Dawn Editorial, 13 June 2010,
PRIME Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani recently made a curious statement. He said the people of Pakistan had tolerated several dictators and wondered why they would not bear with a government that they themselves had elected. Referring to the ongoing talk of corruption in government, he said it was open to the people to reject a government with whose performance they were dissatisfied at the next election.
It would be simplistic to say that dictatorship had been well-received in Pakistan. In some instances, the people may initially have been tolerant of such a regime while they waited to see if it eradicated all evils and delivered the goods it had promised to do. But they became restive soon enough, as the promises were not met, and came out on the streets demanding an end to the regime.
Their initial tolerance is to be seen in light of the fact that the generals who seized power had come gun-in-hand, with the support of the armed forces. The coupmaker imposed martial rule on taking power, which meant that his agents could deal with elements suspected of being unfriendly to him as they deemed fit. They could take them away or even put them through trials in military courts outside the due process of law.
The politicians who governed this country after Liaquat Ali Khan were reasonably decent. There were no charges of corruption against any of the prime ministers during this period. Members of the assemblies were fickle, shifting their loyalties from one party to another for reasons of expediency. There was a good deal of political intrigue, much of which was engineered by the then head of state Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad and, more notably, Iskander Mirza. This made for governmental instability. The general public regarded the politicians and their craft as unprincipled and dirty.
It was in this climate of opinion that Gen Ayub Khan seized power in 1958. Considering his promise to ‘clean up the mess’, eliminate corruption, and abolish hoarding and black marketing and set all other things right, the people reacted to him with a wait-and-see attitude. Needless to say, the professional politicians whom he had dislodged did not approve of his coup and his subsequent moves.
The bureaucracy, feudal lords and barons of commerce and industry (whose interests he did not threaten) accepted him and his dispensation.
Even though his ‘reforms’ got the country nowhere, he remained reasonably secure in his position until his return from Tashkent in January 1966. The great majority of the people were persuaded that he had given away at the conference table the victory in the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. A sizzling popular movement against his rule finally brought him down in March 1969.
Gen Ziaul Haq overthrew Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, put him through a crooked trial, and hanged him. PPP leaders and workers, by the thousands, were harassed, tortured and taken away, some never to be seen again. Anti-PPP elements in the country, especially the Islamist parties and Nawaz Sharif’s PML, favoured Zia but most of the other politically aware people did not approve of him. His rule is now considered to have been the worst in this country’s history.
The PML-N, PPP and the proponents of democracy were generally alienated from Gen Pervez Musharraf. The PML-Q befriended him and the bureaucracy worked well with him, as it had with the military dictators who had preceded him. The ordinary people were mostly unconcerned with the issue of Gen Musharraf’s legitimacy until he forced the chief justice of Pakistan out of his office in March 2007 and later imposed emergency that had severe repercussions for the judiciary amongst other things. These actions led to a protest against the general and a growing feeling of antagonism forced him to quit in August 2008. Thus, Mr Gilani was not right when he said that the people had tolerated periods of dictatorship.