A litany of lies and a plethora of mistruths

Print Edition
User Rating:
Poor

/0
Best

Rate
Op-ed
THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 2013
AUTHOR / SOURCE: IKRAM SEHGAL, KARACHI

Remember military dictator Oliver Cromwell telling

the members of the Rump Parliament on 20 April
1653, You have sat too long for any good you have
been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have
done with you. In the name of God go! Just before
the National Assembly (NA) completed its term, PM
Raja Pervez Ashraf gave the nation a concentrated
dose about the magnificent performance of the
PPP-led
Coalition.
The plethora of mistruths included gems like
bettering of the lot of the common man by turning
the
economy
around.
To influence the voters choice of their preference as
rulers for next five years, a constant drumbeat of lies
will be disseminated, mainly through paid agents in
the
electronic
media.
A fool and his money are easily parted should be
paraphrased in the context of Pakistan as a fool
and
his
vote
are
easily
parted.
A clutchful of awards for making false statements
(including some under oath) must surely go to
Rahman Malik. Consider his farewell speech,

When I became Interior Minister, the main

challenge was that of terrorism. However we have
succeeded in breaking the backbone of terrorists.
Some consolation for the relatives of those recently
martyred because of terrorist action in Quetta,
Karachi, Peshawar and elsewhere! Will the COAS
be comfortable with Malik possibly letting the cat out
of the bag by generously recommending that
Kayani be awarded the title of Field Marshal for his
services
for
democracy?
According to PML (N)s Khawaja Asif, The
government brazenly looted public money on the
last day of its tenure. Keeping banks open by
declaring the last Saturday a working day, oneminute summaries were approved and changed by
the dozens to withdraw enormous amounts of funds.
Former Attorney General Anwar Mansoor called it
unlawful
and
immoral.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had put
a ban on releasing funds for projects, they were told
the Rs 4 billion needed for holding elections could
not be released unless they retracted the ban.
Those who thus looted the countrys exchequer did
so out of sheer habit, operating on the Oliver
Cromwell saying, necessity hath no law, the
coalitions very own version of the Doctrine of
Necessity.
Threatening imminent return to Pakistan for years,

this time Gen (Retd) Pervez Musharraf means it.

The business community likes him, unlike in the rest
of the country Musharraf has support in Karachi.
Interestingly he is very popular among nonPakistanis,
particularly
govts.
The MQM owe him big time for their revival after
being targetted by successive PML (N) and PPP
govts in the 90s. That MQM will support his possible
candidacy for Defence and Clifton area is no
secret, augmented by Tahirul Qadris followers
Musharraf stands to get quite a welcome at Karachi
airport.
Thereafter ground reality will take over, facing many
court cases including a non-bailable arrest warrant
for murder by the Balochistan High Court. One is
seriously concerned he would become a victim of
kangaroo justice even before going on trial,
rumours are arrangements for a blanket bail
before
arrest
are
in
place.
A hot potato for the Caretaker Govt, he will be an
acute embarrassment for the Pakistan Army.
Notwithstanding reservations among the rank and
file about Musharrafs failure to address their welfare
in contrast to those of superior military rank, his
promoting favourites rather than on merit and
meticulously superceding those with combat
experience,
he
was
their
Chief.
He cannot be treated like a common criminal. One

complicating factor, Kayani was Musharrafs DG ISI,

his trusted pointman in the negotiating and drafting
of the obnoxious NRO. Inconvenient truths emerging
from the woodworks is a possible Sword of
Damocles.
Citing life threats to his person the UAE Govt may
be requested to restrain Musharraf from departing
for Pakistan, that could let Musharraf off the hook
about his repeated failed pledges to return.
Conveniently being deported after receiving a warm
welcome could also shore up his political credentials
for
the
future.
If the much-vilified Asif Ali Zardari can become
President, and refusing to adhere to numerous
Supreme Court judgments or declare his assets,
complete almost a full term in office, in contrast
Musharraf smells roses. Anything is possible in
Pakistan!
With the PML (N) regrouping after Imrans historic
Oct 2011 rally, Imran lost political momentum. With
some rather dubious characters joining his
bandwagon and putting stain on his credibility, Mian
Nawaz Sharifs comeback combination of good
politicking and back-door negotiators took good
effect.
A massive PML (N) propaganda exercise slowly but
surely eroded the perception about Imrans
grassroots support. Though somewhat disillusioned

(and even demoralized), his core supporters

remained steadfast and loyal. While the Pakistan
Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) elections were marred at a few
places by violence, it was the only political party in
Pakistan to actually hold intra-party elections, with
due respects to the ECP the rest were mere
eyewash (avoiding the more appropriate word
hogwash) but PTI remains a distant third as of
today.
With 80000 elected party representatives forming
the core of what could conceivably be a forcemultiplier, Imran Khans rally on Mar 23 in Lahore will
generate the necessary momentum (the big Mo)
for the 50 days or so going into the elections, the
political game-changer not only in Punjab politics but
even
Pakistan
as
a
whole.
The PTI - Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) alliance in KPK is very
significant, barring Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (Fazlur
Rahman) (JUI (F)) strength in their strongholds it
could almost wipe out the Awami National Party
(ANP) while making PML (N) and PPP marginal.
The huge PPP victory in the Punjab in 1970 was
only possible because of the overwhelming female
vote. If the JI connection in the Punjab and
elsewhere holds, JIs disciplined cadres plus the
small but significant female vote bank will add to the
massive female adulation Imran Khan presently
enjoys in countless homes in both urban and rural

areas.
Musharraf and Tahirul Qadris followers will support
Imrans candidates, most probably with (or even
without) their leaders consent. Imran could
conceivably have done better in Sindh by allying
with PML (F) but did not because of likely MQM
support
in
many
urban
and
urban-rural
constituencies throughout the country, and possibly
a
post-election
alliance.
In total disarray in the Punjab except in the South,
PPP could well lose safe seats, even give vital
ground in Sindh. To quote Murtaza Haider:
Democracy is all about fulfilling the physical and
spiritual needs of the people. For Pakistanis though
the democratic rule has meant darkness, hunger
and
violence.
Haider goes on, Law and order has disappeared
and corruption is ubiquitous, economy and utilities
have faltered, prompting the electorate to question
the
value
of
electoral
democracy.
It was shocking and disappointing to hear a potential
Caretaker PM and a renowned TV anchor, both of
whom one deeply respects, justify condoning of fake
degrees, nepotism, corruption, etc to sustain the
democratic
process
at
all
costs.
That sacrifice above and beyond the call of
conscience by the superior judiciary and the Army
kept the PPP-led coalition in power for five long

years. With such an inclination to compromise

pervasive among the best of the best for some
unexplained reasons, God help this country!
The writer is the chairman of Pathfinder Group,
Karachi, Pakistan, and a security analyst.
Boris Berezovsky: An oligarch who lost his status
Print Edition
User Rating:
Poor

/0
Best
Rate

Op-ed
THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 2013
AUTHOR / SOURCE: JOHN LLOYD
Among the initial wave of Russian oligarchs, Boris
Berezovsky was the first among equals, and among
the
last.
By the mid- to late 1990s, he had become the most
powerful figure, after the ailing President Boris
Yeltsin, in the Kremlin. A mathematician and
engineer of ability, Berezovsky leveraged an early
success as a car salesman at a time of rampant
inflation into huge wealth and control of media, auto,
aviation
and
oil
assets.
He strongly backed Vladimir Putin for president after
Yeltsins resignation; indeed, he was his main

promoter. In Putin, the apparently modest and

amiable former KGB officer, Berezovsky saw
somebody
with
self-discipline.
He also saw somebody with the need for financial
and intellectual support from somebody who had
much of both somebody like Berezovksy.
It was a huge misreading of Putin, a man welltrained to appear bland. In 2000 the new president
summoned the oligarchs to the medieval fortress of
the czars and told them they could keep their wealth
if
they
left
the
politics
to
him.
Three oligarchs ignored the order: Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, now in a Siberian prison colony;
Vladimir Gusinsky, in exile; and Berezovsky, who
died this past weekend at his Berkshire estate.
These men, whose Jewishness had kept them out of
the Soviet establishment for much of the Communist
period, were brilliant, bold and ruthless. They were
forces of nature who created the first draft of
capitalism in the ruins of a completely socialized
economy.
They built it the only way possible, through
expropriation, state capitalist corruption and a
wholesale disregard for the rules permitted to do so
by the Yeltsin governments in the 90s, which,
though often chaotic, held to the belief that even
corrupt private ownership was better than the partystate version from which Russia had just emerged.

Putins reassertion of the rule of the Kremlin made

the remaining oligarchs, Berezovsky included,
subject to Putins regime. Great wealth had to now
bow low and remember that its business was only
business, not politics and Kremlin power games. In
the past 13 years the state has taken back much of
the oil industry and has tightened its grip on the
broadcast
media.
Russia has seen FoPs (Friends of Putin) take
control of the strategically important corporations
and institutions; it has allowed the creation of a
state-business relationship that depends largely on a
series of relationships that lead to the presidential
administration, and whose lubrication is a system of
bribes, kickbacks and privileges reckoned in the
hundreds
of
millions.
In her just-published book, Can Russia Modernise?,
the political scientist Alena Ledeneva writes that,
according to the leading politician Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, corruption has an explicit price in
Russia. Itll cost $5 million to $7 million for the post
of governor, $5 million to $7 million for a seat in the
federation council and $2 million to $3 million for the
head of a department in government or of a federal
service.
These entrance fees are paid by the office holder
(who is fairly certain he can quickly recoup his
investment) to whichever high official has the post.

She quotes a businessmans description of a new

normality
code
for
a
high
official:
One should take kickbacks openly so that others
know about it. Moreover, one should give advance
warning to ones superiors and ask for feedback
(approval). One should also share the spoil with
subordinates. One should never think of the spoils
as ones own. Easy come, easy go. This is the new
order, and Berezovsky helped bring it about. It is one
that grew out of the robber-baron capitalism period
(as George Soros described it) in which Berezovsky,
with Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and others, reigned
all-but-supreme.
Berezovsky was the most frank: He saw a fusion
between the raw capitalism he was furthering and
the rawer democracy Yeltsin guaranteed. His
political interventions, of which few were secret,
were acceptable because it was necessary to
interfere directly in the political process to defend
democracy.
Berezovsky overreached himself, and badly
miscalculated. In their last meeting in 2000, Putin
told him bluntly that he would relieve him of his TV
channel (he did the same to Gusinsky). Berezovsky
left the country. Once in exile in the UK, Berezovsky
could not reconcile himself to powerlessness. He
poured money into anti-Putin projects, of which the
most dramatic was the allegation that the president

had organized bombs in apartment blocks in

Moscow so the administration could blame Chechen
terrorists. That then helped justify a fresh war in
Chechnya that hugely boosted Putins popularity.
Berezovskys onetime bodyguard and friend, the
former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, was
poisoned in November 2006; the oligarch accused
Putin of ordering the murder. Last year he lost a
case he had brought against his onetime protg,
the much richer Roman Abramovich, claiming $5.5
billion for alleged underpayment of the shares he
had in the oil company Sibneft. Berezovsky lost, and
was saddled with huge costs and a reportedly allenveloping
depression.
He was the last of an extraordinary band not, to be
sure, of brothers but of fractious, warring comradesin-arms. They supported Yeltsin with money and
media against the return of a political system that
had excluded them from their just deserts.
For Berezovsky, the irony was that the man who did
succeed the anti-Communist Yeltsin had a reverence
for the Soviet Union, and the will to use the state, in
certain instances, as repressively as the Soviet
leaders had done. Berezovsky never, it seemed,
grasped that he and his fellow oligarchs were deeply
unpopular in a country that, through the 90s,
suffered huge material poverty. In his own
estimation, he was the first among those who were

building a future wealth on a foundation of freedom.

But the first sometimes shall be last: Boris
Berezovsky died in distress, frustration and despair.
He was not likely to have been comforted by any
reflection that he will have a vivid, if ambiguous,
place in the history of the creation of the new
Russia.
For him, the rapid accumulation of raw power in a
time of troubles was a drug from which he could not
wean. In the end, as drugs tend to do, it killed him.
The writer co-founded the Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford,
where
he
is
Director
of
Journalism.
Reuters