From my PostGlobal contribution
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/hijab_politics.html
Hijab Politics
I come from a tribal family from Pakistan and was brought up to respect the religious wishes and inclinations of all people. This meant that my mother and sisters never wore the veil, and even when my mother visited the tribal areas for the first time in 1942 and wanted to wear a veil, my father told her she should not wear it if she did not wish to. My uncles and aunts were initially shocked by my mother turning up in a sari and no veil, to which my father replied that religion was a personal matter.
Thus, all the noise in Europe over the issue of the veil seems to me a bit overblown. I personally do not believe that the veil in modern times is necessary, and as societies modernize and educate their people they will realize that the issue of a veil is more to veil one’s intentions rather than a simple cover up. In equal measure, I agree that Muslims in Europe and America can modernize and not necessarily Westernize. Yet when such societies are put under siege, with media pressure to abandon what they think is important, there is a tendency to drag one’s heels and avoid change. The freedom-loving sense within me says that if in a democratic and free system one religion is allowed to practice its beliefs, so must the others.
I feel a personal sense of disappointment that the Turkish parliament has decided to change a secular tradition in Turkey, but that feeling has to be weighed with the fact that this was an act of parliament and not an arbitrary decision by a mullah. Although as secular democrats we may find it as a loss to our ideals of freedom, we must also accept that this seems to be what the Turkish people voted for. In that sense, accepting it is vitally important, as is the hope that if indeed the people did not want it then the rule will be dissolved through the action of future parliaments. What is important is that the veil is not imposed, but is a matter of choice.
The issue of the veil is more contentious within ostensibly Christian countries, where Muslim minorities may wish to wear the veil (as was the case in France) and laws are passed to take away that individual choice. In UAE, where I live, there are Christian churches on land donated by the government and there is a freedom given to the various faiths. I do hope that other Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, will eventually adopt the same attitude. Throughout history there are examples of coexistence that stand out, i.e. Spain under the Muslims. Passing laws that are targeted against religions never works, as we have seen in history, and in the same vein all that the Turkish government has done is granted the freedom of choice to women to either wear the veil or not. I would hope that in the long run, the veil will not be imposed but will continue to be a matter of choice. Choice is, after all, the premise of any democratic system, however we may disagree with it. Thus, to me, forcing women to wear the veil is also wrong.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
America's economic barometer
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/us_an_economic_barometer.html
America's Economic Barometer
The Current Discussion: If countries around the world are doing so well economically, why are they still catching a cold when the United States sneezes?
In a more interdependent world, we simply can’t ignore the economic wellbeing of the world’s largest economy. A further slide in the U.S. cannot remain an isolated event. The U.S. dollar remains the major reserve currency, with all the major commodities being priced in U.S. dollars – so it is hardly surprising that the weakness of the U.S. financial system will have international ramifications.
A major fall of the U.S. dollar or its stock market will more than likely affect other economies as their financial assets in U.S. markets contract. That spells trouble for economies, as their asset base is mostly denominated in U.S. dollars. However, one has to admit that the economic landscape is changing in large measure as other economies are expanding, and while they would be affected by a U.S. slowdown it does not mean a compete breakdown will occur. The emergence of China and India as two major economic players, not far from becoming major economic powers, implies that the economic balance is changing. However, these markets are more likely to attract capital investments into their manufacturing and service sector and not their stock markets, mainly because it is hard for them to compete with the efficiency of the U.S. market.
However, the immediate impact of U.S. stock market changes is more a barometer to which other markets react, as is the case today. However, in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, i.e. the rich oil producers) generally the economic performance is relatively immune to a U.S. recession, even though their stock markets do have knee-jerk reactions. The question remains: in a world where globalization seems to be the direction of economic progress, will the woes of the U.S. dominate economic performance? Perhaps for some time to come the financial impact will be there, as the U.S. dollar remains a major reserve currency and perhaps the largest financial market. However, as other markets mature the direct impact will be minimized (though never really absent) as the impact of globalization will also mean that other economies like Europe, China and India will also be able to impact global economic performance.
America's Economic Barometer
The Current Discussion: If countries around the world are doing so well economically, why are they still catching a cold when the United States sneezes?
In a more interdependent world, we simply can’t ignore the economic wellbeing of the world’s largest economy. A further slide in the U.S. cannot remain an isolated event. The U.S. dollar remains the major reserve currency, with all the major commodities being priced in U.S. dollars – so it is hardly surprising that the weakness of the U.S. financial system will have international ramifications.
A major fall of the U.S. dollar or its stock market will more than likely affect other economies as their financial assets in U.S. markets contract. That spells trouble for economies, as their asset base is mostly denominated in U.S. dollars. However, one has to admit that the economic landscape is changing in large measure as other economies are expanding, and while they would be affected by a U.S. slowdown it does not mean a compete breakdown will occur. The emergence of China and India as two major economic players, not far from becoming major economic powers, implies that the economic balance is changing. However, these markets are more likely to attract capital investments into their manufacturing and service sector and not their stock markets, mainly because it is hard for them to compete with the efficiency of the U.S. market.
However, the immediate impact of U.S. stock market changes is more a barometer to which other markets react, as is the case today. However, in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, i.e. the rich oil producers) generally the economic performance is relatively immune to a U.S. recession, even though their stock markets do have knee-jerk reactions. The question remains: in a world where globalization seems to be the direction of economic progress, will the woes of the U.S. dominate economic performance? Perhaps for some time to come the financial impact will be there, as the U.S. dollar remains a major reserve currency and perhaps the largest financial market. However, as other markets mature the direct impact will be minimized (though never really absent) as the impact of globalization will also mean that other economies like Europe, China and India will also be able to impact global economic performance.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Dear Candidates
My contribution to Washington Posts Postglobal site
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/dear_candidates_equal_attentio_1.html
Dear Candidates: Equal Attention to the World’s Problems
The Question: The U.S. starts to choose a president this week. If you could send the candidates one message, what would it be?
What the world today needs, more than ever, is a world statesman: someone who can guide the world with empathy and compassion, not guns and missiles. The world has been brought to the brink of massive destruction, and while one cannot blame American leadership for all of the problems, America must take responsibility for what it has done wrong.
The demands on your attention will be many, some born out of a moral prerogative, others born from the pressures of the commercial world and leading the world’s largest military power. While I do not expect leaders to be perfect, I do expect them to be fair on the issues of world politics.
We wish to see an American president who is willing to be brave and balanced on the issue of Palestine and Israel, to condemn the Israeli aggression with the same tone as Palestinian suicide bombers are condemned. We wish for someone who will act on world affairs based on reason and fact, not emotion and conjecture, to bring to the forefront the values of fairness that are expected within American societies. There is no doubt that America is a great nation, with some of the finest values of freedom of speech and the rule of law, but its leadership seems to have forgotten these values and these need to be rekindled into the body politic of the nation. It is this that will win the hearts and minds of the people around the world. Asking for democracy in Iraq and and Pakistan is indeed a bold statement, but to ignore China's violations of human rights especially with respect to Tibet, or to take the pressure off of Burma, all show that its current leadership seeks selective democracy.
The world ahead of us needs understanding, not an ‘us and them’ approach. American leaders need to become the 'we', with a true worldly view. At the start of this long road to the White House, which of you will embrace this vision, and more importantly which will carry it into your term of office? The world is watching.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/dear_candidates_equal_attentio_1.html
Dear Candidates: Equal Attention to the World’s Problems
The Question: The U.S. starts to choose a president this week. If you could send the candidates one message, what would it be?
What the world today needs, more than ever, is a world statesman: someone who can guide the world with empathy and compassion, not guns and missiles. The world has been brought to the brink of massive destruction, and while one cannot blame American leadership for all of the problems, America must take responsibility for what it has done wrong.
The demands on your attention will be many, some born out of a moral prerogative, others born from the pressures of the commercial world and leading the world’s largest military power. While I do not expect leaders to be perfect, I do expect them to be fair on the issues of world politics.
We wish to see an American president who is willing to be brave and balanced on the issue of Palestine and Israel, to condemn the Israeli aggression with the same tone as Palestinian suicide bombers are condemned. We wish for someone who will act on world affairs based on reason and fact, not emotion and conjecture, to bring to the forefront the values of fairness that are expected within American societies. There is no doubt that America is a great nation, with some of the finest values of freedom of speech and the rule of law, but its leadership seems to have forgotten these values and these need to be rekindled into the body politic of the nation. It is this that will win the hearts and minds of the people around the world. Asking for democracy in Iraq and and Pakistan is indeed a bold statement, but to ignore China's violations of human rights especially with respect to Tibet, or to take the pressure off of Burma, all show that its current leadership seeks selective democracy.
The world ahead of us needs understanding, not an ‘us and them’ approach. American leaders need to become the 'we', with a true worldly view. At the start of this long road to the White House, which of you will embrace this vision, and more importantly which will carry it into your term of office? The world is watching.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Worst Is Yet to Come For Pakistan
Original on: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/worst_is_yet_to_come_for_pakis.html
The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?
Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.
First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.
Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.
There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.
I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.
The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?
Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.
First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.
Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.
There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.
I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The Kite Runner
‘Kite Runner’ Threats Reveal Afghanistan’s Hypocrisy
(this is my post to Postglobal Washington Posts online blog where I am a panelist)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/kite_runner_threats_reveal_afg.html
and the main page is on http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/
The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?
I am a Pathan from the tribal areas of Pakistan, so perhaps this question poses difficult issues. From a modern perspective there is no doubt that the lack of tolerance, especially on artistic expressions, has been a matter of concern for people like me. I question whether the Afghans who have threatened the actors are suggesting that homosexuality doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or whether they are suggesting that exposing its existence is a crime. The reality is that homosexuality has been prevalent in Afghan culture for centuries, and proliferated especially during the Taliban years when contact between women and men was very difficult. In The Kite Runner, the homosexual rape is the contentious issue especially because a boy who later grows up to be a Taliban official commits it. The portrayal highlights the fact that often in Afghan society during times of war, captured enemy men were sodomized. As British officers from the Afghan wars would say: ‘Better to put a bullet through your own head then be taken prisoner.’
Clearly the reaction towards the actors is not acceptable, but we have to understand that such a reaction was pretty much expected, even though the film was made outside Afghanistan. There are a number of taboo issues for these societies; homosexuality is clearly one of them, even though a famous Pashtu poet wrote elaborate poems praising boys over men. This is indeed the hypocritical side of society, and in times such as this they will take the religious view that homosexuality is a sin – just like the Catholics and conservative Christians would react to the idea of same-sex marriages. The difference, and a fundamental one, is that here it is not the homosexuals who are being threatened, but the actors who portrayed the characters. This is where the lack of tolerance shows up.
On the other hand, the filmmakers have much to answer for: from reportedly paying the key actors only $18,000 (the going rate for a small side role in a regular Paramount movie, perhaps), to not anticipating that the response from within Afghan would threaten the safety of the actors. One of the actors, Zekaria Ibrahmi, (who plays Amir as a child) had expressed his desire to study and live in the U.S. Perhaps that wish should have been built into the contract, to ensure the actors were safe.
The sad part is that as a modern thinking Pathan, I can see both sides of the equation. While I vehemently disagree with fundamentalism and intolerance, I also understand that this reaction should have been expected – and the filmmakers should have had a contingency plan.
(this is my post to Postglobal Washington Posts online blog where I am a panelist)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/kite_runner_threats_reveal_afg.html
and the main page is on http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/
The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?
I am a Pathan from the tribal areas of Pakistan, so perhaps this question poses difficult issues. From a modern perspective there is no doubt that the lack of tolerance, especially on artistic expressions, has been a matter of concern for people like me. I question whether the Afghans who have threatened the actors are suggesting that homosexuality doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or whether they are suggesting that exposing its existence is a crime. The reality is that homosexuality has been prevalent in Afghan culture for centuries, and proliferated especially during the Taliban years when contact between women and men was very difficult. In The Kite Runner, the homosexual rape is the contentious issue especially because a boy who later grows up to be a Taliban official commits it. The portrayal highlights the fact that often in Afghan society during times of war, captured enemy men were sodomized. As British officers from the Afghan wars would say: ‘Better to put a bullet through your own head then be taken prisoner.’
Clearly the reaction towards the actors is not acceptable, but we have to understand that such a reaction was pretty much expected, even though the film was made outside Afghanistan. There are a number of taboo issues for these societies; homosexuality is clearly one of them, even though a famous Pashtu poet wrote elaborate poems praising boys over men. This is indeed the hypocritical side of society, and in times such as this they will take the religious view that homosexuality is a sin – just like the Catholics and conservative Christians would react to the idea of same-sex marriages. The difference, and a fundamental one, is that here it is not the homosexuals who are being threatened, but the actors who portrayed the characters. This is where the lack of tolerance shows up.
On the other hand, the filmmakers have much to answer for: from reportedly paying the key actors only $18,000 (the going rate for a small side role in a regular Paramount movie, perhaps), to not anticipating that the response from within Afghan would threaten the safety of the actors. One of the actors, Zekaria Ibrahmi, (who plays Amir as a child) had expressed his desire to study and live in the U.S. Perhaps that wish should have been built into the contract, to ensure the actors were safe.
The sad part is that as a modern thinking Pathan, I can see both sides of the equation. While I vehemently disagree with fundamentalism and intolerance, I also understand that this reaction should have been expected – and the filmmakers should have had a contingency plan.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Sher View: Clinton Library Funding
The Washington Post yesterday has raised the issue of foreign, which should imply all foreign sources, but names mostly Middle Eastern sources, and implied there was something sinister about the donations to the former presidents' presidential library. For Senator Obama to also be mentioned that the wishes to bring in strict legislation to donations for such foundations shows that both the Washington Post and Senator Obama are way off the mark. First why question donations from the Middle East only, surely the British and European donors also appear on the list, indeed why not also question US donors too, after all they would have a greater vested interest to use donations for a political cause.
Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?
Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.
Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.
Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.
Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.
I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.
Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?
Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.
Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.
Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.
Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.
I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Sher View: The deed is done.
Indeed the deed is done. The General has got the endorsement from the Judges he appointed, announced the election date, and before December 1st 2007 will have shed the military uniform and seemingly all will be well. His good friend President George W Bush has said while the emergency is not something the US is elated about, 'General Musharraf has done a lot for democracy.' A truly puzzling statement. But then what Mr. G W Bush thinks of the General is not important, what the people of Pakistan will feel is more crucial.
Yes indeed the General was doing fine for democracy up to a year or so back, then the proverbial 'drunk with power' syndrome got to the man. Locking up political opponents, firing a Judge for alleged corruption without referring the case to the judiciary to try their own, and mishandling the siege of a mosque a few hundred meters from the Presidential residence in Islamabad all started a response from the General that has not made sense. In an interview to BBC the General tried to justify his actions and asked 'you think I just went mad in the last few months?'. The truth is Yes sir you have gone pretty mad. Here is why.
Building democracy by tearing up the constitution, locking up over 3,000 lawyers and human rights activists and rewriting the rules to protect your position is NOT Democracy. Interestingly Benazir Bhutto in championing 'democracy' cut her deals, then the general reneged and she did a hasty U turn and now might well contest the election as the sole main political leader if Nawaz Sharif is not allowed to contest the election. Under the new rules Mr. Sharif has to be personally present to file his nomination papers, so it is likely he will convince his Saudi hosts to let him return. Perhaps this was one of the reasons General Musharraf visited King Abdullah in Riyadh to either ask the Saudis not to let former PM back, but is more likely that he was trying to ask them to get Mr. Sharif agree to not demand the general's removal as President if he, in return, is allowed to return.
The Americans have again got this wrong, as if their main purpose is to fight terrorism and restore democracy then the way forward is rather simpler than backing just the General and Benazir Bhutto. They should engage in a contact with Mr. Nawaz Sharif and indeed the religious political parties in getting them to agree that Washington will support a full free election in return all political parties must agree to reduce violence within Pakistan. This is also in the interests of all the political parties, as terrorism within the country takes the political initiative away from the party leadership. Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf, now out of uniform, will not be able to deal with terrorism on their own.
If full and free elections are held and all parties are allowed to contest then this is what is likely, Sind province will go to Benazir's political party, Punjab to Nawaz Sharif, the North West Frontier Province to the MMA (a coalition of religious political parties) and Baluchistan to the Baluchi nationalist parties. Only the PML of Nawaz Sharif can deal with the groups who will win in NWFP and Baluchistan, and it is in these provinces that the problems of militancy and terrorism exist. This is why I have always argued that the country needs a government of national reconstruction where all parties are encouraged to form a collective government. Backing only one or two horses in this complex race will never be a fruitful bet and hence the dialogue has to be more broad based.
For the US hence the option has to be a neutral encouragement for free elections after they have had contacts with all political parties. It would seem while there will be legal and political resentments to the generals 'election' as the President, there is a chance that if free elections are allowed and all are allowed to participate then perhaps the chances are that this sordid deed will be buried in the need for national interest.
Yes indeed the General was doing fine for democracy up to a year or so back, then the proverbial 'drunk with power' syndrome got to the man. Locking up political opponents, firing a Judge for alleged corruption without referring the case to the judiciary to try their own, and mishandling the siege of a mosque a few hundred meters from the Presidential residence in Islamabad all started a response from the General that has not made sense. In an interview to BBC the General tried to justify his actions and asked 'you think I just went mad in the last few months?'. The truth is Yes sir you have gone pretty mad. Here is why.
Building democracy by tearing up the constitution, locking up over 3,000 lawyers and human rights activists and rewriting the rules to protect your position is NOT Democracy. Interestingly Benazir Bhutto in championing 'democracy' cut her deals, then the general reneged and she did a hasty U turn and now might well contest the election as the sole main political leader if Nawaz Sharif is not allowed to contest the election. Under the new rules Mr. Sharif has to be personally present to file his nomination papers, so it is likely he will convince his Saudi hosts to let him return. Perhaps this was one of the reasons General Musharraf visited King Abdullah in Riyadh to either ask the Saudis not to let former PM back, but is more likely that he was trying to ask them to get Mr. Sharif agree to not demand the general's removal as President if he, in return, is allowed to return.
The Americans have again got this wrong, as if their main purpose is to fight terrorism and restore democracy then the way forward is rather simpler than backing just the General and Benazir Bhutto. They should engage in a contact with Mr. Nawaz Sharif and indeed the religious political parties in getting them to agree that Washington will support a full free election in return all political parties must agree to reduce violence within Pakistan. This is also in the interests of all the political parties, as terrorism within the country takes the political initiative away from the party leadership. Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf, now out of uniform, will not be able to deal with terrorism on their own.
If full and free elections are held and all parties are allowed to contest then this is what is likely, Sind province will go to Benazir's political party, Punjab to Nawaz Sharif, the North West Frontier Province to the MMA (a coalition of religious political parties) and Baluchistan to the Baluchi nationalist parties. Only the PML of Nawaz Sharif can deal with the groups who will win in NWFP and Baluchistan, and it is in these provinces that the problems of militancy and terrorism exist. This is why I have always argued that the country needs a government of national reconstruction where all parties are encouraged to form a collective government. Backing only one or two horses in this complex race will never be a fruitful bet and hence the dialogue has to be more broad based.
For the US hence the option has to be a neutral encouragement for free elections after they have had contacts with all political parties. It would seem while there will be legal and political resentments to the generals 'election' as the President, there is a chance that if free elections are allowed and all are allowed to participate then perhaps the chances are that this sordid deed will be buried in the need for national interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)