Feminism in the time of controlled democracy

I don’t like military regimes and military dictators. The dislike goes back to childhood. I grew up under a military rule. Memories of how our society became increasingly undemocratic and intolerant under Zia are still clear. Dictatorship, regimentation, jihad, hudood laws, the worsening state of women’s rights — were part and parcel of the era that shaped the individual that I am. Is it any wonder then that to my mind military rule is inseparable from the patriarchal society I live in? And that the feminist in me overlaps with the democrat within?

And as I try to come to terms with the idea today of having to grow old under another military dictatorship, making a distinction becomes even more difficult. Some may find this bewildering. Isn’t Pervez Musharraf the liberal military-wallah who promises to undo Zia’s legacy — that lethal mix of religion and politics, fanaticism and vigilante violence? Well, leave aside the rhetoric and consider carefully our latest general’s behaviour — it is unacceptable to a democrat and a feminist.

Does not Musharraf treat politicians and parties like a playboy plays the field with no compunctions or regard for the women he picks up — one at a time or simultaneously — and dumps and then picks up again? From where I stand, there is little difference.

For their part, the political parties act like the archetypal woman who willingly suffers every indignity in the slim hope that one day, for a few days, she may become the official consort and bask in reflected glory.

How is Musharraf any different from the man who has an ‘official’ wife the family has chosen and the society approves of? She is a little boring, painfully conservative and doesn’t fit in well in the glamorous world where he cohabits with the Western (and the local Westernised) elite. Given her less than sparkling conversation, she is definitely not a social asset. Which man would be happy taking around companions with Jamali’s girth, Pervaiz Elahi’s dyed black hair or Shujaat Hussain’s taste in dark glasses? Their rhetoric on madrassas, women’s rights, etc doesn’t help either.

So does the grass appear greener on the other side? Of course, with men, it always does. They will always hanker after the woman just out of reach. They obviously do not believe in the maxim: one in the hand is worth two in the bush. Their line goes something like this: the one in hand is there in any case, let’s see if we can also grab the one chirping in the bush. Enter the PPP.

Definitely more modern, more glamorous and more at ease in high society. Its views are more liberal. Or perhaps it is just more pragmatic and knows which values and views should be touted when and in what company. Where appearances matter, this woman, sorry party, can offer more.

But ... these liberated kinds are a wee bit too headstrong. After all, their identity has been established independently. The power they enjoy may not match the [male] dictator’s, but it is sufficient to ensure that they will not be as biddable as the official consort, though they may also want the role.

They might just refuse to toe the line at some crucial moment. Great as they are for flirtation, they are not ideal for running the house, even under strict chaperonage. Hence, the hide and seek. While the world gossips, the protagonists try not to reveal the truth about the contacts, the advances and the retreats.

But the parallels don’t end here. The religious parties are not far behind. Their relationship with the military — never broken — is not to be acknowledged. Does it not remind one of the women on the fringes of ‘civilised’ society who will never be allowed into the posh drawing rooms and the party circuit? They are visited in the dead of night, under the cover of darkness. Here, there is no hide and seek, its loud denials that fool no one. In the man’s world, these liaisons are taken for granted; the [respectable] women, of course, are not meant know about or mention them.

Which bring us back to the present wife — the ‘respectable’ and official consort that hears about the flirtations, the liaisons, and the not-so-secret meetings but pretends ignorance. She is so eager for her standing and power (however ephemeral and transient it may be) that she sticks on despite continuous rumours of an unceremonious exit. She may be the laughing stock of the society but that does not matter. Humiliation apparently is a small price to pay — for most of these women and parties. Self-respect is hardly something to be valued.

The politics of Pakistan and man-woman relationships in this society — the parallels are hard to ignore. Even harder to ignore is the ease with which these parties [and women] allow their dignity to be trampled. Is this too harsh a judgment? I refuse to make any allowances for the political and social structures these political parties and women say force them to reach out to the dictators and playboys. Not because I deny the constraints within which they operate but because despite the difficulties, I believe, some parties and some women could behave differently if their dignity, rather than social standing and power, came first. Or is that just too idealistic? But then the idealist in me overlaps with the feminist and the democrat.

Thank you for posting an article on Pakistan, a rogue state, IMO, which should be scrutinised and discussed more often.

Isn’t Pervez Musharraf the liberal military-wallah who promises to undo Zia’s legacy — that lethal mix of religion and politics, fanaticism and vigilante violence? Well, leave aside the rhetoric and consider carefully our latest general’s behaviour ...

I always did look at his behaviour, and always considered Musharraf an extremist of the worst type.

Agreed. A dangerous nation armed with Nuclear warheads and the worst religion on the face of the earth, the death cult.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.