Pakistan's Military Dictators Lacking In Clothes Uniformly

There is no sound sweeter than thousands of people shouting zindabad or 'qadam barhao'. Thus, an illusion is created of support when there is none

The News, Karachi, Pakistan Friday February 04, 2005-- Zil Haj 24, 1425 A.H.

Military rulers and popularity By Shafqat Mahmood

Like all military rulers of the past, General Musharraf has begun to enjoy these rent-a-crowd rallies. He has been to three recently and seems to respond quite emotionally to the usual razzle-dazzle and meaningless slogan mongering on such occasions. It requires a certain suspension of belief to consider these crowds or its antics as genuine but it happens all the time. I guess, there is no sound sweeter than thousands of people shouting zindabad or 'qadam barahao' etc.

This suspension of belief or getting carried away by crowds is a strange thing. I remember Zia grinning from ear to ear after addressing a public meeting in Gujranwala. This arch cynic who was suspicious of everything and everybody actually believed that the crowd had gathered due to his great charisma and that slogans expressing ever lasting love for him were genuine.

The first military ruler Ayub Khan was no exception. He was fond of taking train journey's across the land to be greeted by crowds gathered for him by the patwaris on railway stations. He also addressed many a large public meeting during the 1965 election organised by the bureaucracy. He 'won' the election but soon found out that rumours of public support for him were greatly exaggerated. It was a popular movement that toppled him.

It is curious that nobody tells these military rulers the real story or if they are told they choose to believe otherwise. Most likely the intelligence agencies, which are otherwise quite effective during dictatorships, have no desire to spoil the boss's mood or risk censure. There is nothing more dangerous than telling a dictator that people don't like him. So, they either keep quiet or become a party to the sycophantic chants around the ruler.

Ayub became aware of the truth when people by the hundreds of thousands came out against him. Obviously this could not be hidden although I am sure some kind of conspiracy gloss must have been put on the public anger. He might have been told that people still love him; it is only a bunch of miscreants paid by foreign agents who are demonstrating on the streets. It is easy to accept conspiracies because the truth hurts.

Yahya was probably too drunk or too inaccessible to the agencies given his other preoccupations, to care one way or the other. For the brief periods he was sober, I doubt if he ever heard the truth from anyone. He did some incredibly stupid things like trying to bypbutt the verdict of the elections, and also ordered a military action in East Pakistan that led to the break up of the country. As a window into military rulers' thinking consider this. Even after the country had been split and Pakistan had suffered the largest military defeat post World War II, he still wanted to hang on to power. We must be incredibly naive to believe that General Musharraf would quit voluntarily.

Zia and Musharraf both went in for a referendum after they were told that they would win. Zia was a cynic so it is possible he knew people were not with him and deliberately organised a sham vote. General Musharraf actually believed or was made to believe that he is popular and therefore was quite shocked when the referendum went against him. He came out with all kinds of explanations later saying that this or that person went overboard. He did not once recognise that the entire exercise was a sham.

There is a desire in all of us to be liked, to be popular. Political leaders test their popularity in elections and they know precisely what percentage of people like them or otherwise. George Bush may be hated by a lot of people but he now knows precisely how many people like him. This gives him confidence and has lately led to a certain swagger in his appearance and behaviour.

Military leaders never know for sure. They want to be liked too but there is no way of knowing whether they are or not. If they expose themselves to a real election it is possible that they might lose and this can lead to unforeseen consequences. The Burmese dictatorship had such an illusion and ordered an election. When the vote went overwhelmingly against them, they were in a quandary and had to annul the election and impose an even more ruthless dictatorship. Military rulers testing their popularity through a genuine election are on a tricky wicket.

But, they still want to know whether the people like them or not. Call it human nature or whatever. Sham referendums or fake elections may make it easy to hold the country by force but they do not tell anything about a dictator's popularity. So they listen to dubious politicians that surround them and tell them that they are God's gift to humanity and that everyone without exception loves them.

Politicians with little or no standing are past masters at telling lies, and military rulers desperate to know their real standing are ready to listen. This is a clbuttical situation of manipulation. One method of catering to this need to be loved is to organise public meetings. This is done with the help of patwaris and the police and now the counsellors. The people so gathered are also told to raise appropriate slogans, which are designed to mbuttage the ego of the ruler. Thus, an illusion is created of support when there is none.

One story doing the rounds is instructive in this regard. A former Punjab minister, accused of every corrupt act under the sun, managed somehow to get General Musharraf to attend his daughter's marriage. Apparently, he transported a large number of people to a Lahore hotel and they were tutored to raise the right slogans the moment the general entered the hall. It seemed more like a public meeting than a marriage but the right illusion had been created.

This seems to be a trend of the future. You will now see more and more public meetings in which thousands of people will raise all the right slogans. Some kind of public mobilisation is being attempted to show the popularity of the General. Behind this lurks a grand attempt at sycophancy and maybe something more. Is the ground being prepared for announcing the Kalabagh Dam?

Whatever decisions are taken in the national interests there should not be any illusion of public support for the government. General Musharraf is not ruling by popular will and neither is this a representative democracy. This fake system must take care that it does not overreach otherwise the consequences could be disastrous.