Harris Khalique

We are told by historians, the likes of Dr Mubarak Ali apart, that there were many benevolent, generous and sagacious kings who ruled different parts of the world. Under their rule, the subjects lived in complete peace, harmony and some of them in abundance. We are told that they invested in the welfare of their people. Marcus Aurelius of Rome, Charlemagne of France, Nausherwan of Iran, Peter the Great of Russia, Haroon and Mamoon Rasheed of the Arab-Muslim Empire with its capital in Baghdad, and Ashok and Akbar of India are remembered for their decisions and deeds that strengthened their empires and brought prosperity to those they ruled. The clergy of any faith was at their service and nobles were loyal. The armies they raised were well-fed and properly equipped. They would award artists and reward artisans. The King is dead — Long live the King.

Then why humanity at large became so averse to autocratic rule and chose democracy instead? Couldn’t they look for good kings and queens? Why did people start thinking that long-lasting and powerful systems and institutions could only be built through democracy? While some of us may still look for a messiah to arrive from the heavens and rid us of all our predicaments, the knowledgeable and the wise across the world are convinced that leaders should come through a process of elected representation.

Pir Ali Mohammed Rashdi, noted scholar and Pakistan’s ambassador to different countries, wrote two letters to the president of the republic, General Ayub Khan, and copied these to the foreign minister, Manzur Qadir, in 1960 and 1961 from Manila. In his first letter, he insisted that wings of politicians who ask for democracy should be clipped if Pakistan has to prosper. The second letter is more interesting where he prays to the president that Pakistan should be converted into a monarchy. There are two other letters, one addressed to the president again and one only to the foreign minister, where Rashdi has belaboured his point that constitutional monarchy with General Ayub Khan as the king would be the only solution to Pakistan’s problems. This couldn’t happen, however, and the people of Pakistan prevailed. We have a history of struggling against oppression, dictatorships and injustice. The citizens of this country struggled against Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf. They also protested whenever a civilian leader behaved like a dictator. We got democracy back due to the struggle of the people at various levels. Undoubtedly, there can be no negotiation on civilian rule if the country has to survive, let alone prosper.

But we have to go very far from where we are now. In the plutocracy of Pakistan, every ruler is a king whether he has been elected or has illegitimately taken power through gun. Pir Ali Mohammed Rashdi’s recommendations never made it to our Constitution and law books. But the spirit of his letters sits in the hearts and minds of the rulers. Nawaz Sharif would visit rape victims, Shaukat Aziz would meet Mukhtaran Mai, superior courts would take suo moto notices and President Zardari would dole out money to the family of a child born in a rickshaw. No systems, no institutions, no justice, no education, no health for the teeming millions. I wish all children in Pakistan are born in rickshaws on blocked roads due to the moving cavalcade of the king or his nobles. Each child will then be guaranteed a decent living and a proper education from the royal treasury.

The writer is a poet and advises national and international institutions on governance and public policy issues. Email: harris@spopk.org