Author: Sarmila Bose
Publication: Daily Times
Date: May 27, 2003
URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-5-2003_pg3_4
For the hypothetical choice between
Narendra Modi of Gujarat and General Musharraf, it's no contest really
- the truly disturbing sign of the direction India's democracy has taken
is that the 'Paki in khaki'would get my vote any day over the saffron-draped
Hindu nationalist peddling the politics of hate
As America attempts to bring "democracy"
to Iraq even as the Afghanistan experiment seems as fragile as ever, it
may help to assess some of the paradoxes of democracy and dictatorship
thrown up in recent times in South Asia. If dictatorship is presumed to
be an unmitigated disaster for nation-building, has democracy turned out
to be an unqualified blessing?
During the December 2002 elections
in the Indian state of Gujarat, the incumbent Chief Minister Narendra Modi
ran the entire election as a battle between himself and "Mian Musharraf"
- his way of referring to Pakistan's military ruler. Election posters depicted
Mr Musharraf and Mr Modi pitted against each other, on backdrops of green
and saffron, respectively. The chief minister's campaign devoted considerable
energy to railing against the phantom presence of the head-of-state of
the neighbouring country. The actual electoral adversary, the Indian National
Congress, featured only as a second thought. The results reflected Mr Modi's
prescience: he and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also rules federally
in New Delhi, romped home to victory with 50 per cent of votes cast and
70 per cent of seats in the assembly. His success gave rise to a new form
of electoral politics in India - the 'Modi model'.
For many months before the election,
Gujarat was rocked by violence. On 27 February a train had been torched
at Godhra, killing 58 Hindus. It was carrying many 'karsevaks' or activists
of the movement to build a temple to the mythological hero/god Ram espoused
by the BJP. The following day, hordes of Hindus went on a looting, burning,
raping and killing spree against Muslims, a pogrom unprecedented even in
India's violent history. Numerous reports testified to the well-informed,
coordinated and targeted violence against Muslim homes and businesses and
the inaction if not complicity of the state police and administration.
Mr Modi was accused in the national press and many human rights reports
of fomenting 'genocide' and practising blatant hate-politics targeting
the Muslim minority. He won the endorsement of half the voting public and
increased his party's vote-share and number of seats.
Mr Modi's feat is not unprecedented
in democracies. In January 1933 Hitler, whom Hindu nationalist ideologues
openly admire, had become Chancellor of Germany through a democratic process.
Shortly afterwards he too presided over another election. Just before the
election - curiously, on 27 February as well - the Reichstag was set on
fire. That incident was followed by widespread arrests, violence and a
reign of terror by elements of the Nazi party. In the election in March,
Hitler and his party received 44% of the vote, an increase of 11% over
the previous election in November 1932.
Between visiting violence-ravaged
Gujarat and covering the election there I happened to be in Pakistan during
its national elections in October 2002. As the country returned to a 'guided
democracy' there was some grumbling against General Musharraf in the press
and public - for allegedly rigging the system before election day, or awarding
himself sweeping powers and falling prey to the time-worn tradition of
autocrats overstaying their welcome.
However, from the perspective of
someone more used to 'the largest democracy in the world', at least on
three notable points the General appeared to have provided better governance
than his elected counterparts. First, though absolute power is supposed
to corrupt absolutely, there seemed no complaint of financial corruption
against either General Musharraf or his senior cabinet colleagues. This
is remarkable in South Asia where corruption is so endemic that the public
assumes every politician to be in public life solely to line his own pocket,
unless proven otherwise. The Indian government has a few honest individuals,
but the stink of corruption is all-pervasive. Indeed, reports from other
parts of the world, such as Latin America, indicate that the joy of democracy
after years of authoritarianism has soured due to the simultaneous spread
of rampant corruption.
Secondly, General Musharraf seemed
at least to try to deal with pressing policy matters including economic
problems. Some of his economic successes are directly related to his decision
to do a policy somersault in Afghanistan and become America's ally in its
'global war against terrorism' - a practical move most certainly in his
country's best interest. In India the economic reform programme is adrift
while issues of temple-building or 'cow protection' take centre-stage.
Finally, even General Musharraf's
bitterest opponents do not think he is a religious bigot. How ironic that
the self-appointed autocrat of an 'Islamic' country actually harbours no
religious prejudice, while the democratic government in 'secular' India
is driven on the fuel of Hindu nationalist ideology!
The reality is that in terms of
these crucial issues, the military dictatorship of General Musharraf from
1999 to 2002 arguably provided better governance, not only compared to
previous elected governments of Pakistan, but also compared to the democratically
elected government of India during the same period. As for the hypothetical
choice between Narendra Modi of Gujarat and General Musharraf, it's no
contest really - the truly disturbing sign of the direction India's democracy
has taken is that the 'Paki in khaki' would get my vote any day over the
saffron-draped Hindu nationalist peddling the politics of hate.
This does not mean that the answer
to flawed democracy is to start praying fervently for the miraculous appearance
of a well-meaning dictator. It means that the challenge for democracy in
South Asia and around the world is to devise a system that allows Pervez
Musharrafs to come up through the democratic process and prevents the likes
of Narendra Modi from reaping votes from the blood of innocent citizens.
(Sarmila Bose is assistant editor
and columnist for Ananda Bazar Patrika and The Telegraph newspapers in
India. She wrote this comment for Daily Times)
