Democracies in Danger

Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]

Synopsis of a presentation given to
The Medford Democratic Meetup
Medford, MA at Lino Avellani’s
11 January, 2006.

I am very privileged to address this highly committed component of the Democratic Party to speak on a subject that is of immense concern to people. I will articulate tonight some thoughts on the future of democracies. I fear, despite the recent two “wars for democracies”, this new millennium does not auger too well for the concept of representative governments. This is not only manifestly evident from even a glimpse of the basic international realities that confront us presently, there is also much doctrine and history behind this phenomenon as well. This state of affairs, to my mind, is most visible in those communities that have a diverse composite character.

But before I do so, I am delighted to express my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Jock Gill who has kindly taken the initiative to be the Convener of this Meetup and to preside over this meeting. I thank Mr. Dan Hurley for having introduced me to this distinguished audience, amongst which I see my friend Dr. Bill Wood - whom I have known for sometime. The presence of so many committed Democrats ensured the lively discussion that followed my formal presentation.

Let me frankly admit that the U.S. has a patently crucial role to play in this process. If we wish to have a commitment towards the cherished ideals of Rawls or Lincoln in realizing a genuine democratization of the notion of representative governments, parts of this system direly need immediate attention. The current status quo, as internationally visible, however, does not give us much encouragement.

On 25h April 2000, President Clinton, after landing at the Islamabad airport, rightly in my submission, lambasted the military regime of the still current incumbent, General Musharraf. It is well to remember what he said about democracy. He had just arrived in Pakistan after spending four days in India, a great example of this system that we cherish. He categorically asserted what had been the US law. Washington cannot basically turn a blind eye to military takeovers under any pretexts. A military government is by any yardstick of doctrinal analysis, a dictatorial system. It is the boldest negation of rights of people by those who are paid servants of the people to defend them!

I refer to that address of the US President as it is both refreshing and reassuring that the world’s leader of political influence means business. After all, an army chief had then recently over thrown the nation’s Constitution and a popularly elected government in conceivably the most important Islamic country. Quite rightly, in accordance with the US laws dealing with foreign assistance contained in the 1961 legislation on this subject, in the face such massive disruption of the civil liberties protection in that county, all aid stood suspended to Islamabad. I have thus great administration for President Clinton for having taken the only possibly correct and prudent step to put an unelected and unaccountable administration on notice to mend its ways.

Then came 9/11. Not long before that monstrous tragedy took place, in an interview in Boston, President Bush did not even know, as it is well known, the name of General Musharraf, or whether he had come to power through a coup d’etat! After that, however, Musharraf acquired, by cleverly self-serving devices, the status of a close ally of this country in that region and also the privilege of being touted as a personal friend of President Bush. But, constitutionally and morally, he remains for the people of Pakistan a usurper of all authority of state.

I have started with Pakistan as in this country democracy had to be simply retained. As we shall see, in others, wars have been undertaken to establish one! In this process, what has occurred is so poignantly well known to those who genuinely think sincerely about long-term interests of this country and normative democracy that I need not say anything further.

Four years ago the U.S. landed in Afghanistan with a burning and avowed goal to hunt down Bin Laden, destroy the Taliban regime, and establish democracy. This mission is only partially accomplished. But it appears the U.S. is on its way out. The picture does not look very appealing! Bin Ladin is still at large, and Hamid Karzai is just holding on to Kabul with the aid of 20,000 foreign troops. The country is again going the way of its traditional regional warlord's fiefdoms with pro-Taliban leadership clearly emerging.

Incidentally two points may specially interest you! First, Hamid Karzai, before becoming the President of Afghanistan, or rather of Kabul, sold Afghani Kebabs in Cambridge - barely a mile from where we re meeting tonight! Secondly, with zero production of poppy crops during the previous regime, this country is again the top producer of this terrible menace to the world’s community.

The point I am making is manifest. If the U.S. has to create a setup which looks “democratic”, at least the credentials of the incumbents must be seen and perceived to be genuine! According its blessings to military people, or people with scant knowledge of the local political affairs, does not auger well for the ultimate success of the foreign policy of Washington. Please ensure, through an intelligent public debate on such issues, that those who make these policies for the U.S. that result in setups that cannot really succeed do not consult merely “TV experts”!

In Iraq too, the U.S. seems to be retreating, after following a similar trajectory of policies from its post invasion grandiose commitments. More importantly, no meaningful, tangible, help has come from any quarter and the financial burden of this undertaking seems ominous. I just read today that Columbia has come out with a projection that, by this year's end, the U.S. will have spent around two trillion dollars in Iraq. With over 2,200 killed in action, over 38,000 seriously injured and with no clear end in sight, I am certain that, despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the U.S. policymakers should be worried. Above all, no matter how elections are formulated in contemporary Iraq, the creation of another Iran is in the cards. Short of this, we have prospects of a persisting civil war.

The Russians can be seen to have learnt lots of lessons from their history. President Vladimir Putin has behaved since his incumbency between a Czar and a KGB chief. He has rolled back democracy with near impunity and remains impervious to all international criticism.

As such, what should have been truly an American century of tremendous influence, with no political power or ideology to really oppose it, has now developed a momentum towards uncertainty. I feel that unless sensible corrective actions and decisions are taken by the U.S., the quest for establishing democracies the world over remains a far off a distant dream. With respect, let me end by saying that it would helpful in this not too rosy a scenario if the US Administration consulted knowledgeable and scholarly Muslims from its vast population of over three hundred million people. I do not see a single person of stature from this faith in either the present governmental setup or the one that the Democrats may seemingly have in the next elections.

I thank you for giving me this time to address your Meetup. I hope that in the ensuing discussions we can analyze more specific points and issues that are significant to this subject.

End note

[1] The author has been a professor of law & foreign affairs at Harvard, advisor on Law and foreign policy to four Prime ministers of Pakistan in the last sixteen years and has studied at Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia and Harvard Universities. He has also been a diplomat, a member of the UN Human Rights Commission and Sub-Commission for protection of human rights and is currently a Special UN Ambassador for Family Posted by Jock Gill at January 17, 2006 11:32 PM | TrackBack