On the fence

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad.

“A PRINCE is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that to
say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the
other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two
of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if any one of
them conquers, you have either to fear him or not” — from Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Astonishingly, the great Machiavelli, villainous for some, was able to predict around 1532AD,
the state of democracy in Pakistan today. If you think about it, it is all the more amazing
considering that his masterpiece, The Prince, is only focused on providing guidance to dictat

After the Panama verdict, this is the exact dilemma that every Pakistani is faced with today;
polarisation at its extreme. And what scares the bejeebers out of me, is that 99 per cent of the
99pc are passionately and ferociously aligned with one side or the other. While it is
understandable, considering the national literacy rate, that the majority of common
Pakistanis are easily rustled towards fanatically supporting one, or the other, side of the
picture, it is nevertheless rather disconcerting to see persons blessed with proper education
mindlessly ranting in support of their respective political party.
 Where are the motivated independent opinion
makers? Is there no one?

Dear readers, in all this chaos, I have a simple question; whatever happened to the right and
wrong of things?

Thinking rationally, anyone cannot be right all the time; except, unfortunately, those
‘anyone’ who can today fool all of us all the time. Utterly befuddling is that everyone cheers,
celebrates and argues for their side on every issue. Reminiscent of president Bill Clinton’s
impeachment, we have already witnessed multiple definitions and application of the word
‘corruption’, and perhaps the next project is about receivables.

I agree that the truth is relative, but how is it even possible that all sides can be right every
time? It is but natural for everyone to be wrong some of the time! Albeit try pointing out to
the ruling elite, in power or in opposition, that they are wrong on any issue; or even to their
supporters. There seems to be a dearth of patience to handle even positive criticism. Things
have come to a point where your selection of news channel can brand you as a friend or foe;
there being no middle path. How is a democracy, which thrives on loyalty and shuns merit,
different from an aristocracy?

And when I say democracy, I don’t single out those in power, I include the entire political
compass. Realistically speaking, the rank and file of political parties unthinkingly towing the
party line is perhaps not unwarranted. Additionally, considering that private media houses
are in the business of profit and not national good, them being aligned to one side or the
other is a given; which perhaps most of us fail to understand. Today, journalistic
independence is a myth.

Literally, for some time now, I have not come across views which are middle of the path.
Depending on which side you are on, everything is either good or bad, closed mindedly; how
can the economy be stable and unstable at the same time? CPEC cannot be a game changer
and be similar to the East India Company at the same time. Worse, debates are shunned and
when they do happen, they resemble a non-physical version of kick boxing with serious
potential to get physical. And rest assured everything is deeply personal.

But where are the independent thinkers, the motivated independent opinion makers? Is
there no one? What happened to them? My answer to these questions, in one word, is fear.
And there is sufficient evidence to support this view; getting beaten up, simply disappearing,
getting FIRs registered against you, or at the very least being served income tax notices, is
the fate that awaits anyone foolhardy enough to criticise the inhabitants on either side of the
corridors of power.

For that very small minority, who have always been sceptical that democracy is a system to
beat all systems, the epiphany that the only difference between democracy and dictatorship
is hypocrisy, is a mixed blessing. While it feels good to be right, it feels worse to see where
Pakistan stands today. Our enemies must surely be gleefully celebrating, we as a nation stand
divided over trivial pursuits while increasingly surrounded by hostilities. Today, we as a
nation, can agree on absolutely nothing. And unfortunately, there seems to be no light at the
end of the tunnel.

You think, you ponder, and you pray for a way out of this mess for Pakistan, but meanwhile it
is best to be sitting on the fence.

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad.

syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, August 6th, 2017

An unburied lion
F.S. AijazuddinUpdated August 10, 2017
110

The writer is an author.

ELECTED governments in Pakistan have less to fear from the Indian army than from
their own — with good reason. For almost 60 years, since October 1958, politicians
have lost every battle to gain the higher ground of civilian supremacy. Will they ever
win the war?

After the fall of East Pakistan in December 1971, Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had the
opportunity to send a demoralised army back to the barracks. Many assumed he
would. Instead, he opted to become Pakistan’s fourth president and third chief
martial law administrator. He could not resist imitating his militaristic hero
Napoleon Bonaparte.
In 1977, Mr Bhutto, accused of rigging the general elections, was brutally reminded
that, while political parties owe their loyalty to the electorate, the Pakistan Army
owes its allegiance to the state. Political parties may hustle to present themselves to
their voters as the better option. They may take turns on the merry-go-around of
selfish governance. But the Pakistan Army — one of the region’s largest standing
armies — stands also as the vigilant watchdog of the national interest, the muscular
alternative to mismanaged democracy.

The public has nothing but the lowest expectations.

One word common to the lexicon of civilian governments and the security
establishment is contempt. Civilian governments routinely display contempt for the
public; the security establishment regularly betrays contempt for civilians. There is a
view that elected governments are regarded as unwanted pregnancies, to be aborted
whenever need be, to save the motherland. The latest still-birth is the ouster of a
third-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif. It was done with a sleight of pen worthy of
the late Sharifuddin Pirzada.

In time, books will be written on the way Sharif’s removal was induced. There will be
tardy admissions of remorse, as there were after Z.A. Bhutto’s hanging. Many
associated with this latest case may want, like Pontius Pilate, to absolve themselves.
What no one in Islamabad will be able to escape is culpability for an unforgivable
degeneration in standards at every level.

We know the army prefers to subsist within the boundaries of its own self-
demarcated, well-defended political cantonment. Civilians envy its manicured order,
its privileges like housing, schooling, medical facilities, preferential allotment of state
lands, pensions (borne directly by the civilian budget), and gilded retirement. No
wonder civilians feel like inferior ‘children of a lesser god’.

The custodians of our law have revealed a fragile fallibility. Many remember a former
chief justice’s obiter dicta deciding Nawaz Sharif’s restoration to the prime minister-
ship in 1993. “The law,” he pronounced, “is mightier than the King of Kings.” They
have now seen his successors at the same Supreme Court stoop from that intellectual
pre-eminence to quoting from an airport lounge novel The Godfather.
Many question why the Supreme Court has usurped the mundane functions of a
magistrate’s court — that of investigation, prosecution, and judgement? By allowing
the media to set up camp on its very doorstep and then live-stream the progress of
the case being adjudicated inside, the dignity of the Supreme Court cannot but be
demeaned.

From politicians, the public has nothing but the lowest expectations. Political debate
has sunk to such abysmal levels that no one is shocked or surprised anymore by
increasingly salacious, putrefying revelations. Scurrilous pictures of Mrs Nusrat
Bhutto dancing with president Gerald Ford in 1975 were small potatoes compared to
the present character assassination of the PTI leader Imran Khan. He is accused by
Ms Aaisha Gulalai (a rebel PTI party member) of having sent her inappropriate
messages four years ago. Only technology can affirm or refute her belated allegations.

The PTI has retaliated by fielding their own Ayesha — Ayesha Ahad, who alleges that
she is the mistreated wife of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s son Hamza Sharif. With
apologies to both, one is reminded of a poem — John F. Kennedy’s favourite — about
a pet so elongated that “when its eyes were filled with tears of sadness, its tail still
wagged from previous gladness”. With Ayesha and Aaisha on board, can the Sita
White scandal be far behind?

Mr Imran Khan once boasted that he had been offered the prime minister-ship by
Gen Musharraf. It seems he is now expecting similar largesse from his successor.
Meanwhile, there is wounded Nawaz Sharif left to finish. Almost 175 years ago, on
Sept 15, 1843, the Sikh Maharaja Sher Singh was murdered by his opponents at Shah
Bilawal, outside Lahore. A Persian couplet described the tragedy: Ba shauq sagan
shikar-i-sheran kardand (‘For their sport, curs hunted lions’).

An unburied Nawaz Sharif plans to wreak revenge. Ironically, both Z.A. Bhutto in
1977 and Nawaz Sharif in 2017, when ousted from prime minister’s house, repaired
first to Murree, then made a triumphant journey to Lahore. Will Nawaz Sharif like
Bhutto be arrested before he reaches Lahore? Or will his revolution succeed where
Bhutto’s revolt against Gen Ziaul Haq failed?

The writer is an author.

www.fsaijazuddin.pk
Published in Dawn, August 10th, 2017