F E A T U R E S

Democracy yes, democracy no
By Ishtiaq Ahmed

THIS week I weigh the pros and cons of democracy in Pakistan. We can agree in principle that civilian rule should be restored in Pakistan, and the standard way to do that is to hold free and fair elections on a multi-party basis. Whichever party has the majority in parliament should form the government if it subscribes to the rules of the game of democracy.

It is imperative that democracy is not understood simply as majority rule, though that is an important component of it. A democracy must uphold the inalienable human rights of individuals and provide special safeguards to minorities. Democracy presupposes that a consensus obtains on solving conflicts through peaceful means, dialogue, and give-and-take. It also presupposes that the problems a democracy can solve have to do with concrete issues such as law and order, maintenance of roads and schools and so on. A democracy cannot elect people to paradise nor vote them to burn in hell.

If anti-democratic forces come into power through even a fair and free election in Pakistan it is not the democracy I want. I do not raise democracy to the skies as some sort of God-gifted utopia that I must impose on earth whatever cost it may entail. How would Pakistan be better off if a democratically-elected government instituted cruel punishments and laws that segregate, on the one hand, men and women and, on the other, Muslims and non-Muslims? Why should I want such a government to usurp my freedom to think and write freely? Democracy in my opinion is not mass fury or frenzy, mob-o-cracy, which can gain respectability if it passes through the ritual of an election.

I do not have to shout from my housetop that Hitler also came to power through the election process. I don’t think I need to convince serious people that even when Iran holds elections regularly, giving the people the right to elect members of the Iranian Majlis from amongst those approved by the board of ulema, it is not a democracy I want to live in. Just check the records of Amnesty International and see how many Iranians thinkers, writers, philosophers, ordinary men and women, political dissenters and even quietist Shias have been hanged or whipped or sent to harsh punishments for not falling in line with the politics and policies of the Iranian Ayatollahs.

During his 11-year rule General Ziaul Haq played havoc with civic culture that had evolved over the years in Pakistan in opposition to autocratic rule and which was premised on the assumption that every individual should enjoy civil liberties as a matter of right rather than a favour of a ruler or clergy. Such a civic culture was derivative of constitutionalism, rule of law and indeed an understanding that the government should function to promote the general good while allowing people to enjoy their freedoms and liberty as they deemed fit within the limits of the law and public interest.

General Zia’s Islamisation subordinated and brutalised the sensibilities of the man in the street rather than refining them. Above all it made hypocrisy a noble way of life. It began with state-funded umra trips and other pious gestures and became a system of bribery which even when Zia had departed were a standard practice of all governments to gain cheap popularity for themselves and to bribe others who accompanied our rulers on such trips.

The corruption rampant in the corridors of power has increased enormously despite exhibitionist religiosity. Therefore one can wonder what benefit society as a whole has reaped by sacralising politics. The results are to the contrary: religion has been politicised. As soon as a religion is politicised its spiritual and moral ethos is compromised and it becomes simply a tool for exercising power. Therefore I think democracy should declare religion a strictly private and personal matter of belief and conscience.

I prefer a civilian, democratically-elected government in Pakistan and would like the generals to go back to their barracks or rather to their bungalows, barracks are for foot soldiers, and give ordinary Pakistanis a chance to prove that they are not destined always to be ruled by the military – ‘bootan wali sarkar’ (government of military boots) as the great revolutionary poet, the late Habib Jalib, so aptly expressed in his native Punjabi. But too much water has flown since Habib Jalib raised his voice against martial law.

Yet, to be very honest I prefer President Musharraf to many other leaders in Pakistan. He throws his weight behind mixed marathons, and loves music and keeps pet dogs. I would rather have a ruler who is willing to follow a lifestyle he likes rather than submit blindly to one prescribed by joyless clerics and neo-clerics. He has introduced changes in Hudood laws that greatly improve the position of women subjected to rape. A democratic government in Pakistan must commit itself to continue with such progressive reforms. I think he should contest the presidential election but as a civilian.

Now, one can argue that my position is flawed when I present the Islamists and General Musharraf as anti-thesis of each other. After all the military groomed and trained the Islamists during the Afghan jihad and later by barring Ms Bhutto’s PPP and Muslim League-N of Nawaz Sharif from contesting elections enabled the Islamists to get elected in NWFP and form a government. Moreover, feudalism and the military are structurally linked in that the officers acquire agricultural land and thus represent the same economic interest if not the feudal culture of the traditional landlords.

But if we move away from theoretical arguments and look for a practical argument in favour of democracy, even in the limited sense of fair and free elections, one such argument can be that the Islamists have never won a majority of seats in the parliament. Therefore in a fair and free election the parties of Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif will get the most seats. Despite Nawaz Sharif’s rightist leanings we should hope that he is intelligent enough to see for himself the need to keep in the middle. The long stay in Saudi Arabia should tell him that there is no reason for Pakistan to emulate it. These considerations convince me that we should call for fair and free elections and both Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif should contest the election.

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
Email: Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

BACK

Making small agriculture viable and competitive
Umendra Dutt

Today of big corporations along with their subsidiaries are dictating and directing everything about farming. These entities come with three main weapons -- technology, corporate structures which allow for bigger fish to eat up smaller fish and throw out competition and thirdly, legislative/policy support for their activities.

These three weapons that agri-business corporations employ have been directly and indirectly responsible for the lack of viability of small agriculture today. Certainly, India needs small agriways for a small village is adequate and appropriate. There is either a need or place for big in small setting.

Agribusiness must

1. Control its endless greed to maximize its profits and increase wealth recklessly.

2. Behave in a socially and politically responsible manner.

3. Invest in R&D of environment friendly and farmer oriented ways of agriculture.

4. Popularization of environment friendly and farmer oriented agriculture.

5. Help and organize storage and marketing of natural, organic and chemical free foods.

6. Invest and help in the management of natural resources to ensure their sustainability.

7. Stop doing business in the ways of agriculture which are neither pro farmer nor environment friendly.

8. Stop exploiting the natural resources in the ways which endanger their sustainability.

But it is totally utopian idea. The past experience is exactly opposite of the above and thus not worth considering. The agribusiness is not going to behave like that-we may organize endless no. of seminars and conferences. Their modus oprandi is totally anti farmer, anti people, anti nature, inimical to the environment and anti national in character.

WE MUST KNOW:-

1. The reality of our farming is that of small land holder agriculture. It is a way of life, it is their livelihood. Exit policies being pursued by the agribusiness and supported by the Indian State are just inhuman and unmanageable, given the millions of people that we are talking about. Blindly emulating western development models are not the answer for us here.

2. Smallholders are more productive and by default usually, more ecological and sustainable in their farming. They need to receive special incentives straightaway. This includes priority access to institutional agricultural credit, marketing facilities, storage facilities, infrastructure facilities, other social facilities and insurance etc.

3. Further, the technologies promoted for such farmers should be ones that internalize all inputs related to seed, soil productivity and pest management into the farming system. Such technologies should first aim to bring down the cost of cultivation dramatically. Interestingly about 44 % farm debt in Punjab was spent to purchase farm inputs only. According to data derived from various KVM snap studies and village level farmers' dialogue and field discussions it is estimated that most of villages in Punjab are facing money outflow ranging from Rs 40 lakhs to Rs 7 crores depending upon crops, area under cultivation and other factors, for farm inputs only. We want to minimize this process. The experience of natural farming for many Punjabi farmers shows that reduction in cost of cultivation and even bringing it down to Zero has in itself made agriculture viable as net incomes shoot up. The rich and highly successful experience of such farming techniques in some of the states of India have been knowingly ignored by the agribusiness and Indian State.

4. Community level institutions and systems have a great role to play here. Farmers organizing themselves are important for knowledge-sharing and scaling out of such viable technologies. The experience from other states shows that such organizations also help in setting up micro-enterprises at the community level for input production which help all those producers who cannot completely internalize their inputs immediately. Agricultural workers can get into innovative ways of service provision related to production too.

5. Civil society, given the space available for innovation, newer perspectives and flexible functioning, can help in setting up alternatives at a convincing scale which will showcase the viability of smallholder farming with alternative approaches in the institutional framework and the technologies. This valuable role cannot be dismissed. They also act as watchdogs and often, they are even being victimized by agro-corporations for taking the side of people.

Finally, the state has a role to uphold the best interests of the poorest in society, first and foremost. It is only later that promoting business interests should come in, especially in a socialist welfare state. The state also has to take its role of regulating business entities seriously for any accountability to be fixed. It has been seen time and again that the state is completely lacking in its regulatory abilities and enforcement. This is the case with GM crops, pesticides, seeds and so on. The state has to provide special incentives for smallholders for their ecological farming – including subsidizing labor costs instead of subsidizing chemicals which are environmentally destructive – and also provides adequate social security like life/medical insurance for smallholder families, food entitlements, pension, and basic amenities and so on. Importantly, the state also has to take Indian farmer-friendly steps in all its decisions related to liberalized trade. Right now, that is not the case. For all those crops which the farmer will sell in the market after she meets the household food security needs, there have to be supportive and remunerative markets ensured by the state.

[The author is Executive Director. Kheti Virasat Mission. JAITU, District – Faridkot]

BACK

Growing Divide between Russia and America in Europe
Dr Sawraj Singh

President Vladimir Putin, in his recent address to the Russian Parliament, strongly criticized America and its NATO allies of increasing tensions in Europe and threatening the stability and security of Europe. He has reacted bitterly to the American plan of deployment of interceptor missiles and radar systems in Central Europe. These interceptor missiles and radar systems are to be deployed in the Czech Republic and Poland to protect Europe and North America from nuclear attacks and long-range missile attacks from North Korea and Iran. However, Russia sees them as a threat to its strategic missile system.

In the last two centuries, Europe has been the main center of power in the western-dominated world. Two World Wars were primarily fought in Europe. It seems that the last major struggle of the contemporary world to change it from a western-dominated, unipolar world, to a multipolar world, will also take place in Europe. It also appears that the strategic alliance of Russia and China is working systematically to end the western domination. Whereas China has been  successful in undermining the western influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Russia is challenging the West in Europe, the very heart and center of western power.

President Putin threatened to suspend Russia’s compliance in an arms treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe (CFE). Whereas America tried to put on a brave face with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that Moscow should live up to its obligations under the treaty and calling Russia’s concerns “purely ludicrous,” Europe got really scared. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer expressed concern over Russia’s threat to suspend its participation in the CFE. He said the agreement was one of the cornerstones of European security. President Putin’s annual State of the Nation address made it clear that there is a growing divide between Russia and the West and Russia is growing increasingly mistrustful of western, particularly American, intentions. Russia seems determined to end America’s global domination.

After President Putin’s speech and Condoleezza Rice’s reaction to that speech, the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov further criticized America and its NATO allies of upsetting the security balance in Europe, creating new dividing lines and treating Russia as an enemy. Lavrov said, “We cannot be unconcerned by the fact that NATO military infrastructure is creeping up to our borders.” Those people who said that the Cold war is over should better think again. The painful memories of the Russian army marching through Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the West watching helplessly are still fresh in the European minds. No wonder, the Europeans are very nervous about the revival of Cold war rhetoric.

CFE was first negotiated in 1990 and was ratified in 1999, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It is a well-known fact that Russia had a big edge over America and NATO, as far as conventional forces were concerned. To handle this situation, America followed a policy of mutually assured destruction with its nuclear weaponry. Now, President Putin is talking about mutual destruction. This can imply that President Putin is trying to use the western tactic against the West. America, at that time, wanted to check the growing Russian influence by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction; now, Russia is trying to stop the growing American influence in Europe by the same doctrine. Because this will mean that either side will not use nuclear weapons, the balance of power in Europe will be decided by the conventional forces, where Russia still has an edge.

President Putin, in his speech to the parliament, also talked about spirituality and morality as important factors for the political and economic stability of Russia. He talked about greater efforts to preserve Russia’s culture and language. He also said that foreign cash was being used to upset Russia’s political stability. It is obvious that President Putin is implying that the West has abandoned spirituality and morality and is using cash to incite opposition in Russia. He feels that the West is also trying to erode the Russian culture to destabilize Russia. President Putin seems to be joining President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who called President Bush “the Devil” and western capitalism “A way to hell”. The Islamic fundamentalists have also called the West “Devil.” The Chinese have announced that they are parting their ways from traditional western capitalism by emphasizing social harmony instead of economic growth.

A vast majority of people of the world are turning against the western capitalist system. However, India the seat of spirituality and morality is turning into the biggest admirer and the most faithful follower of western capitalism. Recently, the very well known writer and thinker Arundhati Roy pointed out that the Indian upper and middle classes are completely alienated from the Indian people and are thoroughly westernized. This has led to a vertical split in India (a completely divided country). Let us hope that India will reconsider its policies in the light of the Russian experience.

[Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is Chairman, Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK