Can Egypt become Turkey?

Al-Tahreer Square. Source:  onpoint.wbur.org

The Egyptian fight for freedom, democracy, and equality has crystallised in the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak from power. The future of the country is in the hand of those teenagers who spoke for change. Al-Tahreer square will be remembered in history as the Arabian Acropolis for democracy. 

Egypt is one of most populous country in the Arab world; any democratic development there will reverberate across the whole Middle East and will be closely monitored by fundamentalists and rightists in Pakistan. The basic question now being asked is: "Can Egypt become modern Turkey?"

The winning of Mohammed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood is a major development for the country. Egyptians have courageously passed the initial test of holding a fair and free election, but the road towards democracy and progress still has a long way to go. The major digression in the path of democracy – similar to the Turkish experiment – will be the battle between the military and civil centres of power.

In the last few decades, the Turkish army has unconstitutionally partaken in the national democratic setup of the country. Sometime, like in 1971 and 1997, Turkish generals sabotaged the national government on the pretext of 'visible threats' to the country. While at other points in history, like in 1960 and 1980, they brought coups against democratically elected governments. Nevertheless, in today's democratic Turkey, the role of the armed forces in state institutions has drastically reduced due to strong constitutional vigilance.

On the other hand, modern day Egypt isn't like modern day Turkey. The later does has a vast Muslim majority, but a moderate Islamists party governing the country. In terms of progress and economy, Turkey believes in free market capitalism. Unfortunately, the long decades of Mubarak rule couldn’t allow Egypt to maintain the same standard of living and free market expansion as that of democratic Turkey. It was democracy that allowed Turkey to achieve such progress.

Meanwhile, Egyptian and Turkish armies have many commonalities. Both of them consider themselves as the only force to stop Islamists from coming into power. Both of them manage big economic corporations that play an integral role in national economy. The 'Oyak Group' is the biggest investment group in Turkey which have shares in companies ranging from French motorcar manufacturers Renault to cement and steel. They work on the pretext of financing the army pension fund. Lastly, both of them also believe themselves to be the most effective institution to rule the country.

Similar to the Turkish army, the Egyptian army has ruled the country for years. It is considered a major force by parts of the society who are reasonably afraid from the Islamist coming into power. This shows that the power struggle between the society and politics won't end shortly. It will take a long time for the power centres to live with mutual harmony, and much longer to define the basic character of the state.

Lastly, Egyptian army should also learn lessons from their counter parts in Turkey. The events in 2007 allowed Turkey to emerge as the most vibrant democratic Muslim country. It can serve as an example for the Egypt’s politician in getting a hold on the army. Back in 2007, the Turkish army felt threatened that president Abdullah Gul might agree to alter the "unchangeable democratic nature of Turkey" into an "Islamic state". The army issued a warning in this regards. However, the army couldn't get Mr. Abdullah Gul out of his presidency. Mr. Tayeb Erdogan took a notice of this intervention, and sent many generals behind bars. Today, Turkish politician are fighting their cases against these generals in the same courts that for many years allowed the army to suppress and abuse the Islamist reforms.

It should be noted that Egypt and Turkey are two different countries with different national interests. Unlike Turkey, Egypt is not seeking membership into the European Union. The EU compels The Justice Party to fight against the army’s hegemony over state institutions. Moreover, Muslim Brotherhood has a more Islamist character compared with Justice and Development Party (JDP). Hence we are going to see more Shariah based laws being formed in the Egyptian parliament compared to Turkey. Lastly, Turkey's per capita income is twice that of Egypt.

Likewise, Egyptian generals must remember that by the end of the cold war era, Turkish army has lost national and foreign support to rule the country. The Arab Spring can also have a similar geo-strategic affect on the Middle East, resulting in ending military domination once and for all.

All in all, if the Egyptian army tries to disrupt democracy or hampers in the development of state institutions, they'll only buy public hatred in return for such activities. The results of which being similar to that of Turkey: humiliation and jail.

Can Gilani be ousted?

PM Gilani. Source: DAWN

The court has won and democracy has lost. In an excellent strategic move by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the cheif justice has diverted all media attention from his son , Dr. Arsalan Ifthikar, shifting the new focal point towards Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani.

The Journalists are jubilant. The court's decision has given them a chance to enshroud the recent Media Gate scandal. Nineteen top journalists were working on Mr. Malik Riaz's pay roll. They were illegally defending a capitalist, who had strong ties with the elite of the Pakistan Army and political establishment. The video leak was a puncture in the Journalist-Capitalist-Military union. Someone had to save them from drowning, and behold! The court came to their rescue.

At a juncture where the Supreme Court should had focused on how money manages the intricate power balance, how capital manipulates media attention, and how capitalists and generals agree upon large housing enterprises; the court took an easier path through the forest. Certainly, solving the Media Gate scandal would have allowed the nation to understand the dynamics of illegal capital in Pakistan. It would have unearthed the names of many more corrupt generals, journalists, politicians, and judges. The Supreme Court could have helped in purifying the money supply mechanism in the country, but it failed to do so.

The Supreme Court has directed its attention towards a case that will only help in damaging the immature democratic dispensation. The whole premise for ousting PM Gillani is that he hasn't fulfilled the courts order to file a case against the current president of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. Is a piece of letter that much important that a nominated prime minister should be forced to leave his office? Will the next PPP prime minister write such a letter? What will the Supreme Court do, if the second nominated prime minister also disobeys the court's order? Will the Supreme Court also oust the second? The decision will only catalyse the present instability in the country. It has opened a new constitutional Pandora's Box, which can only be closed after the end of this government's tenure.

The Court knows that it has opened a Pandora's box. The question is why are they destabilizing the country? The Supreme Court doesn't want to topple the status quo. It's helping the military elite like it has always done in history. It is bringing smiles on the faces of the Punjabi ran establishment. It is helping the noxious and money-hungry media tycoons and journalist. It is weakening democracy, so the chief justice remains the undefeated saviour who can solve all problems of the country. All in all, the decision is going to maintain the status qou, and the power of the majority would still remain in the hands of the non-legislative institutions of the state.

Apart from all this, the decision is unconstitutional from the perspective of any democratic norm. In a democracy, supremacy lies with the majority. It doesn't lie in the hands of a clergy, judiciary, or army elite. The chief justice has no power to topple the decision which 180 million Pakistanis gave in February 2008. He should at least respect the basic premise of democracy that Aristotle told 2400 years ago:

"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."

But in today's Pakistan, democracy has become - in the words of Emerson - a government of bullies tempered by editors. In our context, the bullies are the judges while the editors are the media journalists.

Now, the Supreme court insists that the Prime Minister should write a letter to the Swiss authorities. The constitution is very clear about the issue presidential indemnity. Article 248 of the constitution states:

248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.

(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims

Why is Mr. Iftikhar Chaudry insisting the Prime Minister to follow an unconstitutional order? Has he not read the constitution? I hope he must had read it.

Rather than solving Dr. Arsalan Ifthikhar case, the CJ has consciously saved his son. Just look at the timing of this decision! Two weeks back, an eminent civil rights activist, Ms. Asma Jahnegir said that 17 judges have no right to rule 180 million people. Then came the issue of DR. Arsalan Ifthikhar bring CJ's son in the  limelight. Next, the SCP (Supreme Court of Pakistan) passed a decision declaring the former Pakistani Ambassador to USA, Mr. Hussian Haqqani, a traitor. Meanwhile, the Media Gate scandal completely destroyed media's credibility. 

This latest decision is the golden egg in the SCP's basket. The Chief Justice will call it a personal victory, while the journalist will view it as an excellent propaganda to cover their ills. 

For me, the recent move by the chief justice is undemocratic by the very definition of democracy. Noam Chomsky commented:

The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.

The people of Pakistan would never allow a specific institution to seize their constitutional right to govern themselves. 

Media Clowns in Pakistan

source:  globalresearch.ca

It's is near impossible to present a new ideology, thought, or opinion in a 1000 words editorial or a 40 minutes commercial laden talk show. 

It is the great media disguise which has turned cynics such as Haroon-ur-Rasheed, Irfan Siddiqui, Oria Maqbool Jan, and Ansar Abbasi into self-posed intellectuals. These characters occupy the media screen and rote the same piece of information again and again to make it a part of our sub-consciousness. They repeat meaningless sentences which makes them meaningful for the commoners, for example:

"Imran Khan will clearly win the next election"

"There was no terrorism before September 2001"

"Zaradari and Gillani are corrupt"

"Everything's wrong in Karachi due to MQM"

"Haqqani's a traitor"

"We need a saviour!"

These actor-cum-journalists try to pose themselves as if they are some great intellectuals who should be respectfully heard. Their distorted chatter in at par with the chattering at any local bus stops. They have no respect for alternate opinions and ruthlessly interject anyone speaking against the general media propaganda. For example, Ansar Abbasi posed himself as an Islamic Ghazi in Hamid Mir's program in an effort to nullify Dr. Hoodbhoy's logical claims. A similar case occurred when Asma Jahengir was on line in a talk show while Haroon-ur-rasheed constantly interrupted her.

The question is, why does the nation listen to such clowns? This is a wrongfully constructed question. It assumes as if the nation listens to few independent observations and then arrives at a decision through a personal dialectical process. The media propaganda process is never an individual thought process. The nation hears the general media perception times after times, which then became a subtle opinion in their minds. In prime-time programs (7 pm-10 pm), many actors solidify the agenda of the day. They use poignant speeches, rhythmic poetry, flaring eyes, beatific rhetoric, some pieces of Islamic history, sometimes they even cry out, and so on. It is such a master piece of drama that it mesmerises everyone. 

The process of deciding the propaganda topic of the days is still an abstruse process. No one really knows how the system works. We don't have a book like Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for Pakistan. I hope one day, some Pakistani intellectual will try to demystify this propaganda mechanism is Pakistan. Despite that, we can still understand the outline of this media propaganda mechanism through everyday news articles.

Consider the Hussain Haqqani case.

The media projected Mr. Haqqani as a traitor. Aforementioned Journalist (or TV clowns) used every tactic they had to pursue this 'holy' goal. The story of tagging the ex-Ambassador as a traitor doesn't start with the memo myth; rather it goes back to the issue of the Karry-Lugar bill.

Pakistan army was agonized when two US senators subjected US aid to Pakistan to some internal congressional conditions. This included a check as to where the American money is being spent by the army. The bill also insured a future of sustainable democracy in Pakistan. The army was in no mood to accept such 'democratic' conditions, which triggered the media propaganda mechanism.  The army loathed Hussain Haqqani whom they accused was responsible for passing this bill. Working on the dictates of their masters, the paid journalists took on the goal of defaming the Pakistani ambassador.

With all their rhetoric, the defamation campaign again Mr. Haqqani was a failure. The army failed to defame Mr. Haqqani. This agony of losing against a civilian was what triggered the memo myth. This time these extremist journalists were supported by cricketers and politicians. More anti-Haqqani rhetoric was on-air. Baseless sentences were written by columnists in news papers. With the naturally backing by the armed force, the media propaganda mechanism was at its peak. The judiciary was also subdued. This time the manufactured consent was more powerful and more absorbent in the general sub-consciousness. Haqqani has no chance to win, and thus an unarmed civilian lost the battle.

In the Memo myth, one visible fact is the synchronization of army's opinion with the media's opinion. The media propaganda mechanism always tries to increase confusion in the general public, while completely harmonizing the media-army relationship. 

"Conflict" is the catchword for any great drama, and the news media knows how to keep conflicts alive. The net beneficiary of this conflict is always the armed forces and media groups; always belittling politicians and civilians.

This propaganda mechanism theory is applicable in many cases, for example, media propaganda regarding Asma Jahangeer and Prime Minister Gillani. Moreover, the mechanism applauds all actors who are speaking with the same tongue as the military elite of Pakistan, for example, Imran Khan and Right-wing Islamist extremists.

The propaganda mechanism described above is not quite clear yet. More scholarship and research is required to decipher the internal working of this system.

More reference:

http://www.viewpointonline.net/tv-debates-progressive-should-boycott.html

Another Biased Decision

Following its tradition, the Supreme Court has passed a biased decision on the Memo Issue. The court accused Hussain Haqqani (former ambassador and professor at Huston University) of treason.

A moderate Pakistani has been ousted by the Pakistani judiciary. The decision was not passed on the basis of constitutional norms and ethos; rather the court hearkened to the popular voices on the media propaganda machine. Sycophants, cynics, and extremists with their hate speech and blabber tried to subjugate the cowered judges. The judges reciprocated to these voices, passing a decision against the finest ambassador Pakistan ever had in the United States.

Imran Khan — a senseless character who ridicules all opposition and questions with a big laugh — accused Mr. Haqqani to be a US Ambassador of Pakistan in Washington. In other words, he was calling him a traitor. The cricketer used anti-Haqqani rhetoric to drive his utopian campaign for freeing Pakistan from all ills in 90 days.

The Chief of ISI, Shuja Pasha, also aligned with the unknown Mansoor Ijaz. He also believed that the memo was really written by Mr. Haqqani. The army knew it was false. Supporting Mansoor Ijaz was an excellent tactic to discourage all voices that speak against military interference in Pakistan. The support was a signal rather than an approval of Manzoor Ijaz's testimony. 

It can be observed that many journalists, the entertainer Imran Khan, and the ISI are all against this man. Any person who speaks for democracy and rule of the majority is seen as a traitor. Anyone who speaks — or even signals — for dismantling the military-political hegemony is called an anti-state element. Anybody trying to say the truth is brutally discouraged. 

The judiciary, following the dictates of their owners, has given a decision which was quite anticipated. We cannot hope for justice in a society were "khaki uniform and seventeen judges" rule. There is no justice in a country where a judicial commission believes a man who loathes Pakistan and calls a diplomat a traitor. There is no justice where the judges cite Khalil Jibran, while they themselves concede military dictators. Justice is an abstraction in a country where judges follow popular demands and act on the whims of the chorus.

The judges have deliberately arrived at an incorrect decision, reducing their position of prestige.

Book Review: Between Mosque And Military

Between Mosques and Military by Hussain Haqqani - former ambassador of Pakistan to United States- is an excellent description of the influences the orthodoxy and army had on Pakistan. 

Between Mosque and Military by
Hussain Haqqani

Using his vast experience as a secretary to Nawaz Sharref, as a member of Jammiat (student organization of Jamaat-ul-Islami), as a close ally to Benazir Bhutto, as an ambassador to Sri Lanka and United States of America, as a journalist, and as a professor at the John Hopkins University, Haqqani summarises his intellectual and political interpretation of Pakistan's history. It is not a political memoir rather a search for the origin of Islamization in Pakistan and its consequences. 

Mr. Haqqani considers the Objective Resolution (1949) to be the most important document in the process of Islamization. The document give a clear direction for making Pakistan a religious state from "an ideological state". The history which develops post 1949 is a substantiation, and not an aberration, of the Objective Resolution. 

Mr. Haqqani considers the 1951 Ahmedia roits in Punjab as the synopsis of Mullah-Military relationship. In 1951, the mullahs attacked Ahmedi's worship place in Lahore. This disrupted the law and order situation of a newly born country and henceforth, army was called in to control the situation. The army implemented martial law in Lahore, but remained there even after peace was restored in the province. This 1951 incident was later repeated on a larger scale in 1958, 1969, 1977, and 1999. 

In 1958 there was a constitutional crisis for which the political system had given an inadequate solution. In 1969, Ayub Khan handed power to Yahya Khan as he had no confidence in Pakistani politician. On the other hand, East Pakistanis considered this a tactic to keep Bengalis out of politics as power was to be transferred to a Bengali national assembly speaker, Abdul Jabbar. In 1977, Zia made a claim that Pakistan has reached a deplorable situation in Bhutto's rule, hence a martial law is inevitable to save Pakistan. The martial law of law of 1999 was similar to that of 1977.

The Islamization process got a boost in 1973 constitution when Islam was declared as a state religion. The second amendment made the Ahemdis a non-Muslim sect. This may be called the first theocratic amendment in the constitution. The constitution had the power to declare someone a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

Gen. Zia took this process to new heights by implementing the Zakat and Ushr law in 1980 and hence forth introducing his version of interest free banking in 1981. The Afghan war of 1980s in Zia's era brought a wave of radicalism into Pakistan which generated a far more radical clergy influencing the state with more power. This radical clergy was subsidised by the general which further catalysed the process of Islamization. Gen. Zia's reign can be called the 'Golden Age of Islamization' in Pakstan.

Hussain Haqqani also gives a detailed analysis on the various politico-Islamic movements which developed in the course of six decades, i.e. PNA (Pakistan National Alliance), IJI (Islami Jamoori Ithihad [United Front of Islam]), and MMA (Muthihada Majlis-e-Amal [United Action Conference]). Mr. Haqqani writes down how ISI played an integral role in helping these movements to prosper and influence political development. PNA played a major role in dismantling the constitutional government of Mr. Bhutto and helped Gen. Zia to come in power. The IJI -a collaboration between ISI and major political parties- helped Nawaz Shareef  topple Banazir Bhutto's government in 1990. The MMA helped Pervez Musharraf to constitutionally rule to country while they themselves had a government in Khyber Pakhoonkhua (former NWFP). 

Haqqani predicts a bleak future and predicts that the Islamist would remain in power. He writes: 

"The Islamists are not content with having a secondary role in national affairs, and they have acquired a momentum of their own. Years of religious rhetoric have influenced a younger generation of military officers; the ISI, in particular, includes a large number of officials who assimilated the Islamist beliefs they were rhetorically called on to support in the course of jihad in Kashmir and Aghanistan."

The United States also has an important role to play. They should apply pressure on the Pakistan army for stop supporting the Islamists in the country. A big part of the US aid goes to military development. The US should develop a policy that directs this aid towards education and health. Lastly, Hussain argues, the United States should demand reforms vis-a-vis the military and security services in Pakistan.

Haqqani's book is a good read for anyone who wants to understand the deep nexus of Islam and army in Pakistan.