Who is going to pay?
We have a problem. Sorry, our leaders have a problem. Sorry again; those aping as our leaders have a problem. This lament owes to a news item that caught my eye published July 17, 2014, and deals with PM Nawaz Sharif’s sojourn to Arabian shores. An excerpt is reproduced below:
“During his stay, sources said, Nawaz Sharif would hold background meetings with senior Saudi officials who have good relations with Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency to discuss certain matters. According to sources, the PML-N is convinced that its rivals have been emboldened by ‘strained relations’ between the government and the top spy agency.
“Highly-placed sources in the PML-N say that although the party leadership is comfortable with the army chief, the top spymaster still has some serious issues with the PML-N government, especially over the government’s handling of a vilification campaign against the top spy agency. The unrelenting anti-government tirades of Imran Khan and ominous predictions of Sheikh Rashid have convinced the PML-N leadership that the spy agency is not ready to compromise on the issue, these sources added.”
Now here is the problem:
Pakistan’s insecure leadership has been historically reliant on foreign powers to run its internal matters. How sad is that!
The ‘foreign powers’ giving financial handouts rightly feel the weight of ‘being right’ on their world-weary shoulders with the responsibility to nappy-change Pakistan. Here is another gem, this one by Ambassador Beth Jones, the US deputy special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan: “It seems to me that the march is not something that anyone should fear. It is not a destabilising event. In a stable democracy, it is appropriate for there to be all kinds of expression of views.” (Published July 17, 2014)
Imagine for a second if situation were reversed: an opposition party in United States of A was taking out a procession on Independence Day, would the Pakistani ambassador based there or any other senior official get away with making such a comment on it? No sieee!
Promoting freedom of expression Ambassador Beth Jones forgot about the laws existing in the United States of A limiting this freedom. One reminder is the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”. The law imposes fine or imprisonment up to 10 years. No one (unconcerned) can enter ‘restricted buildings or grounds’. The law describes ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ as:
“Any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area…
‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorised to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’”
Whither freedom of speech? Remember freedom of speech is but a part of freedom of expression.
Twiddle dee dum!
So sugar daddies when support local coloured (not real, dyed as we know) candyfloss make two standards, one for themselves and the other for the client states ruled by dyed candyfloss(es).
In my op-ed dated February 18, 2014, I had written, ‘Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a $183 million credit agreement. One dealt with the construction of a hydropower project in Chitral, while the other pertained to the import of urea fertiliser from Saudi Arabia. This news was accompanied by another, that of Pakistan having decided to support Saudi Arabia in its demand to replace Bashar al-Assad’s regime with an interim government. Interestingly, on the very same date, Iran issued a threat to Pakistan to send forces within its borders should it fail to rescue the five Iranian border guards abducted 10 days ago.’
I had gone on to offer my tuppence, “Shopping for a sugar daddy, Pakistan needs to understand that its interests and those of the sugar daddy may converge on some levels and may diverge on others. A pragmatic evaluation of the long-term national interests of Pakistan needs to be made in the light of the changing geopolitical scenario. Pakistan alone should define Pakistan’s national interests. When lollipops are accepted from a sugar daddy, there is always a price to pay. Pakistan must strive to build a balanced foreign policy, not based on imbalances. Imbalances lead to skewed relationships. Skewed relationships lead to an inevitable mess and inevitable messes to bitterness and mistrust. Pakistan and the US, too, have had a relationship marked with varying expectations from each other. The fact that the interests of both diverged on many levels was maybe never appreciated by either. “The relationship needs redefinition, based on recognition of divergent interests …” (Husain Haqqani, writing in Magnificent Delusions, page 350). Somehow, Pakistan seems to be ready to commit the same mistake all over again with a country, it hopes, may invest in its economy. How economic help can translate on the ground in a country fraught with terrorism, and severe power and gas shortages will be a challenge in itself. Not to forget the dangerously volatile and precarious nature of changing regional dynamics.”
I have always firmly believed in one simple rule: democracy stands endangered by democracy itself and by no one and nothing else. Let me explain.
It is the failure of governance that leaders fear. Also at this juncture, let me clarify the failure of governance is not to be confused with failure of state. To quote from an article by Dr Mubashir Hasan, “Describing Pakistan as a failed state is invalid and improper. The widespread corruption, lawlessness, killings, poverty and backwardness in our authoritative society only go to prove that what has failed is not Pakistan or its people but ‘the state’ in Pakistan. Article 7 of the constitution defines the ‘state’ as the federal government, parliament, a provincial government, a provincial assembly, and such local and other authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to impose any tax or cess. In practice, the state in Pakistan is none other than the ruling elite made up of senior civil and military officers and their surrogates in banking, industry, commerce, and the landed and religious aristocracy. They are in a minority of a few thousand people. Under the law they exercise total power. The 170 million people of Pakistan belonging to the poor and downtrodden sections of society, including members of the lower middle and middle classes, have no say in running the state. The elections are a monumental fraud against the people since they only throw up the present and the future representatives of the ruling elite.”
When governments fail to deliver, reasons can be from sheer incompetence to corruption to being oblivious to serving the country’s interests they purport to lead. And they run to sugar daddies for fear of this or that. These fears may well be real. Then again, these fears may well be imaginary.
Sugar daddies have no reason to support fake coloured candyflosses. Truly, they do not. Unless it suits their interests. No blame there. We would do the same if in their shoes surely.
Think twice — that is if candyflosses can think in the first instance to do it the second time before being ensconced by a sugar daddy. There is always a price. Unfortunately, it is the average Pakistani who has always ended up paying.