Born to rule

Divine right of political heir-apparents

April has not only been the ‘cruellest month’ for the concerned citizen thus far, it has been downright mean, nasty and malicious, and left him holding his head in despair: the Siachen tragedy, more instances of gruesome sectarian ethnic cleansing, the Karachi violence revisited, another high-profile scandal allegedly involving their Graces about whom the media is expected to be seen but not heard like Victorian children, and the verbal wars and goings- on of our above-the-law ‘elect’.

But first the 33rd death anniversary of Z A Bhutto, on April 4. It was unfortunate that a solemn occasion meant to honour the late leader’s memory and mission was turned into a vilification campaign against the Supreme Court by none other than the dynastic heir-apparent of the party founded by him. There was a lot of Larkana versus Lahore rhetoric, emotional appeals to the prime minister about not writing the Scarlet or is it Swiss, Letter, and various other manifestations of a ‘best revenge’ democracy in action.

One of these days the party will have to make up its mind whether it will be a merit, experience and election-based outfit, or lean upon the divine right to rule of such ‘democratic’ dynastic progeny. The hyphenated Bhutto cub needs to learn and prove himself over a long period of time before he can lay an authentic claim to the mantle of his illustrious grandfather and martyred mother. It is difficult for a twenty first century citizen to accept the born-to-rule notion, or rather, neurosis.

The arguably national party shall also have to decide if it is to be run on the lines of a slavish personal obedience, or be flexible enough to tolerate intra-party debate and dissent in a healthy democratic manner. At this time, the party leader can be compared to the Conservative British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain about whom a sickened Harold Macmillan noted: ‘If Chamberlain says that black is white, the Tories applaud his brilliance. If a week later he says that black is after all black, they applaud his realism. Never has there been such servility’!

To continue April’s woes, the heir-apparent’s father, Regent, BB’s widower and legatee on a scrap of paper to rule Pakistan, the co-chairman, and accidental President (that’s one person, by the way) descended on Lahore or rather on Governor’s House, Lahore, from behind whose secluded ramparts he proceeded to make some rather silly personal remarks about the Sharif duo, his great love/hates, who have also happily multiplied into a foursome (till last reports), with the addition of the chicken feed king and the lady of the lamp, sorry, laptop.

The sentiments uttered from inside the gubernatorial fortress were frankly most unpresidential and unappealing, smacking in fact of a juvenile ‘I am Bruce Almighty, My Will be Done’ boastfulness, and more befitting the vocabulary of a Meyer Lansky, Lucky Luciano or a Carlo Gambino. But the younger Sharif had also been pretty nasty in the verbal duel only a few days earlier, and the miffed president was perhaps repaying the compliment, with compound interest and a bonus.

But lest one forget, the president is also (supposedly) a ceremonial head of state, the symbol of the federation and of its unity and harmony. Perhaps he saw in himself only the man, not the office, while making the riposte. But more likely, he spoke as the co-chairman of the party, which is worse.

Does the gentle, or by now fuming reader (if any) even know the name of the Indian president, except that she belongs to the stricter sex? Or recalls any scandal about her, or ever sees her ‘orders’, ‘notices’ and pearls of wisdom strewn all over the headlines? Of course, the world’s first and only consulting detective, Mr Sherlock Holmes, might have gone further than the uninitiated layman in these matters by a remark on first acquaintance such as, ‘You mention your name as if I should recognise it, but I assure you that beyond the obvious fact that you are left-handed, a Freemason, a traveller in the East, and an asthmatic, I know nothing whatever about you’! One tries to remember the name at least, but fails repeatedly because of her constitutional correctness in remaining discretely in the background.

Then off the president (ours) flitted to neighbouring, but on the whole, less than neighbourly, India, on a ‘most secret, (fluttering) eyes only’, mission whose success would leave even Graf von Bismarck openmouthed in astonishment. Somehow it is remains a pipe dream of all our insecure leaders to pull off a spectacular personal diplomatic coup in India (Zia in Delhi, Musharraf in Agra) as millions cheer. The party co-chairman’s image of a political genius is consciously fostered within the party (Ek Zardari sab pa bhari) and he must have been desperate to reinforce his ‘Zardari ubber alles’ self-belief. One cannot say what his prayer wish was at Ajmer Sharif, perhaps it was a plea for success in the coming general elections, in which case it is moot whether he will return for the Thanksgiving visit.

The leader was actually keeping a hawk eye on those rapidly dwindling voters back home all the time (no sympathy votes this time, or poignant excuses such as ‘desecrating the grave’ or the ubiquitous whining about ‘unknown’ forces not allowing the government to work) and returned amid much fanfare and applause from the bondsmen who constitute the top party leadership these days for his ‘forty minutes of fame’. But this hardly afforded any relief to a bewildered people desperate for the ‘peace within and calm around’ that have eluded them since Musharraf’s last turbulent years. The theatrical, it seems, has replaced the tumultuous.

A truly nationalist leader would have felt no hesitation in postponing the Indian trip after the tragedy that struck our soldiers in Siachen. However, if one has caught the travel bug, an apt visiting place would be the Islamic Republic of Pakistan itself, and more particularly Quetta, Chilas, Skardu and Gilgit, where gruesome ethnic killings took place, and where the country is burning and in fact unravelling at the roots, while the seemingly unconcerned Neros fiddle away. It is only by first putting one’s own house of ‘darkness, sorrow and mourning’ in order that one can make a meaningful impact on the diplomatic front, rather than vice-versa. That is, if one desires to negotiate from a position of strength rather than on bended knee.

As for the Indians they are far too canny to pull any unpopular Pakistani leaders’ chestnuts out of the fire. Rule number one of India’s good neighbour policy.

The non-performance of the last four years has been one of monumental proportions and the leaders ‘far from taking the country to dry land, have not even strapped a life-jacket around it’. So far, only an unerring and exceptional ability for opening Pandora Boxes and stirring up hornet’s nests has been on display, to our bitter misfortune.

The incumbent’s mindset, like most of our past rulers of whatever hue, is to rule like an Oriental potentate, hampered by none, and preferably till eternity. Perhaps this explains the attempts from day one to retain an acquiescent judiciary amenable to midnight instructions and the constant carping at the restored independent one and second, to cut the army (and particularly the ISI) to size by reducing or ending its intrusion in the political domain.

In the case of the latter, the president really acts like an ‘angry young man’ in a hurry. Witness the indecent-haste fiasco of putting the agency under the welcoming and eager ‘Rehman Baba’ ministry. An order sheepishly withdrawn within the hour. A Z dreams of bringing the army to heel at the drop of a feather, to stop its meddlesome forays in his domain with a magic wand, but with his long past, love of humdrum materialism, and his wasted, ‘second chance’ present of losing friends and making enemies, erratic wheeling-dealing and retarded performance, he is really the last person to take on such a challenging task. He needs to accept his limitations before ‘playing with words and waving cardboard swords’ at the Supreme Court and the Army, which have caused such damaging instability and uncertainty over the past four years.

‘There is no revolution that can change the nature of man’, but even changing settled mindsets requires patience, political acumen, an understanding of power, and above all, performance. And performance especially in the economic sphere (remember, ‘It’s the economy, stupid’) which brings about an all round prosperity and trickles down to the last marginalized citizen. That is where the real strength of any committed popular leader or reformer lies. But today, Pakistan’s economy, potentially so rich in promise, is in ruins due to political lethargy, incompetence and all-pervasive corruption.

The British prime minister for the latter part of World War I, Lloyd George and his colleagues, horrified at the bloody carnage in the trenches of France (the British army actually suffered nearly 58,000 casualties in one day alone, with 20,000 killed!) sought to establish political control over military operations by restraining the powerful vested interests in the upper-class British Army. He recalled that ‘I had to contend not with a profession but with a priesthood devoted to its chosen idol’. And there were few contemporaries who could match the wits of the Welsh Wizard in political stratagem. So, patience a moment. Wait for the next term – if you have one.

The nation must expect many more somersaults of the ‘man on the flying trapeze’ variety, diplomatic and domestic theatricals and ‘whirling dervish’ behaviour as the election looms. More so because the regime’s ‘credit now stands on such slippery ground’ confronting an enraged electorate tormented by rocketing inflation, load-shedding, gas shortages and other unaddressed horrors. The general public is utterly sick of all the hypocrisy and flattery surrounding the present leaders, of the standard of their integrity, of their lack of moral courage and the politics of expediency and least resistance epitomised by them.

Indeed, the popular, progressive viewpoint that the majority ruling party otherwise represents, could have been better served by an Old Guard leader possessed of ‘an artful moderation (which) contributed to the success of his every design’ at this stage, rather than a last will and testament nominee. Perhaps one should rephrase the old proverb according to the tenor of the times: If character is lost, something is lost, if wealth is lost, everything is lost, but if Independence is lost, nothing is lost!! God forbid, if we lose it now, we won’t regain it in a thousand years, struggle as we might. So, wake up, all you selfish, domineering and proud…

The writer is a freelance columnist.