Pakistan: Now or Never?

Perspectives on Pakistan

Army, Allah and America: on Pakistani pitfalls and the future of Egypt

Jan 30, 2011 16:22 EST

egyptAll countries are unique and comparing two of the world’s most populous Muslim countries, Egypt and Pakistan, is as risky as comparing Britain to France at the time of the French Revolution. But many of the challenges likely to confront Egypt as it emerges from the mass protests against the 30-year-rule of President Hosni Mubarak are similar to those Pakistan has faced in the past, and provide at least a guide on what questions need to be addressed.  In Pakistan, they are often summarised as the three A’s — Army, Allah and America.

Both have powerful armies which are seen as the backbone of the country; both have to work out how to accommodate political Islam with democracy, both are allies of America, yet with people who resent American power in propping up unpopular elites.

As my Reuters colleague Alastair Lyon writes,  Egypt’s sprawling armed forces — the world’s 10th biggest and more than 468,000-strong — have been at the heart of power since army officers staged the 1952 overthrow of the monarchy. Mubarak’s announcement that he was naming his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as vice-president was seen as a move towards an eventual, military-approved handover of power.  And Egyptian protesters have sometimes tried to see the army as their ally — an institution that puts country first before personal gain.

Yet armies, as Pakistan has discovered over its many years of on-again off-again military rule, are not designed for democracy. They are designed to be efficient, and with that comes the hierarchy and obedience to authority that would seem alien to many of those out on the streets of Cairo.

In his book about the Pakistan Army, defence expert Brian Cloughley writes about how the British general, the Duke of Wellington, responded to democracy in his first cabinet meeting as prime minister: ”An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.” The story is told as part of an argument about why the Pakistan Army has never been particularly successful at running the country.

“All Pakistan’s army coups have been bloodless, successful and popular – but popular only for a while,” he writes. “The trouble is that military people are usually quite good at running large organisations, even civilian ones, but generally fail to understand politics and government, and the give-and-take so necessary in that esoteric world.”

It is a lesson that may yet need to be learned in Egypt.  As Amil Khan wrote from Islamabad in his Twitter feed,  “Love the way Pakistani twitterers puzzled by Egyptians’ trust in army. Guys, you’re kinda similar, but kinda different.”

Then there is political Islam. Both Pakistan and Egypt have powerful religious parties which have their roots in Islamist movements born out of Muslim resentment against British colonial rule.  In Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, founded in then British India, has, along with other religious parties played a disproportionately significant role in setting the agenda which goes well beyond their weak showing at the ballot box.  It has reached the point where no government — either civilian or military — has dared challenge them on issues of faith.  When Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab province, was shot dead by his own security guard earlier this month over his opposition to the country’s blasphemy laws,  his killer was celebrated as a hero.  Few dared speak out and most of Taseer’s colleagues in the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) were quick to insist there would no changes to the laws.

Many attribute the grip of religious parties on Pakistani society to the use of Islam as a means of uniting the country’s different ethnic groups, to past support by its military for mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and then the Indians in Kashmir, and to the Islamicisation policies of General Zia-ul-Haq. But over the years every politician has made use of the religious parties to bolster their support, including PPP founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who declared the minority Ahmadi sect as non-Muslims in 1974, and was later deposed and hanged by Zia in 1979.

In particular, argues Manan Ahmed in this essay titled “Pakistan’s crisis can’t simply be explained by religion”, Pakistan politicised reverence for the Prophet Mohammed.  “This emergence of the Prophet as a centralising and orienting raison d’etre for Pakistan, however, was not merely an organic outgrowth of a religiously inclined society, it was a deliberate state policy, aided by Islamist parties, to mould public faith. The blasphemy riots of the 1950s, when the Ahmadi sect was violently resisted by the Jama’at-i Islami, had taught one clear lesson to the religious right: the veneration of Muhammad was great political theatre with infinite malleability for nearly every segment of the Pakistani population.”

Unlike Pakistan, Egypt has more ethnic homogeneity and, with its large Coptic population, greater religious diversity so – on paper at least – political Islam would be less obvious as a unifying force. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded like the Jamaat-e-Islami in opposition to British rule, has taken a low profile in the Egyptian protests, though as former Reuters bureau chief in Cairo Jonathan Wright argues in his blog, this may be a deliberately calibrated stance.

“The Brotherhood, like Islamist groups in many Arab countries, has cold feet about governing. It does not feel it is ready. This is reflected in its official strategy of concentrating on a political reform agenda which it shares with many other groups – free and fair elections, rule of law, a new constitution with checks and balances and so on. What the Brotherhood wants most in the short term is the freedom to organize and promote its ideas in a democratic environment, regardless of who is in government. The Brotherhood believes that, given freedom and time, it can win over Egyptians to its long-term agenda.”

The Pew Global Attitudes Survey released in December also suggested that Egyptians might actually be more in favour of Islam playing a role in society than Pakistanis.  Ninety-five percent of Egyptians questions said it was good for Islam to play a large role in politics, compared to 88 percent of Pakistanis. “At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion,” it said.

Finally there is America, which has propped up military rulers in both countries and used generous quantities of American aid to buy support first against communism and then against militant Islam.  In Pakistan, the United States is already struggling to foster civilian, democratic rule at a time when it is deeply distrusted.  It is likely to face similar challenges in Egypt if it chooses, and manages, to go down that route.

Moreover, while the United States was able to underpin the growth of stable, secular democracies in Europe following World War Two with huge amounts of trade and aid, the world nowadays is still recovering from financial crisis.  And as Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper noted, the world’s Muslim populations face faster-than-average growth rates at a time of increasing global competition for resources.  At least some of the unrest in the Middle East, especially in Tunisia, was fuelled by anger over rising food prices. It is not an easy time for any country to win over people looking for an end to poverty and unemployment.

Comments

Rex:”2011 is the year for oppressed people and not for the oppressor.”

-Well said, very well said, Tunisians liberated themselves from the tyranny of a dictatorial rule of 23 years. A three decades old regime has been shaken in Egypt, Jordan is feeling the jolts, Saudi Arabia will be rprompted to give more freedom and talk is that this revolution can reach as far as Pakistan. Let us hope no one hijack this movement of oppressed people seeking liberation and their rights. All freedom loving people stand behind them in their support. And I can tell you the oppressors and their patrons are shaking and stunned still in shock. As some of popular banners read “Game over”.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor:
I know Sarkozy is Jewish, and that Sarkozy and Obama may not have the exact same viewpoint as you do, or the Palestinians’, nor the Israelis’.

They do, both of them, however, unapologetically called the settlements illegal, and firmly opposes
Now, they won’t send troops to stop the construction, but that’s a degree of entanglement that should not be expected from a country situated on a different continent and has not been directly attacked in America.

Sarkozy and Obama are both pragmatists. They have their own ideals. They respond to the electorate.

Nobody who votes in America has to tell another soul whom he or she had voted for, unless one votes by mail. (When one votes by mail, one has to sign on the enveloped and the computer code can be more easily traced, but nobody is supposed to trace it for retaliation. IF anybody discovers evidence that any voter is retaliated against for whom he or she votes for, that would be a blockbuster scandal in America.)

What does happen, and I agree with you in part, is that lobbyist groups, and very efficient ones, with well funded coffers, in disgracing candidates who are considered anti-semite. And, increasingly, Americans recognize that some labelled anti-semites are not truly anti-semites. An less controversial example is Henry Kissinger, who is himself Jewish. Much more controversial example may be Helen Thomas, whom I can get censored on this site, just for mentioning her name! Of course, many realize that. That’s how things can backfire, when sloppy comments get labelled anti-semite, when in fact they apparently had not been anti-semite in nature.

I believe in the American democratic system in this respect. If you believe that not sufficient rhetoric has been made, it’s probably not been made eloquently enough, or effective enough. Go ahead, blog more and motivate fellow voters, if you are eligible to vote.

Not that long ago, many believe that funding controls everything. That’s been proven quite wrong in California; otherwise, Meg Whitman would have beaten J. Brown for governorship.

The fact that running against an effective and efficient lobbyist’s stance requires more effort, greater care in the rhetoric, and superb persuasion skill, does not mean it is impossible. The worst approach to take is to believe that it is impossible, so much that one does not even try. Refusal to try is the only sure strategy to ensure what you don’t want, will certainly happen. Worst of all, that’s when people resort to violence or extreme means rather than verbal discourse.

I’m an idealist in this area. If you deeply believe in the fairness, and wisdom of your cause, then arguing fullest to the end, as long as you have the optimum or necessary support in your private life to pursue it till the end, your righteousness will come through in the end. Alternatively, some discovery of minor flaws in your argument will only help refine your stance more, and help you become more convincing.

Posted by Janeallen | Report as abusive
 

umair “in return among all its smaller neighbour it appears only Pakistan is capable of challenging India. That is the whole truth, do not tell half stories.”

This is funny…
Challenging India Militarily…
Challenging India by surrendering 90000 pakistani soldiers by surrendering…Or Challenging India by asking America’s help everytime there is a conflict with India(Kargil)…

Challenging India on Economic Front..
I really dont have much points on it.
Really don’t even think about it..

Posted by TnC | Report as abusive
 

@janeallen
Are you telling us that Sarkozy and Obama are the first to discover and speak out about the illegality of sttlements? We have a united resolution on this several decades ago and successive USA adminstrations and French Presidents have unequivacly supported the UN resolution.

Henry Kissinger is the worst example you have quoted, he is the first who has demanded of Palestinians to recognise Israel as a “jewish state” ad the first American retired secretary of state who declared that ‘We’ i.e. the USA should not have accepted the creation of Pakistan. He is the advisor to Obama on foreign policy and his former pupils are still running his policy in the state dept. to manage crisis, without solving them.There are those who are of the opinion that he should be tried as a war criminal?

But you are probably aware that the USA is the only western country which does not recognise the UNO criminal court?

I am glad to know that you are an idealist, but sometimes it is good to know the reality. America is a great country with wonderful people, decent and generous, but it has also a powerful military and a number of contridictions. Kentucky Bourbon is produced in the country where prohibition is in place. In California people went to the pole and elected a Governor, who was known to molest women. For two terms a President was elected by the system to shake the foundations of the republic, to the extent of torturing people in the name of National security. Mr Obama first task was to announce immunity for those who were involved in torturing people under George W. He promised change but continued to went further than George W in following militaristic foreign policies. You are an idealist and probably do not know how strong your military apparatus within USA is? Listen carefully to the praise of the President for the military and the presence of military in the state of union speach. No different than the praise of Roman Senators in ancient Rome.
Mr Macchrystal was an accident, the republicans and the democrats kowtow the line of military. When did the USA administration last have a secretary of defence from the democratic party?

This is not new for students of history! Roman empire went down when its army was the best, Mubarak is going down whose army is the largest and strongest among the Arab armies.

The USA has a systemic problem and has a need for competent people not old and sick who refuse to retire, like the Mubarak of Egypt!

Bon Courage!

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

PS
orry for errors! We have a United Nations resolution on Illegal settlements!

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Challenging India is a good idea if it’s constructive and based on improving social indexes. The kind of challenge Pakistan engages in is of a schoolyard type and quite juvenile. A recent analysis of the reasons for Pakistan’s rapid increase in its nuclear arsenal comes to the conclusion that it is for psychological rather than strategic reasons.

http://bit.ly/eYdZyP

And this at a time of grave economic crisis. Do they think anyone is actually impressed? This is like college boys speeding on motorcycles and doing stupidly dangerous stunts in front of girls thinking they look like heroes, while the girls probably think they’re a bunch of jerks.

All in all, a rather silly way to run a country.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh: “All in all, a rather silly way to run a country.”

Everything stems from a basic human instinct – ego and contempt. To understand why Pakistan is obsessed with being equal to India and keep challenging it, one has to go back to its formation. When something is created out of a flimsy argument, justification for it gets desperate. Those who are on the losing side of an argument get more vocal if you notice. Sometimes they can get violent and become more intimidating as well. And if they get what they want using the flimsy logic, there is always the sense of guilt that they got it by unjust means. In addition, there is a fear that the other side might come back with more valid justification to expose the unfair method by which the argument was won. These two feelings create a perpetual agony in the group that wins an altercation for a flimsy reason by unfair means. And they fill their ego with false justification – they are better than the other party, smarter, superior and so on. Once in a while they try to demonstrate that attitude by charging or throwing a brick. This phobia never ends. So they keep on building barricades around themselves. Pakistan’s nuclear obsession stems from a superiority complex. They have to see themselves above Hindus. They are unable to accept the reality that India has progressed and is getting positive recognition for its own efforts. They are still in the same state when they left their brethren. For not having anything else to stand tall, they have gone to relying on nuclear material build up. Somehow they think the world will fear them and respect them from that angle. These are signs of immaturity arising from emotional nature of its people. If they build a tower way too tall without paying attention to the foundation, that tower can fall on themselves. But they have to learn that from their own experience.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor:
Of course those are not what I mean. You know that.
And it appears that you love to distort the patent meaning of others who respect you enough to engage in a civil discourse with you.

Let me tell you. That attitude of yours, condescending without logic, reason behind such attitude is why voters do not get convinced by you. That’s my sincere advice for you.

Sincerely.

Posted by Janeallen | Report as abusive
 

As an observer,
I would suggest that Rex Minor take a class on the art of persuasion.
The way you argument, jumping for facts to facts capriciously, and clearing showing your lack of comprehension of Janeallen’s point ( either that, or you are not reading and comprehension, or worse, you deliberately try to distort other’s point of view with blatant disrespect).

You would alienate 100 out of 100 readers or listeners in the United States with your style of writing, ie., 100% failure, and 0% of success in persuasion.

If you don’t get it, all the more reason you need to take classes on your skill. Start with comprenhension skills

Posted by jo5319 | Report as abusive
 

Janeallen, jo5319:
Rex Minor is clueless.
His writing makes many many false and self-contradictory asumptions, namely that Americans want to be proud that they call the settlements illegal. Americans don’t want to be entangled with the fighting between all sorts Middle Eastern groups that had been going for thousands of years, unless situation forces them to.

Americans’ complaints are there people in the Middle East keep fighting for thousands of years and keep dragging the world into it, for one unfair reason or another.

Against any country that helps terrorists that hurt the safety of Americans, America has the right do everything possible defend our citizens. That’s a universal truth.

Any other assumptions are based on abysmal ignorance.
American law does not even require any bystander to rescue a stranger who’s in peril for whatever reason, let alone somebody who is not an American citizen in a foreign country.

American’s top interest in foreign policy is to root out terrorists. All other arguments about what we should or should not do— will mostly become arguments with themselves, not a concern for America unless they are persuasive from the American perspective. That’s true for any country, any culture, any family

Rex Minor sounds very jealous of America’s wealth and power might — that’s the only point that comes through. The rest is illogical ranting like that of a mad man.

Posted by CommonSensLogic | Report as abusive
 

jo5319 to rex minor: “You would alienate 100 out of 100 readers or listeners in the United States with your style of writing, ie., 100% failure, and 0% of success in persuasion”

I would say, he would alienate 100 out of 100 non-muslims & moderate/tolerant/liberal muslims.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

“2011 is the year for oppressed people and not for the oppressor”

Pak army must watch out. Balochis might rise after watching what is happening in the Arab world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD4qQCmLo io

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

> American law does not even require any bystander to rescue a stranger who’s in peril for whatever reason

There’s of course Massachusetts’s “Good Samaritan Law” as featured on a certain TV sitcom, but the “S” word is taboo now, isn’t it?

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

I know Umair will hate this, but all roads seem to lead to Rawalpindi:

http://bit.ly/f0DBZK

Not Islamabad, not Lahore, not Karachi, but Pindi itself. Is the PA/ISI being framed, or did they just slip up/get lazy? At least they took care not to call from GHQ!

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh: “Not Islamabad, not Lahore, not Karachi, but Pindi itself. Is the PA/ISI being framed, or did they just slip up/get lazy? At least they took care not to call from GHQ!”

Nothing will happen. Most countries have given up asking Pakistan to own up to the crimes committed abroad. Right now the juicy matter is about the American diplomat who is in Pakistan’s custody for killing two people. There will be some bargain deal done to exchange the American for some goodies. ISI chief is also indicted in an American court of law. The priority list is too long. No one will care about the 2005 incident now.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh Prasad, TV Sitcom has created many ignorant, grossly false misconceptions about America in you, making your comments quite ridiculously and salaciously entertaining! What a waste for your little grey cells!

You understood the Good Samaritan law exactly backwards.

This is not the first time you twisted facts around on this blog, by the way.

There is no legal obligation to rescue in American law.
The Good Samaritan Statute does not change that.

In fact, under common law, any rescuer who is negligent in the course of rescue, may be sued by the person he tries to help. Also, if somebody starts an attempt of rescue, and then decides to stop, for whatever reason, and leaves the person in a worse situation, he can be sued.

Yes, it is counter-intuitive. If you don’t do anything, do not choose to be a Good Samaritan, there is no legal liability. Under common law, if you choose to be a Good Samaritan and botch it, you can be sued. That’s from age old common law.

The common law applies to doctors passing by a victim. Doctors who choose to rescue may be sued for malpractice.

But if the doctor passing by does nothing to help a stranger lying on the street , the doctor cannot be sued.
A Good Samaritan Statute does not change that.

The Good Samaritan law’s goal is to encourage doctors who would have wanted to help by limiting their legal liability, protect them from being sued for common neligence that were, of course, not intentional. Otherwise, good hearted helpers may be penalized by doing good, just not succeeding. Doctors are most at risk for frivolous lawsuits because the optimal equipment is usually not available, and therefore vulnerable to unfair lawsuits that tend to try to hold them to the standard of professional medical care. That’s the main impetus of the good Samaritan law.

So you have the Good Samaritan law backwards, just like many other words you said on this blog.

I see that you are one of those who try so hard to make yourself look smart by jabbing at others. In every case, you make yourself look dumber and insecure about yourself. You seem to be one wasting your little grey cells to trash, false premises, by filling up your brain with all sorts of false ideas. That’s how Seinfeld tends to ruin many otherwise smart people, you know.

Posted by CommonSensLogic | Report as abusive
 

By the way, drjay319:

Seinfeld by no means reflect everyday American life that I knew before it came on, not among people I know or grew up with, or work with. In fact, we looked upon Seinfeld with disbelief and disdain and horror because it makes young people feel hip and cool to engage in attitudes that many Americans, from many diverse backgrounds and cultures, still find deplorable.

Americans called the folks generation X, the first generation of spoiled youngsters who were more selfish than any other American values. I personally still cannot accept Seinfeld to be able to persist as mainstream American values, though he broke through some barriers.

Those from outside who see Seinfeld as reflecting American values are quite misguided, including some American kids who were too young to have the critical thinking and analytical skills to see through the absurdity and pitfalls of Seinfeld. That’s why Seinfeld quit so called “at the top”. In fact, con-artists know better to quit before the bad side effects come surfacing left and right.

Posted by jo5319 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the story directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous.
Pakistan: Now or Never? BLOG