Benazir, Musharraf and American Government

Source: www.nation.com.pk

Political Sorcery	15th November 2007
by Dr Haider Mehdi

Ben Okri, the eminent Nigerian poet and novelist, once wrote,” The magician and the politician have much in common: they both have to draw our attention away from what they are really doing.” Marshall McLuhan, communications theorist and “guru” of the media culture, held a similar view by saying that “Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.”

In reflecting on the recent developments and events in Pakistan, the observations of both Okri and McLuhan seem to perfectly fit the unfolding political scenario in the country. The international and national political magicians along with media image-builders are bent on drawing the public’s attention away from what they really intend to do and consequently impose a further political impasse on the Pakistani people.

In leading this crescendo, the Bush administration is attempting to paint both General Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto as the two perfect “moderate” forces whose combined ideology will bring a new dawn to the political landscape of the country and to the rest of South-East Asian global politics. Complete with fully-loaded rhetoric and symbolic imagery, the global actors involved in this imprudent exercise, George W. Bush and his hawkish Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are doing their bit in brokering a Musharraf-Benazir rapprochement for a power-sharing deal to form a so-called “moderate” government. The irony of the situation is that the chief patrons of this political endeavour in themselves are the true apostles of the ultimate political extremism of our times.

Indeed, it would be an intellectual folly to believe that the US President and Secretary Rice are by any means politically “moderate” themselves, or that they are even able to remotely define the parameters of political moderation. This is the duo who has touched the epitome of “extremist” policies and set an agenda of the US atrocious global foreign policy based on fabrications, deceit and blatant lies, and the outright use of military force resulting in death and destruction to seek illegitimate American economic and political objectives. Given this cognitive background, how can Bush-Rice define the nature and fundamentals of moderate politics and link its realization to the Musharraf-Benazir team in Pakistan?

The fact of the matter is that the US President and his major spokesperson, Condoleezza Rice, are pursuing their doctrine of “war on terror and extremism” as a camouflaged policy to extend the American neo-imperialist reach in the world. In searching for partners in this ill-conceived global endeavor, they have identified Gen. Pervez Musharraf, an eight-year ally, and Benazir Bhutto, life-time chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party , as willing actors. The political magicians and image-makers are now busy in giving the final touches to their theatrical portrayal of this self-serving creation. Let us consider the Musharraf Government’s up-to-date political policies, performance and credentials to ascertain if it can be judged as a “moderate” force. General Musharraf has run Pakistan as a one-man power show, violated democratic principles, and in absolute essence has depended on American support and carried out the US given political agenda inside Pakistan. This regime has been overtly threatening the Supreme Court and civil society with an impending martial law should the apex court’s judgment go against the General’s candidacy for the presidency.

“The government is attempting to frighten the judiciary into submission and is holding Pakistan, its constitution and its people hostage to Musharraf’s desire to cling to power…Musharraf should publicly state that he will accept the decision of the Supreme Court and withdraw the threat of martial law,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

Will the incumbent government do that? If experience is an element of our judgments, we know very well that those in authority do not allow a level playing field. No hard-core anti-moderate anti-democratic dictator wishes to trade in his power position to the higher ideals of democratic leadership. Why should we expect Musharraf to do so? Especially if the world’s only Superpower is determined to support him and have the world and the Pakistani people believe that Musharraf is, indeed, an enlightened moderate force.

On the human carnage in Karachi on October 28th, the Pakistani Bureau Chief of Asian Times Online has written that Pakistan’s government was fully aware of the impending violence: “Hindsight suggests that while the whole (Pakistan’s) government appeared to be very honest in its communication with the PPP about the threat, the bombing was allowed to happen.”

Has not the 18th October violence strengthened American-Musharraf-Benazir troika’s political platform to fight so-called “terrorism and extremism”? Who has gained the most political advantage out of this human tragedy? The question is vital and legitimate – and the answer is frighteningly revealing of the actual possibilities of the implicit imagery-building potentials of a determined troika to have its way – no matter what.

In another gimmick of the same image-building exercise, the apologists for Benazir Bhutto claim that BB’s re-entry to Pakistani politics and her deal with General Musharraf, now proven to be planned and brokered by the Bush Administration, is intended purely for a peaceful transition to democracy in Pakistan. These apologists also wish to convince the Pakistani public that the political move made by Benazir was the only option available. However, those Benazir supporters conveniently and deliberately forget to consider that the American agenda of “war on terror and extremism” is as flawed and erroneous as the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, Benazir’s support of American policy and her ideological and political commitment with General Musharraf’s perspective – to fight the “war on terror and extremism” — is equally flawed and politically incorrect. The fact of the matter is that these are essentially political issues and there is a whole window of opportunity to deal with them politically. The only legitimate course is to resolve these issues through political reconciliation discourse – a concept that America is not willing to undertake and Musharraf and Benazir are not in favour of.

Secondly, merely going through the motions of holding elections does not guarantee a transition to true democracy. A military ruler’s possible political legitimacy is a dangerous omen for the future of this country because Pervez Musharraf with or without uniform remains involuntarily entrenched in the military establishment, come what may. Why hasn’t Benazir pondered on this aspect?

Thirdly, hasn’t the PPP chairperson considered that an 8-year tenure of power for a country’s leader, military dictator or not, is enough? On what logistical, ideological, political or logical grounds is another tenure for General Musharraf essential? This regime’s US-centric agenda has failed to bring peace and tranquility to Pakistan; in fact, the law and order situation has worsened. On the economic front, its economic policies have made poverty further widespread and has divided the nation into absolute haves and have-nots, in the process the middle class has been decimated and the cost of living has spiraled out of control.

Fourthly, albeit the use of emotionally-laden sloganistic rhetoric, Benazir has offered no detailed policy platform to back her claims of “roti, kapra aur makkan.” How she intends to do it…Not a word. What has she done in the last 8 years to contribute to the nation’s political and economic emancipation? Not a thing. Magical imagery-building, yes. Profound contributions, no.

Fifthly, Benazir has personally benefitted, financially and politically, from the American-brokered arrangement with General Musharraf. The problem here is that BB’s personal good clearly contradicts the Pakistani public’s good. Does she remain credible? Sixthly, couldn’t the restoration of full democracy be accomplished by Benazir joining all other pro-democratic parties and making it possible to oust the military regime completely out of Pakistan’s political landscape. But that might not have assured the PPP Chairperson a slot for Prime Ministership – a possibility that Benazir would not have remotely considered because of her power-centered political psyche.

“Ambition drove many (people) to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue,” wrote the ancient Roman historian, Sallust. Centuries later, John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

Pakistan is now in the clutches of two ambitious myth-makers, General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, aided and assisted by the most powerful country in the world, the US. Let us not be taken in!