The nation-state is declining, Bobbitt argues, essentially because non-state actors confront it with threats to which it cannot effectively respond.
In Pakistan’s case, the relevant non-state actors are easy to identify. On the one hand is the process of economic globalisation that is predicated on social modernisation and economic reorientation. Around the world, this process has inevitably summoned a globalised scale of military action. On the other hand are amorphous entities, like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who use nativist militancy and armed force in reacting against the forces of globalisation and modernisation.
Both of these sets of forces are entirely multi-national in nature. Both erode our national sovereignty.
A editorial comment observed that Two decisions to be made today may decide which way Pakistan is likely to go in the days to come. The Supreme Court will decide if the candidacy for re-election of President General Pervez Musharraf is valid; and the APDM has to resolve the differences that have cropped up over the question of resignations from the assemblies to make the presidential re-election impossible. But the fact also is that no matter what decisions are given, Pakistan is going to face another period of instability.
What is worrying about the situation in Pakistan is that no matter how one decides to resolve the crises it faces, the country might be propelled down the road of self-destruction. If President Musharraf is disqualified by the Court, he might impose martial law, suspend the Constitution and “re-swear-in” judges of the higher judiciary under a provisional constitutional order (PCO). The “victorious” forces will then have to face another period of struggle. But if the president is allowed to get re-elected and the PMLQ government has the numbers to keep its administration intact, the fact will remain that it will rule an increasingly unstable state with daily bad news coming from the “ungoverned spaces” where the writ of the state doesn’t run. The Supreme Court will lose prestige in the eyes of the legal profession, which will lead to a daily barrage of professional and non-professional criticism of the judges. And the opposition parties, joined by others that the ruling party was not able to accommodate, will agitate in the streets and keep the anti-government pot boiling.
Finally, the forces of chaos will catch up with the state to make it look like a “failed” state. The most crucial new factor, in case President Musharraf is “re-sworn” without his uniform, will be the army. With the president installed for another five years, the government will face a growing environment of violence and crime. Calls will be made on the army to deploy against a mix of terrorists and political elements grown excessively unruly and vandalist. Not having made much headway against the terrorists in the past, what if the army is inclined to re-examine its options and retreat from battle?
Why would it be dangerous for the world if Pakistan were to keep on sliding into chaos? After all, barring India, no state in South Asia is functioning normally. In Bangladesh, for example, politics as usual has been rendered impossible by violence and corruption and the army has been compelled to put both the top leaders of the country’s bipartisan system in jail and rule from behind the scenes. In Sri Lanka, a kind of civil war has continued over the decades, and in Afghanistan, NATO is struggling to control an insurgency linked to the tribal areas of Pakistan.
But the fact also is that the “implosion” of Pakistan would arouse more international concern than a state like Myanmar, for instance, where the military has been oppressing the people and thwarting democracy for decades. The kind of “tolerance” the world has shown for Myanmar may not be shown in the case of Pakistan for a number of reasons. It seems that in the final count “control” is the one factor that saves the state, not its democratic order. Pakistan is an internally shaky country vulnerable to terrorist elements acting at the global level. It is confirmed as the “training ground” for international terror with a population not terribly opposed to this phenomenon. So while Pakistan may not have a very strong religious movement from the inside, its society is increasingly vulnerable to religious “intimidation” which renders its established secular bipartisan system irrelevant. The presence of a “transnational” terrorist organisation, Al Qaeda, within its borders compounds the crisis. More and more local groupings known as Taliban are answering to its leadership and using weapons to intimidate the population and roll back the already pressurised administration. Therefore, Al Qaeda’s global aspect sets Pakistan apart from the other partially dysfunctional states of South Asia.
Last but not least, it is the presence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan that must worry the world and break down its will not to proceed against a “sovereign” country. The bomb has been viewed as “Islamic” by the people of Pakistan. That raises the possibility of the final ascendancy of Al Qaeda in the country — after an economic breakdown — and the bomb coming under the control of a pro-Al Qaeda government challenging the West in general and the United States in particular. And any new trouble with India could panic the champions of non-proliferation and trigger pre-emption.
It is now obvious that “revolutionary” change as opposed to “transitional change” will probably not work in Pakistan. Those who want instant “transformation” into “correctness” may be clinging to principles, but “clash” rather than “adjustment” could finally ensure Pakistan’s decline into chaos. *
Second Editorial: Christians of Multan face threats
The so-called “banned outfits” which the Musharraf government should have gotten rid of but hasn’t have started a new campaign of threats through letters to Christians in Charsadda in the NWFP and Shantinagar near Multan in Punjab. The campaign is now three months old and has the Christians panicking without any hope of the government coming to their help. The terrorists want the Christians to convert. Their latest letter says: “We have already sent you letters some time back but you did not listen to our advice. We know that either you have torn or burnt the letters. Through this action you have committed blasphemy and you are liable to death. We will spare you only if you follow our demand, otherwise you will be killed”.
The threats come from the Islamist groups defended by the seminaries. It is the across-the-board resistance to the Musharraf government that is allowing this extremism to continue undeterred. Those who should be scared within the madrassa underworld are no longer scared; and politicians who should view these extremists as their enemies regard them as their allies. The tragedy is that Musharraf government is not even convinced that it has to take these elements on.
The End
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
