Daily Times

In a matter of few days, a genuine parliament can accomplish what a military dictator cannot undertake in a lifetime: say no to an established financier, ignore the threats from powerful ‘friends,’ act upon the will of the people and protect the long-term interests of the country. Why? Because the members of the Assembly know that they are sitting in the house with the will of the people. And if push comes to shove, they will return to them to show their performance card, ask for their vote and win again. What about the dictator? What would he do if he were thrown out of power? Either he will go into exile and stay out of the country forever or come back, face trial for years and pray that the army never stops supporting him because once the boots pull back their strength, the law will squeeze the last breath out of him. So, tell me, what should be his first priority? Save the country first or save his regime first?
As a result, when he receives a call in the middle of night from a senior diplomat, which has the potential of bringing him closer to the US, he agrees to meet all the US’s demands. Why should he care about anything else when his own life and career are at stake in his country? For him, nothing else matters. He realises that through the support of a powerful nation, he can not only claim legitimacy for his rule but also rake in personal benefits. To grab that opportunity, if he has to bend backwards to accommodate them, he will bend backwards to accommodate them and if his compromise damages his own country, he will still make that compromise.
What about the long-term interests of the country and the will of the people? He does not care about either of them as long as he is paid well for the job. He knows that with the help of dollars he can change the focus of attention towards short-term gains. Indeed, the distant future will slide further into obscurity as the influx of foreign aid creates new jobs and increases revenue, pushing the growth rate to above five percent. With that scorecard in hand, he can appear on any news channel, confident and boastful, reminding people of his accomplishments as the champion of democracy, finance, defence and the economy, all at the same time.
Sometimes, even that list of borrowed accomplishments does not calm his nerves. Perhaps out of fear, shame or both, he wants to prove more. He wants to win an election. He has to tell himself that 99 percent of the people chose him in a referendum that was constitutional, free and fair! To further strengthen his belief in his victory, he comes up with empty slogans and ambiguous (but ambitious) rhetoric like “Pakistan first”, “across the board accountability”, “moderate enlightenment”, “basic democracy” and “Islamisation”. One way or another, all these words are coined to exploit the sensitivities of the nation. But more than that, they are devised to exploit the sensitivities of the institution that he has served for decades and now leads. Of course, he does not carry that position as a real four star General, rather his mindset is reflective of the grandmaster of a secret organisation. The outcome? The attention of the army gets diverted from what is best for the country to what is best for the current regime, a tragedy for every nation, a poison coated with honey and wrapped in dollars or Saudi Riyals, which looks attractive from the outside and tastes sweet but once you start biting, it kills you.
On the contrary, a democratically elected leader will withstand international pressure even if it is coming directly from the president of the US, the most powerful person on earth. The Prime Minister (PM) knows whom he can rely on: his citizens. The ups and downs of the electoral process teach him that it is not the power of bullets and guns that provides him strength, nor is it military training and war tactics. Instead, it is the legitimacy of his rule and the collective will of the people that keeps his head high and chest expanded. By voting for the resolution to stand neutral in the Saudi-Yemen conflict, we have demonstrated the same power. We know that politicians may not come across as sophisticated, decent and well-spoken people. Sometimes they look like a bunch of cowardly, ignorant brats fighting for personal gains. However, together they lend a powerful hand to the nation.
In 2003, Turkey did the same thing. At that time the US wanted to use Turkish soil to launch attacks on Iraq from the north. For that, the US needed the permission of the Turkish government. In return for the favour, it offered the newly elected administration of the Justice and Development Party, led by Abdullah Gul and Tayyep Erdogan, which was battling a soaring inflation rate of 30 percent, a comprehensive aid package. The offer was lucrative and Turkey could have used the money to pull itself out of crisis. Not sure of what the right answer was, Abdullah Gul decided to consult parliament, which voted against such a favour and preferred to claim its autonomy. Pakistanis celebrated the Turkish decision and congratulated them for being brave and independent, saying that if it also had a genuine Assembly in 2001 it would have taken care of Pakistani interests first. With Saudi Arabia requesting Pakistani troops in a regional conflict and the Pakistani parliament deciding against it, their prayers have been heard. Now ask yourself: what would Pakistan have done if it were ruled by a military dictator? Do you not think he would have preferred to cut a deal with the Saudis to secure his position? I am sure his short-term tunnel vision would have brought early signs of prosperity but, after that, a civil war.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com