By MIAN AKHLAQ-UR-RAHMAN

Having smoothed out their countenances and donned them with smiles, the warring factions of our socio-political milieu, not burying their hatchets but forgetting them for a while, still basking in their past glories, have joined hands and combined their efforts and political skills on a single issue, restoration of democracy in Pakistan, and for it they have put down a charter of democracy.

The COD on which the political parties have put their minds and hearts calls for judicial reforms, an independent election commission, a just system of accountability, and reining in of military bureaucracy. The spotlight of public scrutiny, however, seems to be more fixed on the role of the army in the affairs of the state than on any other issue.

People have created armies; armies have not created people. This instrument of state designed to guard and defend the will of the people has turned on its parents and has subjected them to its corporate will after successfully abstracting and insulating itself from the general will. The mindset that in the previous centuries had donned the Royal Regalia has thrown off the frayed garb and now dons the new Regalia of caps and pips; there is no change of heart under the change of form. Premonition shows us that very soon these will be irrelevant and despised symbols if they occupy the slots not meant for them. The general will of the people will regain its ascendancy and the instruments of the state will be relegated and pushed back to their proper positions and places, as responsible parts of a viable political arrangement of the society.

It is neither tyranny nor any disservice to the nation, if the people through the instrument of legislative assemblies, with duly elected representatives, question the acts of the army and its members. Mark Twain, said, “My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s own country, not to its institutions or to its office holders.” However the immunity of the armed forces from public scrutiny in matters of national security should not be disturbed and weakened.

Democracy is the safest system in the way that in it no idea or thought is stifled, preventing its development from festering wounds into revolutionary boils. Further it is the only system, yet developed, that can fruitfully absorb the evolutionary process of nature and existence. Except in a democracy, in all other systems of management the thoughts and ideas of men, who are alive, meaning by this those of us who in line and pace with the evolutionary process of the universe are continually learning, maturing, and changing, are slighted and thwarted. Instinctively aware of the demands of evolution, in a democracy, these men are instruments, through their active participation, of the manifest progress of mankind. Further the interaction of the democracies is the interaction of the people of the world, thus giving a genuine legitimacy to international treaties, processes, and agreements. Asserting that international peace cannot be achieved without a democratic participation of all the people of the world, Woodrow Wilson, said, “No covenant of cooperative peace that does not include the people of the New World can suffice to keep the future safe against war “. We have to shoulder two responsibilities at the same time, one as an independent Nation and the other as an active member of the international community of Nations; two functions, one domestic, the other global.

Despite the points in favour of a democratic setup, democracy in its present form has failed to deliver goods, especially in the developing countries. The governments are not only responsible to people and their representatives but also dependent on them. This dependency of the government on the public representatives for its life makes government a handmaiden of the ruling and opposition politicians who under the mask of public welfare use this strength to pursue their own nefarious designs. The political and social agendas of the political parties bow to and give way to the personal agendas of the members of the political parties.

Solon, 600 B.C., Athenian legislator, drew a constitution that established free elections and emphasized the rights of the individual over the power of the state. At this stage democracy meant the formation of a legislature, through public vote, responsible for legislation of laws and formation of policies for the governance of the state and of setting its national and international, goals. In Athens, the General Assembly comprised of all the freemen, and was the supreme body, legislative and official. Political parties arose later with the development of a multiparty parliamentary system, with each political party representing a different political school. However with the progress in economic and cultural globalization the role of the political parties will gradually reduce, and in future they would be voted for the personal integrity and useful to the nation professional skills of their members and not for their political agendas, for these will stand merged in the global systems. But this is something that would not be possible till the people are educated to recognize these traits in their candidates.

Having freedom of association, in a democracy, people with common interests come together to form pressure groups, taking the form of corporate bodies, industrial and trade cartels, trade unions, and unions of professional groups, with time becoming powerful enough to thwart all measures of the state that promote general welfare but undermine the monopolies and benefits of these corporate bodies. Bertrand Russell said, “and at last I began to feel that all politics are inspired by a grinning devil, teaching the energetic and quick-witted to torture submissive population for the profit of pocket or power of theory.” Will Durant, 1931, in his letter to Bertrand Russell, wrote, “Democracy has degenerated into such corruption as only Milo’s Rome knew”.

Kant, said, “The Whole People, so called, who carry their measures are not really all, but only a majority; so that here the universal will is in contradiction with itself and with the principle of freedom.” He further said, “Is the laity expert enough to give its opinion and vote on issues that are technical. Demagogues tend to confuse their visions with ambiguous speeches, full of clichés, good sounding words, and balmy constructions, then after arousing their passions they direct these towards furthering their own personal goals and ambitions”.

Allama Iqbal, said, “Gareez az tarz-e-jamhoori ghulam-e-pukhta karay shau”

“Kay az maghze do sad khar fiqr-e-insanay nami ayad”

(Remain away from the democracy oh mature, because the brains of two hundred donkeys do not make a man’s wisdom). “Jamhooriat ek tarze hakoomat hai jis may”

“Bandoo ko gina kartay hain tola naheen kartay”

(Democracy is a system in which men are counted and not valued.) “Hay wohi saze kohen maghrib ka jamhoori nizam”

“Jis kay pardoon may nahi ghair az nawae kaiseri”

(Europe’s system of democracy is the same old musical instrument In whose folds is not other than the song of Caesar)

No two societies are, at the same time, at the same stage of evolutionary development, therefore a generally agreed system of management cannot be applied to different societies at different stages of development, however it can be applied with particular relative modifications specific to each. Aristotle, in The Republic, recommends rights according to abilities. The modifications are all the more necessary in a country like Pakistan where the civil society is far from developed and social milieu is still most of it a hegemony of landed feudal and religious aristocracy.

In the history of the Western culture, during the transition from medieval to modern times, the landed feudal aristocracy lost their political power, after having lost their economic power to the merchants and the industrialists. In Europe Voltaire and Rousseau were the two voices of the enormous processes of transition from Feudal Aristocracy to the Rule of the Middle Class. In India too with the rise of merchant and the industrial class the feudals were wiped away from both commerce and politics, they no longer held the destinies of their serfs, industrialization had liberated this huge chunk of population, who after liberation became an important part of the national politics. In Pakistan the feudal culture, despite having lost its commercial aspect, still persists and occupies the corridors of political power. They cannot legislate for the people because at the core of their politics is the need and desire to hold and perpetuate their serfdoms. They are the sons of status quo and are the best buys of the dictators and the tyrants; they can never bring in a social revolution that will change the lives of the miserable majority. The most tyrannical of the lot is the landed aristocracy that combines in it the elements of the church and the aristocracy, the aristocrats who are not only the feudal lords of their areas but also the religious heads, mini-divinities, holding the keys to happiness in this and salvation in the next world. Lenin was partially right when he said, “Democracy- the best possible political shell for Capitalism.” In “Communist Manifesto”, Marx and Englles state, “The Proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air”.

An important factor of democratic vitality is the active engagement of the citizens across cultural boundaries, something which is not possible in a feudally and religiously closed system. Freedom of speech, thought, and assembly is essential to the establishment of a civil society as it is the basis of the ability of the people to act publicly. Alexis Detocqueville, says, “It is important not to let this idea (of free will) grow dim, for we need to raise men’s souls, not to complete their prostration”.

Through democracy people gain control over, politics, commerce, and culture, as through science they gain control over nature. This is however only possible when the will of the people is free of feudal and religious aristocracy, when they are educated enough not to be moved into emotional sprees by witty and cunning demagogues, when they can understand right from wrong, when they are not bonded by labor to certain social hegemonic aristocracies, and are free to labor as they like. Though no man is dumb enough not to know what he needs, and had always acted according to the needs of his times, the social bonds referred earlier do not allow a free application of his will through vote. To accelerate the process of the development of the civil society, certain steps can be taken. First, the rights of the individual, ecological, biological, social, political, and economic, will have to be legally and constitutionally guaranteed and protected. This will not only grant recognition to the individual but will also empower him against social, economic, and political exploitation. Secondly, Middle Class should be developed through a general spread of government sponsored education, reduction of poverty and promotion of economic independence with the help of small industrial and personal loans in the case of urban population, and small agrarian and personal loans in the case of rural population, development of a rural civil society by encouraging the formation and promotion of civil organizations in the rural areas. Thirdly, as it ensures a grass root people and government participation and liaison, development work should be totally entrusted to the local government institutions. Fourth, to educate the public representatives in good governance, the members of parliament should be asked to submit annual reports on the political, social, and economic development of their constituencies to the legislative assemblies. Sixth, now, as, after having traversed a long road, life has become very complicated and human desires and needs have accordingly become sophisticated, and as akin to these desires an elaborate organization system is required, a professional beaurucracy trained in management skills should be developed and established for the management of the economic and administrative affairs. Seventh, the institution of the army, knowing very well that it is the only institution of the country, despite all the right or wrong misgivings about it, whose sincerity and patriotism to the state is beyond doubt, can be used, the method can be laid down constitutionally, when times require for the purpose of internal and external security, however the conduct of the high officials of this institution should be made directly responsible to the legislative assemblies. Eighth, as judicial and legal corruption, reported by many global forums, is a spreading phenomenon, and as in Pakistan the legal and judicial community is as much corrupt as any other corrupt institution of the country, be it political, social, or administrative, yet being the most immune to any kind of probe, enquiry or censure, the conduct of the higher judicial officer should be allowed to be discussed and reported on by the select, committees of the legislative assemblies.

Till the times are there for a true democracy, times when the civil society has grown out of its ills, either through a deliberate or through a natural evolutionary metamorphosis, and the common man is mostly in control of his will, guided and qualified democracy is the solution for the current times. There can be a blend of different systems, which being in the welfare of the general public should be accepted as a transitional phase in the history of the nation. Benjamin Franklin says, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters”.

By MIAN AKHLAQ-UR-RAHMAN

Taking positions in space, without consolidating the ones on the ground, USA faces isolation and ground vulnerability at the expense of a monopoly in space. By 2008, when the skies will be full with “Brilliant Pebbles” and “Brilliant Eyes”, the USA space-sensors-interceptors, USA might have prompted inroads to the vulnerable portals of its ground defenses, national economy and cultural milieu.

Trajectories capable of carrying conceptual or material loads have always been a source of concern. Those rising from the launching pads of minds, carrying conceptual loads have never been successfully intercepted, and have ultimately hit their targets even if initially obstructed a number of times. However, those carrying material loads, missiles in current terminology, nuclear or conventional, a source of true concern, can be successfully intercepted and destroyed somewhere in their course before they reach their target and this was successfully demonstrated when on June, 13, 2002, Thursday, Pentagon report, a Raytheon- made Standard Missile-32, fired from the cruiser USS Lake Eric intercepted an Aries Ballistic Missile fired eight minutes earlier from Kauai, Hawaii. The interception of a target at an altitude of 100 miles (160 km), established the capability of ALI (Aegis Lightweight Expo-atmospheric Projectile Intercept) system.

It all began with the Nazi Missile Program of World War-II, which included the development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Taking the inspiration after the World War-II, U.S.A. and Russia playing the cold war under the ashes of the two fiery world engagements began to experiment and develop missiles. Foreseeing no end to this program, both Russia and USA concluded, in 1972, the Anti Ballistic Missiles Treaty, limiting the deployment of each country to two strategic sites each. By early eighties, fearing that Russia has acquired the first strike nuclear capability, the strategic analysts convinced President Roland Reagan on developing missile defenses, this resulted, in 1987, in the approval of the establishment of the Strategic Defense System, SDS, this comprised of six major subsystems, including a space-based interceptor, SBI, a ground-based interceptor, a ground-based sensor, and two space-based sensors. Fear, triggered by the striking capability of ASAT, Soviet Anti–Satellite Weapon, made USA to replace SBIs with an interceptor concept called Brilliant Pebbles, now Soviet ASATs would have to contend with thousands of interceptors orbiting the earth, small and hard to find. A strategic development occurred with the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, in 1990 and the Operation Desert Storm by the USA and its allies against Iraq, in 1991. The battleground witnessed for the first time operational engagement between a ballistic missile and a missile defense system. In 1991, President Bush announced GPALS, Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, which had a ground-based National Missile Defense, NMD, a ground-based Theater Missile Defense, TMD, and a Space-Based Global Defense, and ultimately considering it an impediment, USA unilaterally withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty in 2001.

Not warranted, the desire to monopolize the skies was however always there in the American mind. President Lyndon Johnson noted, during Americas’ space race with Soviet Union, “Out in space, there is the ultimate position-from which total control of the earth may be exercised…Our national goal and the goal of all free men must be to win and hold that position”. “Vision for 2020”, the report of the US Space Command states, “Over the past several decades, space power has primarily supported land, sea and air operations-strategically and operationally. During the early portion of 21st century, space power will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare. Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military and commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance”, this is an important part of the American dream to achieve total dominance in space, land, sea and air.

In the present highly integrated world no decision is taken in isolation. It was never so even in the remote past even when in external relations the concerns were limited to immediate neighbors. External contingencies influenced domestic policies and domestic agendas influenced external relations. The National Missile Defense program of USA with Theatre Missile Defense System, its branch for USA allies, is not an isolationist decision taken without any external consideration, rather, it is a decision prompted by the development in the external world.

USA should reconsider the ground realities and take into account its policies. As far as NMD is concerned it should take as partners, Russia, China, Japan, EU, and other willing countries of Asia and Middle East that would like to join, not the way USA has negotiated with Czech and Poland to install the missile interceptor systems, with Russia sounding concerns. The system should protect all the member countries from accidental missile threats, and, against deliberate threats from rogue states. People of the world too need protection as the people of the USA. If the needs of other people are not taken into consideration, then the NMD will also meet the fate of NPT, which lacking means for peace and being devoid of any moral or humanitarian considerations for the peace of the people of the world, and in the absence of an international system of justice available to all without prejudice, became ineffective. Let the nuclear capability develop, because the nuclear energy is the cheapest and its availability will strengthen the global economy and benefit enormously the poor and energy starved people and states of the world, however the vehicles to carry nuclear bombs, in case a rogue state decides to build a bomb and use it on some other state, should be banned, of these the ballistic missiles are the first to be taken care of and the vehicles, air-craft carriers, the next. Without these the bombs, even if somebody developed would be of no purpose and use.

In the broader context, NMD is a result of weakness in USA foreign policy that has, over the past some decades and especially after it began to ruthlessly pursue its imperialistic policy, quite in contrast to its domestic agenda, which has freedom, tolerance, liberty and mutual respect as its guiding principles, earned more enemies then friends. USA, that was previously pursuing the policy of reaching out, to the strategic geo-political countries, and earning cooperation and understanding of its positions, is being, after miserably failing in these grounds, forced to withdraw, like a tortoise to its own shell and adopt a policy of withdrawal and defense aimed primarily at strengthening the domestic defense, domestic economy, and domestic social structure.

US policy to turn into solid turf the thin ice on which it is treading should chalk out a comprehensive policy—democrats across the world should be strengthened—rights of self-determination should be supported and resolved through UNO—status quo in favor of the oppressors should be abandoned and people of the world should be educated in peace and peaceful means—UNO should be given the major role in global policy formation and USA should stop being the global marshal, which creates and invokes unwarranted jealousies and antagonisms. U.N. teams should survey, analyze and point out the existing and the potential conflicts, economic, territorial, ethnic, religious, etc, in the world and U.N. should form teams and forums for their resolution in time, to ensure a safe and tolerant world in the future. If mutual respect and peace is not achieved and the whole world becomes vulnerable to the missile defense and offence strategies of the USA and its allies and satellite countries around the world, then the USA should seriously consider, what will be the points of vulnerabilities of USA that the opponent countries would like to explore.