Pakistan Press on Musharraf’s Military Rule and Covid Biting Trump: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
10 October
2020
• Transitions from Musharraf’s Military Rule to
a Democratic Dispensation
By Muhammad Ziauddin
• A Military Is Only For War
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
• Covid Bites Trump
By Irfan Husain
-----
Transitions from Musharraf’s Military Rule to a
Democratic Dispensation
By Muhammad Ziauddin
October 10,
2020
Democracy
is always noisy. It has to be. When you have a government party trying to
implement its long-term manifesto which normally takes a life-time to realise,
execute at the same time a number of development projects with an eye on the
next election and also trying to keep the opposition from capturing the centre
stage in the ongoing vociferous verbal confrontation via the media as well as
through public meetings, you simply cannot hope to avoid deafening ruckus. You
have to live with it, not lose your mind because of it.
Indeed,
both the ruling party and the opposition should know that, while going for each
other’s jugular which is legitimate in a robust democracy, they need to stop
before crossing the point of no return so that no matter who among the two
contestants loses or wins, the system itself survives ensuring continuation of
democratic process.
The red
lines identifying the points of no return are well defined in the Constitution.
Democrats well-versed in Constitutional matters know when to step back. But
during transitions from one system of governance to the other, accidents do
happen and points of no return get crossed; that is when the democratic process
gets derailed. Pakistan has suffered from such accidents number of times in the
past.
The first
time that happened was when the then Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved
the Constituent Assembly on 24 October, 1954 as we were transiting from
colonial rule to independence. This derailment also saw the first military
takeover (October 1958) that morphed into a presidential form of government
with Field Marshal Ayub Khan having been ‘elected’ in January 1965, by an
electoral college composed of Basic Democrats, who had been patronised under a
system of grants and development funds since their own elections in 1959.
This
derailment saw the second military takeover, two Indo-Pak wars and the
dismemberment of the country.
This
derailment lasted until about the time when we finally contracted a broadly
consented Constitution in 1973 and entered once again a phase of transition
from military rule to parliamentary democracy. But it did not take long for the
accident-prone transition to suffer from the third military takeover on 5 July,
1977.
This
derailment lasted until the seeming restoration of democracy with elections
being held in October 1988. This was the period when democracy was used as a
façade with the Army ruling from behind the scene. The façade came to an end
when the Army staged its fourth takeover in October 1999. During this decade of
democratic façade Pakistan fought three wars — one in support of Afghan Taliban
against the Northern Alliance and the other (using non-state actors) in support
of the freedom fighters of Indian occupied Kashmir, the third against India in
Kargil.
This derailment
lasted until about the time when elections were held in 2008. During this
derailment we fought two wars – one in support of American troops against
Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and a terror war within against Tehreek-i-Taliban,
Pakistan (TTP). War against TTP is tapering off but complete victory still
seems elusive. We also saw the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto during this period.
We are
still transiting from Musharraf’s military rule to a democratic dispensation
and saw for a change and, for the better, two peaceful transfers of power from
one elected government to the other. Both the rules of the PPP (2008-2013) and
the PML-N (2013-2018) had remained prone to accidents throughout their
respective tenures. But the Superior Courts seemingly went off the books to
help avert these potential accidents. In the PPP case, it got rid of expected
cause of an accident by dismissing Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani on the
flimsy charge of contempt of court; and in the case of the PML-N, it got rid of
the cause by disqualifying Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for life on the dubious
charge of him not being Sadiq and Amin.
Transition
continues. And the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the PTI government
and the opposition seems well on the road to a point of no return. It is,
therefore, time for the two to step back so that the courts do not step in and
do what is not their job.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2267717/transitions-are-prone-to-accidents
----
A Military Is Only For War
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
10 Oct 2020
GEN Ayub
Khan, president of Pakistan 1958-1969, was a simple man. His solutions to
complex issues could sometimes take your breath away. On page 101 of Friends
Not Masters — his autobiography written while in office — he complains that
student indiscipline is rampant because “there are far too many students and
not enough buildings, laboratories, and libraries”.
His
suggested fix: “One instructor on a platform with a loudspeaker can take a very
large body of students at one time, and just half an hour a day should build up
their bodies and minds, and take the devil out of them.”
Actually,
the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT
masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty
buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student,
nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his
father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal
Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough
and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a
privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.
Ayub’s
cockeyed views on education owes to Sandhurst where physical drill and
discipline came first and foremost. This would ensure that “the cadet has a
graceful carriage, stands easy and erect, and shows by his bearing that he is
manly and self-reliant. Mr Molesworth, an English authority, has said: The
contrast between Hyperion and a Satyr is scarcely more striking than that which
exists between the loutish bearing of a Lancashire lad and the firm,
respectful, and self-respecting carriage of the same person after he has been
disciplined and polished by the drill.”
Had
Sandhurst-trained UK officers run British organisations they too might have
failed like PIA, PSM, etc.
Hyperion (a
deity who holds the cosmos in place) rather than Satyr (a goat-like man) was
how the handsome young Ayub thought of himself. Although he never won any war,
a strong self-image encouraged him into becoming the world’s first
self-declared field marshal. It also gave him sufficient confidence to launch
the coup of 1958, dismiss president Iskander Mirza from office, and spend the
next decade steering the country. While these were years of extraordinary
movement, they were not always in the right direction.
Ayub firmly
hitched Pakistan to the American wagon and, flush with American weapons,
launched Operation Gibraltar. This started the 1965 war but with all options
gone he had to end it inconclusively. He irreversibly alienated East Pakistan
from West Pakistan. In 1968, widespread agitation finally ended his so-called
Decade of Development. Nevertheless Ayub Khan is popularly rated higher than
the generals who succeeded him: Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf.
Fortunately,
British military academies have produced very few Ayub-like putschists.
Certainly several British officers must have had Ayub-sized egos. Many an officer
must have preened himself before a mirror and seen Hyperion there. But a
military coup in the British system was and remains unthinkable. Why?
Successful
societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for
running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military
officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment
outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform
can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as
clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.
Imagine for
a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it.
Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired
RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out
complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate
British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the
British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer
or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving
or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?
Fortunately
for Britain, such an experiment has never been tried and military officers are
not automatically made heads of organisations upon retirement. Else the result
would be a graveyard of failing or flailing institutions similar to chronically
sick organisations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, Suparco, Wapda, PCSIR,
and countless others. In these places merit is regularly superseded not just at
the very top but inside departments as well.
Military
mindsets undeniably contain some exceptional qualities. The testing conditions
of war require that militaries develop a spectrum of capabilities stretching
from command and control to logistics and materiel management. Many develop
their own engineering and medical facilities that are very useful when a
natural or man-made disaster strikes. In fact, most countries have legislation
requiring armed forces to support civilian authorities during emergencies and
war.
But what
can keep a military from wandering into civilian and administrative affairs
during peacetime? At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western
world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero
generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become
dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur.
The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian
control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it
apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate
policy.
Although
military men in the age of electronic warfare have to be smarter and better
informed than their predecessors, a graduate from some military academy is no
substitute for those who have spent their careers honing specific skills in
academia, industry, commerce, and a plethora of technical fields.
All
Pakistani institutions are desperately short of competence and sorely need the
right people in the right places. Retired officers when put at the head of
organisations can make cosmetic changes and may superficially improve
institutional discipline but not much else. Soldiers should stick to what they
are good at and paid for — fighting wars rather than running businesses or
making movies.
----
Pervez Hoodbhoy is an Islamabad-based physicist
and writer.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1584232/a-military-is-only-for-war
----
Covid Bites Trump
By Irfan Husain
10 Oct 2020
SELDOM in
the history of mankind has the illness of one person caused so much glee around
the world. That shrill sound you hear are giggles on social media.
I know it’s
not nice to revel in schadenfreude, the German word for deriving pleasure from
the misfortune of others, but Donald Trump deserves it as nobody else does.
While many put on a veneer of sympathy, they are generally delighted that he
fell victim to Covid-19, the virus that has already killed around 215,000
Americans, and infected more than seven million.
It was
Trump, more than any other world leader, who urged his countrymen to spurn
their masks, and generally ignore the pandemic. Many of his poorly educated
followers took him at his word and fell victim to the deadly virus. And his
outlandish ‘cures’, including bleach to be injected into veins, indicate how
out of touch with reality he is.
So when he
conducted meetings — and one presidential debate with his rival Joe Biden —
without wearing a mask, doctors were aghast. Even his entourage at the debate
refused to wear any protective gear. As a result of such unshielded gatherings,
dozens of his staff, family members and senators are now stricken with the
disease.
Despite a
series of national polls showing Trump will lose the election on Nov 3, he is
determined to fight on. More alarmingly, he has sent out signals that he may
not accept the result if he doesn’t win. The outcome of such an unprecedented
move could be violent, given the number of arms his supporters display at
public meetings.
It’s useful
to have an elected idiot taking the flak.
Given
America’s lofty claims to moral leadership and democratic behaviour, Trump has
hardly helped his country to set an example. Now, how can any American leader
or diplomat lecture others on the virtues of human rights and freedom?
And nor can
this crusade be carried out by a state that condones the vicious racism within
its shores. How do you criticise others for their treatment of minorities when
your police kill blacks with impunity practically every other day?
In less
than four years, Trump has done more to tarnish his country’s image than any of
his predecessors. And by his personal words and actions, he has made the White
House the emblem of scandal and nepotism.
Ai Weiwei,
the iconic Chinese artist living in exile as a fierce critic of his government,
recently ticked off his countrymen for expressing joy at Trump’s misfortune.
Really? After the American president launched a destabilising trade war with
China, and blamed the country for the virus, surely people are allowed an
expression of relief at the sight of their foe getting bitten.
Trump is
widely viewed as a creature of the powerful capitalist predators who have
benefited most from his generous tax cuts. As income inequality has continued
to grow around the world, especially in America, there is a growing fear of
revolution. So it’s useful to have an elected idiot taking the flak for the ills
of capitalism. But while they flocked to fund his campaign coffers in 2016,
plutocrats aren’t as generous this time around. After all, they are experts at
spotting a loser.
There is an
important school of thought that includes Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx who
hold that history is not made by individuals, but by economic and social
factors. This theory can best be summed up by this quote: “The material world
determines our ideas, rather than our ideas determining the material world.”
It is true
that the sweep of history is more often than not laid down by materialism, but
individuals like Stalin, Hitler and Mao have accelerated the process in the
last century. Prophets in the past revealed truths that are still revered
today, for better or for worse.
So perhaps
Trump has unwittingly brought the contradictions that lie at the heart of
capitalism to the forefront. We will soon find out if the majority of Americans
buy into his vision of a freewheeling economy that ignores the poor while
further enriching the wealthy. Or has the American Dream turned into a
nightmare?
Meanwhile,
hundreds of millions in the developing world have been lifted out of poverty,
thanks to globalisation. This outsourcing of jobs is something Trump has fought
against tooth and nail, largely because it has fuelled a rampant Chinese
economy. These billions have boosted China to the extent where it can now look
America in the eye, and claim technological leadership. This is anathema to the
White House and the Pentagon.
But Trump
has raised commercial and scientific disputes to the next level by imposing
fierce tariffs and sanctions. It is a sign of Chinese determination that it has
refused to bend.
Meanwhile,
back at the ranch, Trump faces a crushing defeat. But it will probably not lessen
the divisions in American society.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1584241/covid-bites-trump
-------
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-musharraf’s-military-rule/d/123098
New Age
Islam, Islam
Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in
Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In
Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism