As one peruses the Pakistani political commentary found via the application “notes” on Facebook, a pattern of youth activism arises. Encouraging as this may sound, it is important to note what precisely it is that such an emboldened youth seeks to implement in their native country. More often than not, one finds unequivocal support of Imran Khan, the former cricket player and subject of Hamilton’s previous posting.
It would not be brash to hypothesize that if a poll were taken amongst the supporters of Khan, one would find opinions of rampant nationalism and Islamic ethnocentrism. Perhaps this is because such sentiments are precisely what Khan brings to the table in terms of political debate. And that is all. The quantity of anacolutha found on these profiles is inversely proportionate to the quality of message.
The reason this mentality is particularly dangerous when concerning the upcoming elections is because it achieves neither philosophical nor legislative goals. For example, Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister before Musharraf, once famously proposed the Shariat Bill in Pakistani Parliament, an attempt to base the infrastructure of Pakistan on the holy Qu’ran and the Sunnat. Why the economy under Sharif plummeted during his first term should come as no surprise. I guess “The Economist” is not one of Allah’s innumerable titles.
Under Nawaz Sharif, the vast majority of Pakistan’s budget was being used to roll over debt in an attempt to prevent sovereign default. Needless to say, this style of economics only serves to freeze the private sector and frighten away whatever foreign speculators might happen to venture into the choppy waters of militant-ruled Pakistan. As Sharif’s rule came to a close, both national and internal debt had doubled.
Every financial adviser before Musharraf’s control (including the late Benazir Bhutto herself) had been hired based off his or her educational résumé and alma mater. Clearly an inadequate strategy, this nepotistic system had to be eradicated. What better way then to correct the incessant “can-kicking” of national debt than to hire a banker skilled in the art of international financial obligation? Musharraf was the first Pakistani leader to appoint his finance minister from the business sector. As the head of Citibank’s Global Wealth Management, Shaukat Aziz earned his right to govern Pakistan’s economics as the only finance minister whose educational résumé is weaker than his professional one. This is the first sign that Musharraf was more appropriately adapt at fixing Pakistani woes than the career politicians who had aided in their nation’s bankruptcy.
Under the financial direction of Aziz, Pakistan’s economy, per capita income, general revenue and exports doubled which led to his being honored by the IMF. Furthermore, foreign investment in Pakistani markets quintupled. Since no bank can have a higher credit rating than its mother nation, Pakistan is now able to seek foreign loans on a much wider scale. Their derivatives are based on counterparty deals, which allows for greater expansion economically. This is, however, a blessing and a curse. Now that Pakistan can reach above and beyond its financial means, another corrupt politician who steals from the general coffers would create too much derivative exposure and sink the country into a level of bankruptcy not seen since its days as a commonwealth. Now more than ever, a similarly secular-minded leader must proceed the economic success of the Musharraf regime. It should not be such a secret that any politician screaming “Qur’an, Qur’an, Qur’an” is unfit to rule.
The most ironic element inciting the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état was Nawaz Sharif’s accusations that General Musharraf was responsible for the rising conflict between India over the Kashmir dispute. Most notably since under Musharraf’s authoritarian regime, Pakistani and Indian relations reached an unprecedented level of peaceful negotiation. Furthermore, under his reign, Musharraf quelled rampant corruption, allowed greater mobility for women and permitted the press to openly criticize his politics with no indication of retribution. Democracy is only valuable when freedoms like these are empowered. But when a democracy refuses them and an autocrat allows them, whose evil shall we deem as lesser?
As Fareed Zakaria explains in his manual on illiberal democracy, The Future of Freedom, democracy should not be implemented dogmatically throughout the world lest individual countries fall prey to excess corruption. Political experts could hardly identify the government of the Bhutto administration as “democratic” without involuntary irony. Benazir Bhutto has two famous marks to her name: embezzlement of Pakistani funds and furthering relations with the anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalists. Zakaria himself praises Musharraf saying, "if genuine liberalization and even democracy come to Pakistan it will come not because of its history of illiberal democracy but because it stumbled on a liberal autocrat."
As a basic principle of the Enlightenment and thus, a facet of this site, dogmatism is wholly unhealthy and the dogma of Wilsonianism has been abused before. Yet prior to the establishment of liberal democracy in Pakistan there must first exist the seeds of Enlightenment thinking. Unfortunately, like most Eastern countries, they show no signs of even tilling the soil. Imran Khan has raised a banner declaring separation between the secularized West, their materialistic views and the religiosity he considers necessary to political governance. The politically active youth have exposed themselves as adherents to any strict Islamic upbringing and encourage alarmist language among their politicians. Whether they simply rebel against the perceived moral failings of the West or honestly believe that the works of Muhammad are the only texts worth analyzing, the (admittedly caricaturized) Pakistani youth seem to apply no value to an increase in freedom and financial opportunity.
A flood recently devastated Pakistani citizens; the man who disavows materialism will not be the man to feed them. Unfortunately for Khan, man can live on bread alone. General Pervez Musharraf understood this, but it does not look like the Pakistani youth will support an adequate substitute for his economic proficiency. How much longer will it take to save Pakistan?
No comments:
Post a Comment