As Pakistan gears up for its parliamentary election on Monday, many observers hope that the vote will usher in a period of stability and calm by lending popular legitimacy to the government. But sometimes democracy is best served by refusing to participate.
The upcoming election, to be held under the illegal Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) implemented following President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency on Nov. 3, is such a case, which is why my party and its coalition partners are boycotting the vote.
To be sure, contesting the election would provide my party with a great opportunity to take issues to the people. In fact, my party's support has been growing, with opinion polls now indicating that it is the second most popular in the frontier province -- and gaining ground in every other province.
But elections by themselves don't bring democracy. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe loves elections. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been holding elections for 27 years. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov has been in power for 30 years, and has just been "elected" to a fresh seven-year presidential term. Elections are meaningful only if they are perceived to be free and fair, which requires independent referees.
When my party started 11 years ago, we called ourselves the Movement For Justice. We demanded an independent judiciary because we believed that democracy and prosperity are impossible without the rule of law, and that the rule of law requires a judiciary that can act as a constraint on the government. Having gone to university in Western countries, we were inspired by the US system of checks and balances.
So it is a shock to us that the US State Department keeps talking about free and fair elections and abolishing the state of emergency, but without mentioning the reinstatement of the judges -- including the chief justice of the Supreme Court -- that Musharraf illegally dismissed. If the judges are not reinstated, how can there be free and fair elections? Who decides what is free and fair? Musharraf?
This is where the battle lines are now drawn, and where the future of the country will be decided. If the chief justice and the judges are reinstated, we can move toward a genuine democratic system. But if Musharraf manages to get his own PCO judges established in the country, then we will head toward a period of turmoil. After all, how can the party of a man who has less than 5 percent support win the election now without rigging it?
Unfortunately, most of the political parties have failed to stand up for the democratic process. Major parties like the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), or PMLN, have decided to participate, following the lead of the late Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. And of all the major parties that are contesting the election, only the PMLN is demanding the reinstatement of the judges.
Fortunately, the people of Pakistan -- students, opinion makers and, above all, lawyers -- are standing up for the judges, doing the work that should have been done by political parties. We see lawyers marching, getting beaten up, filling the jails, yet remaining resolute. They are suffering huge financial losses by boycotting the courts, and yet they are determined that the chief justice must be reinstated.
So the dividing line in Pakistan is not between liberals and extremists, but between those who support the status quo and those who oppose it. Parties that call themselves democratic are not only going along with Musharraf in this fraudulent election, but are also helping to restore the status quo.
The solution to dysfunctional democracy is not military dictatorship, but more democracy. Pakistanis understand democracy because we have a democratic culture. Our founder was a great constitutionalist, and Pakistan came into being through the vote. The problem has been that because we have lacked an independent judiciary, we have not had an independent election commission. So all our elections, except for one in 1970, have been rigged.
India, with which Pakistan shares a similar background, went through 40 years of dysfunctional democracy with a one-party system. But in the last 16 years it has begun to reap the fruits of genuine democratic competition because an independent judiciary and electoral commission give people confidence that their vote can make a difference. Until we have the same in Pakistan, no election can be free and fair.
For two-and-a-half years, I supported Musharraf and believed his promises to bring genuine democracy to Pakistan. I've learned my lesson about Musharraf. But, more importantly, no military dictator can succeed where Musharraf has so clearly failed.
Winston Churchill once said: "War is too serious a business for generals." The same is true of democracy.
Imran Khan is chairman of Pakistan's Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) political party. A philanthropist and sportsman, he was a member of the Pakistani parliament until its dissolution last year. He is chancellor of Bradford University in the UK.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/The Asia Society
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS