[ALOCHONA] Professor Rehman Sobhan On Exit Strategies

Professor Rehman Sobhan On Exit Strategies By Qudrat-I Elahi, Canada In August 2007 issue of the Daily Star Forum, Professor Rehman Sobhan published an article titled, Exit Strategies: Some Lessons From History. The objective of this article was to explore the options of "the CTG and its backers" by taking some lessons from the entry and exit of previous militarised regimes in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. The current dramatic changes in our political landscape imply that "the CTG and its backers" have taken Professor Sobhan's suggestions seriously. I do not know if anyone has examined his arguments as yet. But the new political situation definitely demands this examination. The following is a précis of the history of military interventions in Pakistan and Bangladesh that Professor Sobhan presented in his article. The basic difference between the two descriptions is that I am just stating the facts, while Professor Sobhan coloured those facts with his interpretations that appeared to be more politically biased than academic. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN PAKISTAN First, General Ayub Khan, Chief of Army Staff, took over power in 1958 by staging a military coup and declared martial law. The pretext of this coup was the corrupt and squabbling political administration. Eventually he formed his own party, Conventional Muslim League and perpetuated his regime. Second, Ayub Khan resigned at the height of popular movement handing over power to Army Chief General Yahya Khan. General Khan promised to hand over power to elected political leaders after holding rigging-free general elections to Pakistan National Assembly in 1970. He kept his promise of holding a rigging-free elections and Awami League came out to be biggest gainer in the elections- it won absolute majority. But he did not keep the other part of the promise- handing over power to elected politicians- with the excuse that two major political parties, Awami League and Pakistan People's Party (PPP), failed to agree on the critical policies of governance. Particularly, PPP President Z. A. Bhutto threatened to boycott the convention of National Assembly. Yahya Khan postponed the convention, arrested Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman and started genocide, which eventually led to war of liberation and we won independence in exchange of a sea of blood. Third, Yahya Khan resigned after handing over power to Bhutto, who held national assembly elections in 1977. The elections were recklessly rigged and were rejected by opposition political parties. Pakistan succumbed into political chaos. The Army Chief Zeaul Haq took this opportunity to depose Bhutto and eventually hanged him. He also formed a political front with the help of politicians and got him elected as President of the country. He appointed Nawaz Sharif, a powerful figure in Pakistan politics, as prime minister. After his mysterious death, PPP under the leadership of Bhutto's daughter Benazir came to power. President Ghulam Ishhaq dismissed PPP government because of 'massive governance failures'. This allowed Nawaz Sharif, leader of Muslim League, to gain power again through elections. On the accusation of massive corruptions, Nawaz Sharif's government was dismissed and Benazir Bhutto came to power through elections. "Yet again, malgovernace by the PPP was instrumental in Benazir's dismissal by President Farooq Leghari, who was a PPP loyalist." This musical chair game between the PPP and the Muslim League continued as Nawaz Sharif came to power again till 'an increasingly corrupt and autocratic' Sharif sacked Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf retaliated by capturing power through an army coup and perpetuated his rule through political process. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN BANGLADESH Although Professor Sobhan had lots to say about the role of military in Pakistan politics, he said very little about the same in Bangladesh. Then he refrained from telling us whole truth for unknown reasons.. I will supplement his discussion to some extent. Bangladesh became independent under the moral leadership of Bangabandhu Sheik Mujibur Rahman and political leadership of Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmed. After independence, the country virtually became a land of one party politics that revolved around one person, President of Bangladesh Awami League (AL) Sheik Mujibur Rahman. Unless we are blind supporters of AL, we must admit that the country was being administered very badly under the leadership of Sheik Mujibur Rahman, first as Prime Minister and then as President. And his final political mistake was to transform the country under one-party rule by dismantling the democratic framework in early 1974. This also meant one-person rule.. However, the change was very short-lived, as Sheik Mujibur Rahman was killed in an army coup in August 1974 along with his family and relatives. This was the beginning of military intervention in Bangladesh politics. Eventually, as Professor Sobhan described, General Ziaur Rahman, came to power through a sepoy's mutiny in November 1975. Within two years, Ziaur Rahman transformed himself from a simple military officer, anxious to restore civilian rule, into a political leader in the mould of Ayub Khan. Ziaur Rahman was killed in an army coup in 1981 and his Vice-President, Justice Sattar, was elected the President of the country. The tenure of both persons, Professor Sobhan says, was characterised by unbridled corruption. Thus, when Lt. General H.M. Ershad ousted the BNP regime in March 1982, he was welcomed by AL itself under the leadership of Sheik Hasina. Like Ziaur Rahman, Ershad formed his own party, Jatiya Party, and controlled the power for nine years until the mass movement in 1990 ousted him. The third military intervention took place last year, which is well known as 1/11 event. And we are fully aware of the background under which this military intervention occurred. From this history, Professor Sobhan deduces that the military interventions in Pakistan/Bangladesh have followed a common path and ended badly. Thus the CTG and their backers have no alternative but to "let the political process in Bangladesh take its own course. This means that our major political parties must be given the freedom to reform themselves. Whether this opportunity will be frustrated by the ongoing presence of the two Netris is not for me to say. The parties themselves have to work this out". Recently, he told the reporters that should consider releasing the two the two leaders. OBSERVATIONS Three observations, which seem most critical from analytical as well as political perspectives, are articulated below and submitted, with due respect, for the consideration Professor Sobhan. First, all military interventions, both in Pakistan and Bangladesh, are preceded by corruption and mismanagement by political governments and political instability. Does it not indicate that political governments in both countries in fact invited these military interventions? Why should we not treat the military interventions as the failure of our politicians instead? Since politicians claim to be the rightful authority to govern the country, it is their responsibility to ensure that military leaders never dream of interfering and entering in their territory. I believe we will find the desired solutions only if we analyse our political problems from this perspective. Instead of blaming the military as an institution, in which is vested our sovereignty, we ought to ask our political leaders why they betrayed our trust entrusted on them. And what moral and political right do they have to speak on our behalf? Second, Professor Sobhan cited a very important feature of politics in both Pakistan and India- musical chair game. In Pakistan, the game is played by two parties, PPP and Muslim League. In Bangladesh, it is played by AL and BNP. But if we open our eyes and look around, we will find this two-party game is the political culture of the world: in America, Democrat and Republican; in Canada, Liberal and Conservative; in U.K., Labour and Conservative and so on. Then why the same game does not work for us? The answer is not at all difficult to find out. This game is working properly in those countries, where the leaders of the parties in power retire from party management, often from politics, with their close associates when they loose in general elections. This paves the way for new leaders to enter in the political game with new teams. Thus, in the general elections, voters can compare between the incumbent leaders and the new leaders of the opposition, who come with new ideas and new promises. If this did not happen, then the voters had little to compare, as the leader of the opposition has already been tested. In Pakistan, the musical chairs game was not between PPP and Muslim League, it was between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif; in Bangladesh the game was between Sheik Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Professor Sobhan is suggesting, by saying, "let the political process in Bangladesh take its own course", to allow the two 'Netris' to join the game. God helps us, if this understanding of democracy! Third, analogy, which denotes similarity, is a common concept used in inductive logic. When used to draw inferences in inductive reasoning, it becomes a method, called argument by analogy. Or it can be used simply to explain or illustrate what we mean. Professor Sobhan evidently used it in the first sense to justify his suggestions about the exit strategies devised for the 'the CTG and its backers'. Naturally the soundness of his suggestions is conditional upon the factual resemblance between past military interventions in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In this regard, the first question arises about the similarity between the ordinary people and civil society in the two countries. The politicians and the civil society in Bangladesh strongly hold that the only similarity between two countries is the overwhelming majority of their peoples are Muslim. If this is true, then the political situations in two countries are not comparable. Second, and perhaps more important, is importance of military in two countries. Because of Kashmir issue, Pakistan military has tremendous influence upon civil government and politics. But such situation does not exist in Bangladesh.. In my opinion, it is not only wrong but also inflicting injustice upon the Bangladesh military to compare it with Pakistan military. [Qudrat-I Elahi is Research Associate, York Centre for Asian Research, York University, Canada] E Mail : kelahi@rogers.com http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=205651

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___