tv Hudson Institute on Pakistan Elections CSPAN August 9, 2018 7:40am-9:01am EDT
that is what they call teenagers. should we accept that in society? is that the best we can do? tell our children to be more responsible than adults trained to serve their community. >> watch afterwards sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span20's booktv. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> in elections last month the ruling pakistani muslim league
lost its plurality in the national assembly. a panel at the hudson institute in washington reviewed the election results and talked about what they mean for regional politics. this is an hour. >> good afternoon. good to see a full house here at hudson. i am the director for south and central asia at the hudson institute. our discussion on pakistan elections and the prospects of it. on july 25th, the first election since the restoration in 2008. the results were foretold with the environment by allegations of blatant meddling by the country's all-powerful military and judiciary as well as restrictions on the media but the result was a disputed
plurality. he is being identified as pakistan's next prime minister and potential savior by with the support of the younger generation of pakistanis, with the politics of corruption. with no prior experience of government he is being painted as i can do leader and as a pakistani politician he has been presented to the world as financially corrupt that many of his views and frequent u-turns on different issues are coupled with the circumstances of his success, questions about his potential competence and integrity. he has often adopted hypernationalist positions
including anti-indian and anti-american rhetoric and showed sympathy for religious extremists including the taliban and. critics believe this election will make a little dent in pakistan's reputation as a crisis state but those who are optimistic say it may be the birth of a new pakistan. pakistan's problems have deep addressing the requires a fundamental shift away from the narrative that has brought the country to its current state. that would mean more than one election and more than one result. to discuss the context of pakistan's election and its impact on us pakistan relations and what to expect moving forward we have a knowledgeable panel. to my right is professor christine fair from the security studies program at
georgetown university. her research focuses on political and military affairs including afghanistan, pakistan, india and sri lanka. one of her recent books was to the end, pakistan army from years ago and we are fortunate to have her here to discuss the book when it was launched. to my left is assistant professor at the university of florida, economist for the wire and the daily times in pakistan. his interest area includes pakistan, afghanistan, india and the united states. 's expertise as a regular commentator on current affairs for radio free europe's special service and questionable service and other services of
white america. he grew up in pakistan and has a lifelong association the nationalist movement. i realize both our panelists are critical of pakistan's policy direction especially the role of grd groups the call pakistan home. i hoped to include someone with a softer view on pakistan but august is a difficult month to find panelists in washington dc. everyone we wanted as a panelist is either out of town or otherwise unavailable. that has put me in a difficult position to try and dutifully put forward some of the questions raised by those who believe pakistan is not
understood by americans or complexities are ignored or it is bashed frequently in the international media. we cannot guarantee those who invited the pakistani narrative will be sacrificed by what we accomplished this afternoon but we will try to accommodate their perspective in the course of our discussion. my own views can be found in my books including the latest one, reimagining pakistan, transforming a dysfunctional nuclear state, as well as an article on our website, www. herhusband.org or www. southasia. i strive to be the moderator who learned not only the perspective of panelists but those who are not present here.
let us -- tell us what you think about the elections and why you are skeptical about pakistan's evolution as a democracy? >> thank you very much, great to be on the panel. i think i should just say off the bat this was not quite an election. it was an election heist. in 1970, there was an election in which the mandate was stolen after the election. in 1970, we had west pakistan at least pakistan, and afterwords their mandate was rejected which ended up in the independence of bangladesh. it seems the mandate was stolen before we went to post and
systematic and preplanned ranking was undertaken, leading up to the day of the polling, on the day of the polling and after the polling, was essentially an experimentation carried out ever since 1958. this is an exercise in political engineering. why do we keep getting that exercise in political engineering, the usual suspect in the pakistani military establishment and as a euphemism, they have nothing to do with anything of the sort, who call the shots. this experimentation has gone on since 1958 when they took over, introducing basic
democracy. we saw another formulation, control democracy in the 1970 election and other military dictators, famously known for that formula to hand pick patriotic political parties. we saw that he created national assembly in parliament, political parties were not allowed to contest. same thing happened when general musharraf took over. technocrats was formed and that did not work and another parliament was called together in 2002, one of the most tainted elections, the 2018 selection, since 1970, among the top most entered elections in the manner it was conducted
and even more than that, when the dust settled, there is a complete blackout in analyzing the election results. in the pakistani media, there is almost an declared been, censorship, you cannot use the word rigging in media. a columnist, leading up to the election, they were critical of the military's role in pre-election rigging and after the elections many seasons columnists, parliamentarians get dropped so we get to read what they hope and no criticism is a lot of what the exercise was. if there is nothing to hide,
that tells us -- >> you have been saying a run above the election. give us a little more detail, what you mean by rigging, what constitutes rigging? >> back in the day when elections were manipulated, the election day stuffing used to be the primary motive election rigging, the advent of social media and so on and so forth, the election data becomes more difficult. the idea is to manipulate a mandate, use that things into motion ahead of time. i would go back to 2013 when russians took over, you need to
understand, to kick the man out. and the former dictator, the problem they had from day one. what he wanted the military -- >> the trial had already been started and reported to prosecute that style forcefully and that was the beef where the trouble started. first the attempts were made to bring down the government through street protests. pakistan's former defense minister attempted to say two isi directors, a sitting director and the poverty director were orchestrating a sit in in which a political party, namely pakistan's parties sat down with the
parliament, mister hahn's pti. they were not able to tell from the government and it remained fairly popular, first chance they got lucky, what became known as the panama papers came out in which members were named for financial impropriety. they were not named for that. they were just identified as owners of offshore companies. >> along with many others. >> there were dozens of papers from pakistan. and that, given a break to bring it in, they applied a media sensor on the party. something that happened in 1990 when they were partners with the military, now he had to be held to something he did not commit or said he did not commit.
media management, judiciary manipulation and -- go ahead. going on the actual election in which wheeling and dealing is very common, there is a set of 50 or 60 families or people in pakistan who switched sides and they basically turned the tables in parliament. look parliament after parliament, the 2002 parliament was covered by the same people. that was us. the four things you would say that were done to inflame the election results was number one, mister sharif was disqualified, he was disqualified by the supreme court by demanding that he explain property he held in london which would have followed a trial rather than
preceded a trial. he had already been there. then came the question of his disqualification. he was convicted and ended up in prison. >> on flimsy legal grounds i might say. >> the legal question, we could have a different panel on that and the second thing was the control of the media. when he went on his tour his party was not allowed the media access a political party of that position of the ruling party at the time. the third thing you are saying is influential political figures were directed or advised to be there political parties and joined mister hahn. >> a fourth thing, a set of religious leaders were introduced in the name of mainstream.
>> why would the pakistan military go through in a sense of turning around and asking, why would they go to such elaborate lengths to deliver and election result of a certain type, after that, i'm not an absolute majority, has not won overwhelmingly and has many junior partners and very unwieldy coalition. why would they do that? what are their objectives in doing so, why go to so much trouble? >> the last part of that question. i looked at a lot of the media coverage of this election. you can tell the journalists who have been on this beat for less than 6 months because they are effusive about his victory, that he broke the deadlock of
the two parties in pakistan, seasoned people for whom this is not their first general election rodeo because they see the big picture. what is the big picture. for our intents and purposes, things most of us care about in this room, the prime minister is the mayor of islam about. it doesn't even extend, that is where the army as its general headquarters. most of the things we care about, us pakistan relations, continued support and in afghanistan, pakistan, all these things hussein detailed in magnificent delusions and things people held about this are not in that. why does he care so much in
terms of rearranging poolside chairs in hell which is how i describe pakistan elections. it is simple. what a prime minister can do at his worst, a speedbump in the military. the prime minister can create political resistance to the core interests of the army. he did this a number of ways. he campaigned on an economic normalization with india. he was very much beloved, the folks the piece handles and vigorously argued for having afghanistan as a neighbor, not a client and wanted to hold the military accountable for coups. hosni musharraf committed treason twice and they only wanted to try him for one. there was some support for these things and this is why the army went out of its way to
emasculate him publicly. so the best prime minister will be ones that lubricate the agenda, someone that creates public support for the things the army wants to do so keep in balance this trifecta of military, the militants and the paulas. what was at stake for the pakistan army, they had to make sure his party wasn't going to have a surprise victory. i was an election observer and that was the worst election but from my point of view, the closest analogue to the selection with 2002 in the sense that many of the dog and pony tricks the isi brought out had been done in the 2002 election to give you a sense. the most important thing that happened before an election is
how to bring together a collection of the willing and loyal opposition. this happened in 2002 really quite quickly and one of the ways it was a little more granularity, they went to specific parties and picked off specific leaders. .. it's not just the politician, you are plucking off their vote bank. some of the most important turncoats, fact has been labeled the pakistan turncoat industry, one before this election, right? they picked up several ppp leaders. >> their candidates belong to other parties typically electio
election. >> that's right. these will be traditional spiritual leaders and they have a large vote bank with them. if you're just thinking what's the big deal, these folks artifacting, remember what's defecting is that particular leader and taking their vote bank with them. the rise of this new tool, the judiciary, is the most interesting because for the first time the pakistan army didn't have a lot of options. with it at 58 -- a constitutional amendment that could put pressure on the president, that was easily done. they got rid of it with the 18th amendment. he voluntarily gave up the sweeping powers of presidency and restored pakistan to parliamentary democracy. so the pakistan army had to
scramble, how to undermine a sitting prime minister without its trustee 58 to be? we saw this. i begin engaging in these straight shenanigans. some of you guys might remember the clerk from canada and he actually had amazingly a box that he roamed around in. the parliament, the provincial police chief to that of armored vehicles in pakistan. this guys appears out of nowhere, he lands from canada and the able to shut down -- >> it means martyrdom, one that cannot be blown up. >> yes. you can still blow for police chase but this got opposite has a secure conveys what he can roam around and rabble-rouser. they shut down the capital for weeks with these containers, now when the world with this kind of
money come from? please, it's like the trump administration. just watch what goons are making the money. but going back to this election, and election fraud, can we -- >> will come to the judiciary in the second. let me just say i genuinely note the subject so i can say i understand what you're saying. try to answer people who are saying the following. not one, pakistan has a youth bulge. there's an extremely youthful young population. this population did not like politics as usual. some of them actually have an adult like admiration for imran khan. he was the cricket hero who brought the cricket world cup in 1992 the pakistan, and he hasn't been accused of corruption and so part because he's never been
in government, if you've never been in government you don't. but that is a fact. people were frustrated and, of course, shehbaz sharif, irrespective of the legal niceties nothing observed, many people believe them, many think the two major political parties, their lives were crept so these are the factors that made a large number of people turned against the old political leadership and some potential in imran khan to be the leader of a new era. they voted for change. how is any of this wrong? of course that ppi stood at 69 votes compared to the pml 12 my foes, and the ppp 6.5 might vote so that's about 18.5 million votes for all pakistan, , in 164
new pakistan. but there was a desire for change among segment of the electorate, wouldn't you say that there wasn't? >> what i would say is none of this is new and it just going to sort that chris was saying about the judiciary and media. the judiciary media is the oldest trick in the militaries playbook and i take all the way back to 1958, october or so, martial law. april 1959 at gunpoint progressive papers limit. which was founded at the instructions of -- they take over that. in august 1959 they do the anticorruption drive which was part elected bodies. the first man to be targeted was
potentially -- and that men have formulated in one of the prestigious publications here, foreign affairs and i 59 -- 57, a vision for a nationstate against uconn division. he's a good-looking man. he's clean. the people are desirous of a change. they want to get rid of the corrupt politician. fast-forward 50, 60 years we are at the same situation and plus you've got immunity to the notorious supreme court back then it was a high court, federal court. judiciary and the political manipulation. so, yes, i can understand that there can be the youth vote, but
keeping the electorate divided and manipulating the old electoral system is what gave ppi the edge and that was not possible without as she put it back in 2002, we don't know who is managing at this time. no one has named the name. the general who's in charge of the calendar terrorism at the isi named the name so there are people going out and actually -- >> let me try and reduce this into a sort of abbreviated form the basically what you're saying is that in pakistan was the establishment, the military and intelligence services make a decision about how domestic politics has to move, then the vote of judgment that enable that particular agenda to be moved forward as a person can be described as corrupt or whatever. and the media then jumps in into
creating the image of their corruption. for example, mr. khan himself and some of his associates had offshore companies. that didn't become the same level issue that shehbaz sharif offshore holdings became. if you read pakistani papers to be told there are $200 billion of pakistani looted money and foreign banks. i think it has just come out as a half because there's no study, nothing that indicates that. the property that shehbaz sharif is supposed to have in london is believed to be worth 7 million pounds. the best exchange rate that would be what, ten, $11 million? it doesn't run into billions. the media jumps in and they go and describe it as billions of corruption and that's the reason. but surely that does move the electorate a little bit. so do you think, crisp, and you
can go back to your digital part one your answering this question without wondering -- -- >> i'm going to do that. >> tell me more about, i mean, the electorate is affected by this but even then the result does not manifest a total disillusionment with the old guard. i mean, yes, a lot of defeats at the number of people who voted declined in percentage terms, not in absolute terms. about two or 3% less turnout in the last election. so obviously pml-n supporters did not turn out and that number but still 10 million votes for the pml-n and 6.5 or something million vote for the ppp and then the mme, religious parties altogether segment of the book.
in terms of pakistani society, still, we have to contend with the reality that those have been described consistently by the media and by the studies as corrupt and bad and evil and even treasonous, they still have a significant following how is this actually developed in the complete triumph of one narrative? >> i take your point. i would put this anymore structural sense. i think democracy in pakistan has democratic features while not being a fully functional democracy. democracy is all of the world are wrestling with this question. millennials are not happy in many of your millennials i can see, are not happy with the electoral systems in which we live. and i will say what i find very uplifting about pakistan's millennials is they there beeny involved with pti for now what,
at least a decade, right? and what pti has done is that, we will deal with the rating is second what pti done has done, problems for the army, he could've been prime minister ten years ago had even more willing to play ball with the army. he's actually a slow learner in this regard. but what he has done is that he made foreign policy issues that youngsters and pakistan talk about cookies made policy instead of patronage talking point. i think that's part of the frustration is that politicians over by policy options or solutions. they provide patronage. now, by virtue of trance is coming to power in this way, he has been collapsed in in the rt system that pakistani millennials find so distasteful. and i think many of us that were
hopeful barack obama would do more uncertain progressive issues, i know many of the earlier pti supporters, and it taught many years ago, i stayed in touch with them. the older millennials have become very dissatisfied with imran khan. they were much more observing his co-option by the army and intelligence services. i don't think the problem is that your youngsters who want change. democracy all over the world right now, think about the indian election. if you're an indian young person, what were your options between the congress party and the -- congress actually began the communalism. i think were all living in the time with our electoral options are highly constrained even in a democracy like our own we can see the perils of democracy
people don't want something new. my grouse is when elections are hijacked, and elections are being hijacked all over the world. this isn't just pakistan's propublica problems if it turns out and pakistan's case the primary commitment of malfeasance is an integral actor. but what i wish pakistani millennials would understand is the system, right? the reason why the pml-n and the ppp are such sub optimal performers is i would argue that many of us have is democracy interruptus, right? no prime minister zarif serve out his or her term. it's not because the people rampage on the street and said hang the fellow, it's because the army manipulated to bring them down. the media is also very much driven by the army, that the media center constant message
that these politicians are corrupt slimeballs. do you know what's interesting to me? no one is ever asked the exception of a handful of people how great is the army? it's an organization and with no insight into the finances. the army literally sit to throwing stones at a glass house. >> and also it's important to remember that until shehbaz sharif conviction with dubious circumstances, qualifications came before the trial, that to me is wrong. the supreme court starts the trial process or the legal process and set up being the last court of appeal. these are things that are silly but that said at least if has n convicted. in the past we had a situation where mr. zardari was in prison and he wasn't convicted of a single crime. there's something essentially wrong that you charge somebody with corruption, use as a basis for propaganda for year on year
on year on, through controlled media and get you do not bring it to any legal conclusion. >> i think, i agree with you but this -- >> let -- >> the supreme court did not first convict him of financial malfeasance. what is at least it was he's not honest and trustworthy. he comes from pakistan's constitution but i believe in 2006 a court ruled these terms have not been defined. what mr. imran khan, because he's not the straightest shooting arrow, he's a little bit of a political ied, the army will have problems corralling him but he will find very quickly that he can be equally subjected to this arbitrary definition of not being -- we've all seen the rumors floating around about the finances. >> it's a charity that imran
khan became famous for that established the name of his mother after the 1992 world cup. the cancer center of their issues about its finances not being completely transparent. >> this is indifferent to a number of speedy let's not get into that. >> i'm not going to detail the exotics but what else is now we have the president of the supreme court saying that a prime minister is not -- terms of not used in the constitution speedy it is essentially become some islamic history, those prophet muhammed and islamic history so the honest and trustworthy, and it was put in by the general where he admitted the constitution arbitrarily before restoring some semblance of elected segment of government in 1985, and then when the
constitution was being readmitted to restore the democracy features ironically it was shehbaz sharif who oppose this. the question is will this be used against them? with six more minutes. i'm going to divide that equally between the two of you, two and a two and a half, two and a half, to talk about sort of where do we see things moving forward? and then can't open it for questions an audience which will enable us to clarify things a little bit further. what is being said is that about this election and its outcome, it is a disputed election result, but still imran khan have a lot of support from young millennials who look upon it as a savior, high expectations, images need for him to provide economic site.
large amount of foreign payments coming due, which will require pakistan to borrow more to pay off previous loans here and at the same time he has promised his state resembling the state of prophet muhammed in medina, and he says this is going to be an islamic welfare state. among the things that people are saying this election is a positive development is that the islamists party, they cut a significant number of votes, they could not get a large number of votes important so we will have a part of what many islamists in it. my own view on that which you both are looking to disagree with is that not having the department may be even worse than having the department because now they will be again free to do the kind of things that they've done in the past of coming up in the future. what mr. imran khan is going to need it is able to cobble this
new coalition together because his party to fall short of majority, then has to deal with not having a majority in the pakistani senate pick the next senate election is not due until 2021, and at the moment his party on his 15 seats in the house of 104. he will have a senate minority situation and that would require him to be more compromising the more compromises he does, the less he is seen as the man of principle that he has predicted himself, first time voting change seeking millennials. how do things move forward? and second, what does it entail for the rest of the world, india-pakistan relations which i'll support because both countries of nuclear weapons. pakistan and afghanistan, pakistan and the united states. each of you three minutes please. dr. taqi, you go first.
>> i really foresee that it's going to be a tough parliamentary course for imran khan but he's an untrained man despite being a part of it. he hardly showed it. he ended five sessions -- use deadbeat parliamentarian for that matter. and the burden that he cares of this election manipulation, that is a ball and chain around his foot. >> i don't think i had that here. this is a pakistan armies spokesperson, public relations from his verify personal camping this man declared victory before imran khan declared victory. look at the timing of the tweet, this is essentially a sub tweet siding, economic first saying
whoever god pleases, exalts him, and whoever god is displeased with, he basically just brings into dust and dirt so this was while the election results were rolling in. now look at this kind of gloating. army did not going to this solution to lose this election on the election day. the reason being that this is the first time that in history of pakistan, a punjab-based, punjabi politician with a strong electoral base actual challenge the armies of interest on its own turf. this is where the real issue in the fiction will like. going forward, i think the opposition is still formidable. in-depth becoming allies by default. they will definitely have a significant role to play in the parliament but imran khan by himself, let's talk about policy issues come to me it looks more
like a wish list. there's very little evidence to show that some of the things that they had been talking about on the campaign trail to actually have plenty of the but for it. look at the immediate currency deficit situation and the bailout talks that we have right now going on, whether going to china or international monetary fund and so on. similarly on the military issue, the medicine sympathetic to the militants, taliban, he was nicknamed taliban khan. the fundamentals of the pakistani state with a military preeminence as the guard remains i think in the foreseeable future that will be bad. it is also important to remember that even the weakest of the prime minister's have hand-picked battles with the army. one man came from a party less, parliament in 1985 and when he decide to proceed with geneva
accords with afghanistan guaranteed by u.s. and eu support, they have a beef and bone to pick with him at the whole assume it was dispatched. so i think we are in for some choppy waters, to put it highly. >> while you were speaking i looked up the statistical that slipped my mind. 6% was imran khan attendance of parliament. >> there you have it. if use my class he would be, he would now have to attend parliament so let's you remain just because you really, the office of prime minister is not like the presidential form, he will have to go through parliament. he will have to manage a coalition. let's hope that he can. >> your final comments before turn to the audience on this long list of things i said. where do we go from here? >> the weakness of his
coalition, of course it is a feature not above. the army wants this. the army did one of the situation where shehbaz sharif had a clemente. going forward the army doesn't have any more options. the reason why we have imran khan is the army didn't have anywhere else to go. so i think keeping in mind -- pakistan's history is worthwhile, i still don't anticipate major change on any foreign policy portfolio that matters because this is not in the hands of the prime minister. it's always in hands of the generals. i think for the americans we have a really interesting question on our hands. what do we do with the imf? there's a very real likelihood that if we do not cut them off at the imf, the american taxpayer who's a biggest contributor to the imf will be
subsidizing pakistan's cpac loans. >> you have to unpack this because you use an acronym which is forbidden here unless you click with the acronym is cpac is a china-pakistan economic corridor. it's part of, it's a $60 billion plan of china actually building significant infrastructure and pakistan linking pakistan to china, and critics feel that pakistan is heavily indebted to china because most of them are in the form of -- what chris is saying is that if the united states into supporting an imf bailout for pakistan, which is being sought about, it's the beginning where between $8,000,000,012,000,000,000 pakistan needs to get out of it current difficulties of low foreign exchanges, then this amount would essentially be used
to repay china. is that what you're saying? >> basically. and if we don't do that then we have an equally and powerful scenario, that is if you look at the chinese is a small, i the way i call cpec colonizing pakistan to enrich china, so the business model and they've done this in djibouti, in sri lanka, myanmar, trying to do this in bangladesh, which is the basically set a price and the price is far in excess of what a market price would be. in that they roll up all the bribes that takes a payoff of different corrupt politician. moving body from the public offer to private coffers, and then when the country, and by the way these projects are not economically viable. we can go through every single one of them, and when the country cannot make the loan service payments, china's is great, give us a 99 year lease, give this a chinese company a majority stake in getting whatever you might as come of
it. essentially they get a sovereign chinese island. so our choices are subsidizing pakistan's cpec adventurism, right? or we don't subsidize pakistan's cpec adventurism and we get a little chinese island. neither of those cases are terribly speedy basically u.s.-pakistan relationship, , yu don't see a major shift and you think the trend should that be subsidizing pakistan's repayments to china as well as china deepening its claws into pakistan? vector? >> i'm saying we need to be thoughtful. imf, in policymaking circles imf has been not on the table but we're not think about the cost of -- >> we didn't talk, get to talk about afghanistan and whether can expect yafer were cooperative and american efforts to try and find a peaceful solution or a solution to enable
america to come out of afghanistan in a way in which pakistan's interest can also be protected. but i'm sure that will come out during the course of questions and answers. before we go to the obvious let me just say that this has been a somewhat pessimistic view of things. there is an optimistic view which all of us do not have to share but should be aware of. and that is that imran khan will bring a fresh outlook to government, not having been entrenched in the ways of patronage and corruption the pakistan's politics has been mired in, that he will have professionals managing various ministries, that a lot of overseas pakistanis will start trusting the government much more and, therefore, would be willing to send more hard currency into pakistan as a result. the art tends to try and raise money with these pakistan's, although the amounts are staggering. i doubt if people can really put together billions of dollars,
but still a positive that investors might actually come to pakistan because there will be less corruption and lastly, civil-military relationship will enable the country to actually make decisions on foreign policy issues that it is been reluctant to make. so that is the most optimistic scenario. my colleagues to my left and right have already laid out the more critical and pessimistic dimensions. i now unwilling to open the floor to questions. i would rather not have comments because they will become long and i would like you to ask short questions, and bear in mind that a question usually ends with it question mark, and requires an answer. so no speeches, please. raise your hand and some of will bring a mic to you after i recognize you and i identify you. yes, right here in the front.
my name is a listen, i'm with council on foreign relations. i wonder if either panelist or moderate would care to address the issue of imran khan and his focus on anticorruption? professor fair bought this up a little bit but didn't pursue it further. do you think you will continue to focus on anticorruption in a limited sense of only against political opponents or will this have a broader mandate to look into the issue of corruption writ large, including problems with the military? other problems of pakistan's budget, what does and doesn't get spent. >> military and judiciary. >> imran khan party pti from the home province, the previous 2015 campaign was also about the anticorruption bribe and how the old-fashioned tradition would rob people blind. five years on i don't see a single trial conviction or
restitution made to the exchequer from any of those people that he paid. there is literally been no accountability process there. you talk about the military, there have been mega scandals involved in the military, especially in the arrest of balochistan awami party. they have been involved in corruption to the tune of millions and billions of rupees. not a word was said by imran khan by that. the military internal order, basic is just a rap on the knuckles of those generals. nobody actually heard about it. some of his own cronies have been convicted. the basically it will be more political rather than it's a great election rhetoric.
>> do you have something else to add? >> i pretty much agree. >> i would argue that are many dimensions to the corruption problem. what is this political one which we've talked about. i think this is been going on for many years. each government that was ousted during the '90s was ousted on the grounds of corruption. institutions have been created, first the accountability courts, and the national accountability bureau et cetera, et cetera it always ends up focusing on the political prominence because that's what headlines are. expanding it is likely to create some kind of social unrest as well. forget about the military. let's just go there. let's talk about even expanding it to make it wider on the civil service, et cetera. these are the functions of state. everybody sterilized, which is happened. for example, immediately after shehbaz sharif took overact and i can many were picked up and
put in prison. then the entire industry class and investor class got together and said what's going on? you can't do this to us. if you specific -- the method in pakistan for dealing with corruption is not that you go through the normal channels of -- if you do it as a political campaign, then your best hope is to find somebody and get into quote-unquote confessed. otherwise, if they are really capable of bringing good judicial charges, then situations like the 11 year and present without conviction will not have happened. similarly you never pakistan is taken the case probably, like, for example, the famous property of bhutto and that was publicin the 1990s or the so-called swiss account, $61 million, it was exaggerated. people expected millions.
in the end the cost of filing this case is was only think pakistan ended up with. it bore the cost. it did not get the. so unless mr. imran khan is able to put in place a proper system of prosecution and trial, i think it will end up becoming a political slogan. and if he starts expanding it to try and go for judges antimilitary, we will have the same political destabilization that we've always had whenever a political leader has attempted to do that. so that's my answer. >> can i add something to this? so in purchasing power parity your average judge makes less today than it did under the british. look at what your average beat cop makes. and who knows these folks can't pay even a modest can pay for a modest home and a modest family
without taking bribes. everyone knows of this. so if you're really going to address this corruption issue you have to then deal with the public service commission and structural changes in the pay grade. the question then arises why doesn't this happen? politicians actually like having a corrupt system they can manipulate. i think some of the heroes in south asia are oddly enough the police. the police do not want to be corrupt. in pakistan you will routinely see a count of seven from the kkk police force unable to stop a suicide bomber with anything else other than his body. and they don't shirk. they do it. when i look at corruption, there's this large corruption that it on focuses on but, in fact, corruption is baked in. there needs to be a real discussion. corruption doesn't happen to
you. you choose to participate in corruption. so it is a pain in a particular location to get your car registered, to get your drivers license and so forth. you know if you get pulled over the guys occurred right to take a know you can just bribe their way out of it. if you want speedy but i think the whole discussion of corruption in pakistan has always been focused on politicians corruption and not about this endemic structural speedy but i'm talking about both. literally baked into the system. >> yes, right here. >> "washington post." just quickly, this narrative outside the pakistan, india in particular in the u.s. that nothing will change and it would
break this of the pakistani military controlling the state in terms of his position versus india's position. what is happening within the military? do you have any sense of it until discussions how a new generation of officers are coming in? are they governed by the same kind of impaired as the earlier generation? is, under some divisions are factual questions emerging? i'd love to get a sense of what that looks like. >> i have data on this. it's on the website christine fair.net, a paper published in security studies some years ago, basically something like pakistan's military manpower policies what we do know is that going back to you can't actually the pakistan army understood that if they're going to be seen -- yukon -- everyone has to have the perception that they have an
equal opportunity to loot the government while in uniform. if you know about pakistan you know that's not true. you don't have an equal opportunity and before the breakaway of east pakistan, bengalis were certainly locked out of the billy to lead the country. yukon did try to expand the footprint of the army in these other provinces. military manpower is not only driven by demand side considerations like we've the army want this. also by supply-side. most of the efforts of yukon failed because he didn't get the supply-side response. what we've seen the army to in the last several decades is that they have reduced the qualifications to get into the army, particularly the officer corps, to try and attenuate the human capital shortfalls. they had been building these cadet academies.
they are not only to intermediate individual who are confident to get in without these reduce standards, they are also intended to engender a positive sense. these will often, these are not uncontroversial because folks also view these as colonial outpost. having said this, despite the controversy we know that these efforts have been successful. we are also fairly confident that these recruits that are coming -- some years ago to i a survey with mccauley. we interviewed like 14,000 people and its like a natural experiment and we asked how do punjabis outside of the punjab -- [inaudible] >> i'm going to tell them. these like making brownies from a box. this is going to point of why does this matter? the people who are not in the punjab do not share critical
values that the army espouses about hostility towards india, the belief that have to liberate kashmir. there are different views. so does this mean that this is going to overtime, another important factor i think you need to consider, prior to 2004 the first unit the county would happen in association with india. either on the loc action which you can rationalize, frostbite is like the enemy. but now the first unit fertility is very likely to be actually from a pakistani, fighting in the tribal area. so for me as an empiricist we are not going to see the result of the present decade. i also work on military manpower issues in general. armies are notorious sausage grinders and you can put anything in there and what you get is the same sausage. we don't know if these people that a been recruited in
balochistan if you have the same retention profile. maybe they'll just, but these are i think some of the important things that are happening endogenously that give me some hope that we might see something different but this is a very cautious level of hope because armies, after all, try to seek conformity. there's one thing we can all see. when these guys are out of uniform they say something that would never say in uniform. so this also means that even if they do think differently, you have a coordination problem, like the four commanders. it's a signaling problem. if you're the one who thinks his this way and you keep up you will be out. this is competent but i think there are some things that we should be watching is endless as the decades unfold, particularly the internal operation. >> the data at your question, yes, there is going to be changed in the pakistan military thinking what it's going to be a relatively slow and long drawn
process i'd like to quickly after i think some of this has actually been tried and tested. we have had military chiefs and the same process, a general was a pashtun on his watch the taliban was created and unleashed. we had them across -- pashtuns have made a large chunk of the pakistan army. second-largest section in the army and over the years, like chris said, the sausage comes out, it's a melting pot. the army is little to the army itself. some of things the military thinking that exists some of the general concerns one can understand about afghanistan or india, but i usually don't like to throw out analogies but if this this is a general delusion i can treat it. but if someone is taking delusion i cannot treat it.
pakistan army takes the delusion that india and afghanistan, at a don't foresee a that delusion coming anytime soon. although to be fair, i mean, that something that is up for debate. is it really fake? are the general concerns for which will have speech a different panel at some point. >> thank you. thank you for a very fine panel. i wanted to just thank dr. fair for putting the imus issue on the table because i think that will be important. my question is this. you and your colleagues but at the islamic issue but did not say too much about it but there is this kind of change in the situation, with respect to new prime minister, made that part of his campaign but the religious parties themselves declined. i was wondering what your sense of how that plays out after
that? >> which one of you wants to take that? >> i'll take it briefly. bhutto zardari was very ferociously aligned with some of these nasty elements. she went into coalition in the '90s with the ssp which was a vicious anti-shia organization. her father and even her son has been going on and on about the 10,000 year war in kashmir. so this is i think for domestic purposes, right, the army is wonderfully calls the shots on these issues. where i think imran khan of most the dangers an issue that affects us. effects pakistanis. one of his parting words as a campaign wrapped up was basically very good jordan incendiary things about entities on already there's an open season, his, what i i thought s
even more appalling about the pre-poll rigging was the number of not islamists. pakistan is lammas, we know who they are. we know their histories but we are actually terrorists an individual associate with terrorist organizations. the m and l, they fielded 200. asw j which is a new acronym for the ffp, they fielded and a couple hundred. and then of course an ally of al-qaeda also some other members allegedly joined ppi. i think this is a watershed. we've always had islamists that actually having terrorist, but the sheer number of terrorists in addition to islamists contesting this election about those quite notable. i'm glad none of them one that's
really not the point. by the way, remember they did this right after we tossed them that bone of the financial task force. we gave them agree listing instead of the blacklist. what was the response? with a 900 terrorist contest our elections. >> you've raised your hand, the gentleman right here. >> exactly what you are saying, do pakistanis have really two. pti? -- have to fear pti? >> i will quickly take that. do they have the numbers? it will eventually boil down to the numbers. and the set situation as it stands this is going to be an uphill battle.
we know the pakistani military is upset with elements of negating amendment if not speak for those who don't know,. [inaudible] undo many of the minutes of the military had introduced into the constitution including the presidential part to arbitrarily dismissed government and dissolve parliament and also increased the power of the provinces and gave him several subjects that were not previously controlled by them. >> i don't foresee that will be on the chopping block in the first after what if you come get in there and how things are maneuvered, how things are, for we know there could potentially be a change in the senate for the senate chairman is threat by the opposition parties. on paper the numbers do exist but politics is where rubber meets the road. once we get into that we will see but yes, there are some
signs and think one needs to maintain a watchful eye, a very, 18th amendment is something the smaller provinces have to jealously guard. >> i'm going to take three question together and they get answers to at the end. first right there at the back, yes. >> natalie with the voice of america. a quick question for all of you perhaps. what does pakistan have going for her, going forward, and how could the country take the most, what she has going for her? thank you. >> okay. right here in the front row. >> aei i have a quick question about pakistani foreign policy. i take your points that real power remains with military about who is the civilian at office, but nonetheless having a
civilian prime minister who seems to be in lockstep with a military would certainly open up the possibility for what that foreign policy may be. so what does foreign policy likely to look like and specifically what is pakistan's policy towards the united states likely to look like? >> and the young lady right here. >> my question would be -- >> please. >> i work, i'm a tax attorney here. my question is for dr. taqi, and the question is regarding the accountabilities that we have. there have been several convictions, and thereafter they were set aside. i want to see what you have on those convictions. do you think prior to the 2013
elections, was he rightly so convicted earlier, and then under the judges a later on when set aside. having said that, a follow-up question on that which everyone can answer is, do you think nab, national accountability for the court, to think that system can be revised and put in place, like imran khan might be able to revise that and put into place a system that is more workable for partisan? >> so we're going to try to do these three in short, short, short answers. what is back at the net going for it, -- what does pakistan have going for it? there would be no conflict between civil and military, or less conflict, and national accountability over a national
accountability bureau, i will give it short answer. it was an institution that was invented by anti-military dictatorship and, therefore, by definition it was created in the manner in which proceedings are not always transparent. and it essentially is headed by a military man for the first over years. it is been an essentially political process. the convictions, the reason why there are set aside is exactly that reason. so the real system of accountability will have to be what it is and every other country in the world. you have prosecutors with prosecutorial authority and discretion. you have courts. you don't need a special institution made for accountability because that's what judiciaries exist all over the world for. and by creating this narrowly defined accountability system, what we keep doing is we keep political corruption or shall we say well advertise corruption as
a separate subject then enforcement of law across the country. so that was my answer. which one wants to take a foreign policy of which want to answer what's great about pakistan going forward? >> i'll take what's great. >> go ahead. >> they have a lot of nuclear weapons. i'm making an argument. it's true. because they have the fastest growing nuclear program in the world they will soon overtake france. they going to be able to continue coercing the americans to keep writing checks irrespective of what our current regime says, and they will also continue to be able to bully india with impunity. i think that's a good thing. they haven't armada can't win a war. they have nuclear weapons they can't use, so terrorist under a nuclear umbrella. >> i don't think that is what you're looking for. [laughing] let me say and election of 200 million people, half of them the age of 21.
for their sake we need to have of you of how those people can with the productivity come up with a new direction for the country. i just published an entire book on a cold reimagining pakistan. i invite you to read it. go ahead. >> i just want to add to that, i will never dismissed my own country, i a country of 20 miln people. there is very resilient people to my own hometown has been bombed over the last ten come 15 years. people are still standing. they're still going to school and work. a lot of that disaster is the making of our own army. we've got to give credit to the pakistani people were still standing up. they came out and voted, and we still have a vibrant opposition to i think all is not lost. chris book says fighting to get into well, if the establishment can fight to the end and their pertinent is we're not defeated until we're not defeated, same
with politicians. >> of the people. >> absolutely. >> foreign policy. >> yes here. >> follow-up question. >> the foreign policy question was that if the political and the military establishment ducks in a row, whether we can actually float the word solution or some sort of approach with india or afghanistan, i think that sort of was tried and tested when shehbaz sharif help power. the executive and military were in the saddle. we did not see a whole and come out of it because the fundamental of the pakistani army thinking remain unchanged. that's what i use the word fake delusion. if someone is insane they are insane but if you're pretending to be insane, that's very different. >> why do you think they take a delusion? >> let's have an unpacking of that. >> yes, let's go back. we are a country which inherited one-third of the british indian
army. we have always been with the army from day one. we have an army which was short on armament after first adventure, and subsequently a a reason had to be invented to actually just by the existence of -- >> instead of having an army that matches the size of the threat, the size of the threat has been exaggerated to match the size of the army. >> over the years the military itself has become an economic plot. that something that chris pointed out that the recruitment efforts and whatnot and that's what it is a melting pot because any person can once our past a certain class their part of the economic system. it's a very, very lucrative economic system. >> we are going to be concluding in a few minutes. last round of three questions. someone, to and the gentleman right at the back.
go ahead. >> my question is about 2019 election. what think pakistan without expectations of the 20 that the elections in you think they want to play a role in it? >> okay. and the second one was yes, the gentleman right here. >> the atlantic council. i just want to touch on some economic morass you point out on imf loans. people in pakistan talk about cpec, but china gives cheap loans unlike american aid and what d.c. pakistan conferring with cpec and if you could touch upon more on those? >> okay. i think that was touched upon some of, as in the last question right there in the back.
>> my question was is any confidence on new site that expect imran khan to be a trusted partner? >> of whom? >> u.s. >> of the u.s., okay. go ahead. >> so cpec almost will sorely go forward because that is what the army sees is really important project. if you look at the economics of it it's not a viable economic quarter. take something six times the cost to move one barrel of crude than it does to any other area. also i think one of the more interesting things about cpec is not the highways, the port and electricity. it's agricultural. what the chinese are getting is access to pakistani land to grow their products. so they don't seem to talk about that. cpec will certainly go forward. it will certainly be overpriced. there was the reason why would
be any different from what we see in myanmar, sri lanka or djibouti. >> pakistan will end up in a deathtrap. >> that's why think americans, we have put the imf on the table but we just sort of, we are on autopilot but there are costs to going for with another imf package because we actually encourage pakistani cpec adventures. there is no, it's a moral hazard if we basically think we'll subsidize your payments, go and invest away. but and if we don't write those imf checks and pakistan can't service so cpec loans, then we're going to have a chinese blotter. we don't even talk about this in the same week we don't talk to economic stability for afghanistan. there are somethings not on the table but we really need to discuss is in our interest to continue and imf bailout i would argue against that because the
imf bailout is what lubricates the friction that ordinarily arise between a vibrant civil society and the interest of the military and the class it preys upon. we actually subvert democratization by continuing to buy us. the question i elections i do see how to play role in the indian elections. i do think it will play a very nasty will in the 2019 afghanistan elections, just as it did the 2014 elections. those are the elections that i think there's going to be a lot of bloodshed as the pakistanis use their proxies to do pre-poll rigging just as he did in pakistan itself. >> can imran khan be trusted by the united states? >> at this point i think it's very early. his rhetoric against the u.s. policies especially in afghanistan was quite nasty. he was one of the people who took to the roads.
he didn't get the u.s. national interest, putting the u.s. serviceman in the harms way, a very nasty campaign against the u.s. drone program that was being operated. i think it has to be initially some confidence building measure if at some point some trustee though i would always advised trust but verify. i don't see him as trustworthy partner but that's my view. american government has to do business with the government and that will go on. one thing what to say about the cpec, it sort of reminds me of the 2008 financial crisis here we had toxic entities. people writing lots of people who would not pay. people are buying houses without the visual 20% down and ultimately you had efforts which no one could claim and it was
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on