocally good step. It will bring the minority non-Muslims back into the political mainstream, which is what was desperately needed. Similarly, by increasing the number of parliamentary seats for women, the government has moved to try and redress an historical injustice. This is also to be welcomed as an attempt to remove apartheid in one particular form. Also, no serious objection may be raised to the addition of certain privileges for “technocrats” who are unable to participate in the political life of communities because the electoral route is closed to them for a host of reasons. But what on earth does the government mean to achieve by insisting that only graduates may contest elections?
If by “graduation” we mean education and education is supposed to lead to a lack of corruption and better morals, then we are barking up the wrong tree. The most successful crooks are invariably quite educated, which is what white-collar crime is all about. So clearly that is not the intention. Indeed, since nearly 80% of the population of this country is illiterate, this scheme will disenfranchise all except the graduated few (under 10%) from holding senior positions of public office. Surely, that cannot be the objective of a regime which professes “true democracy”. So what is the game all about?
We cannot escape the conclusion that a general link may have been found between “education” (university graduation) and political moderation, between religious bigots and extremists (especially those begotten by madrassas) on the one hand and progressive Muslims with a degree of education on the other. That is to say that in one swoop the military may be seeking to clip the wings of the extremist religious orthodoxy in the most uneducated and peripheral areas of the country and among the most militant sections of the population (excluding the Jama’at-e-Islami, which ranks among the mainstream parties), paving the way for a brand of politics that is both modern and moderate. Of course, this move will also disqualify about half of the last assembly of parliamentarians and, with the rest already in the grip of NAB, pave the way for a fresh, more youthful and enlightened start. A most original idea, and one whose repercussions could have significant implications for the political development of the country.
This would suggest that the main issue is the unwillingness of the military to take the mainstream opposition politicians and political parties into confidence about how and to what extent it intends to share power with the moderate civilian leaders of tomorrow.
It is true, of course, that many politicians are thoroughly corrupt and discredited. But that is no reason to say that politics without politicians is more desirable than politics with politicians. In the final reckoning, it is the politicians who have the vote of the people, and they are the ones who will have to make the system work and deliver. By the same token, the military’s record in government has been disastrous. True, such periods have been marked by relatively insignificant doses of overt corruption. But the mindless political and military adventures of various juntas have irreparably damaged this country. Indeed, the military’s creeping political ascendancy has been singularly responsible for the failure of the state to manufacture a credible nationhood. Certainly, no military leader has ever won the trust and confidence of the people of Pakistan. Nor is one about to in the short term, irrespective of his sincerity and righteousness. Why then should the military exclusively make and unmake laws and constitutions? If war is too serious a business to be left solely to generals, there is even less reason to entrust the art of politics to them exclusively.
A good example of how military self-righteousness and personal sincerity can mar the political and economic landscape is available in the shape of the confusing local self-government forms unfurled by the military in the last two years. It also needs to be recognized that if certain people and their policies are now acquiring heroic proportions, this is ironically due more to their sense of survival rather than to any innate sense of vision.
The greater misfortune may be that having made virtue out of necessity, there is no visible attempt to recognize necessity for what it is – the opposite of freedom. Hence the peoples’ representatives are not to be given the freedom to choose a political system that suits them. Instead, the representatives are to be vetted according to pre-determined criteria and an appropriate system is to be thrust upon them. Haven’t we been down this failed route before?
The government has some good ideas up its sleeve. It should discuss them with the mainstream politicians and win their approval. That is the only way to make sure that the system now being devised is not aborted by its forced practitioners after the manufacturers have long gone, as inevitably they must.