Why South Asian democracy is made in Washington and London

Events taking place in Pakistan are very relevant to Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries not so much because of the direct fallout of political developments there but because of the manner in which these South Asian countries have come under foreign influences.

What is happening in Pakistan now is described as an attempt to restore democracy.

But who is attempting to do so? The decisive power is not even with the army which has been the real power in that country since the establishment of the state 60 years ago. There is no secret about the fact that the ultimate decisions are being made far away in Washington!

Six decades ago

About six decades ago when Sri Lanka was to be an independent, democratic state, a dominion in the British Commonwealth we were taught in school that democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In fact this is what the founding fathers of the American Constitution have written ad nauseam and successive American presidents keep telling us.

How come then the decisions to restore democracy are not being made by the Pakistanis but by American leaders such as President George Bush who is regarded as one who has scant regard for democracy?

While it does seem a paradox that Pakistani democracy should be made in Washington the hard fact is that there appears to be no other way under the dictatorship of General Musharraf.

India

Pakistan is no doubt in a state of chaos as a country ever could be. But even in neighbouring India, the world's biggest democracy and acknowledged by Washington as a Global Power, vital policy decisions are being influenced - some would say even made in Washington.

The Indo-American nuclear deal is no doubt of extreme significance to both countries. To Indians whose economy for a greater part of the six decades of independence has been largely dependant on traditional sources of energy such as bullock and cowdung power, a breakthrough in nuclear power generation is vital to make headway in the 21st century.

To Americans it will be one of the biggest foreign policy achievements in recent times having the biggest democracy as an Asian ally. India is considered as a counterweight to China whom the Americans consider as a growing economic threat and also a threat to its strategic interests in Asia.

The Indian Marxist parties that prop up the coalition government led by Sonia Gandhi, and Manmohan Singh in parliament for the required majority are objecting to the nuclear deal for many reasons but their main objection is that it would be the commencement of a strategic alliance between India and America which will lead to restrictions being placed on Indian foreign policy as well as nuclear development programme.

The irony of it was that two weeks ago the  US Secretary, the American Ambassador in New Delhi and that legendary former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger were in New Delhi actively canvassing the support of Indian leaders, particularly the leaders of the BJP to support the nuclear deal. Reports from New Delhi indicate that the BJP has been persuaded to cooperate by not opposing it in parliament even though they may not support it.

Thus, while Indian Marxists objected to the nuclear deal because it would lead to interference in Indian foreign policy and implementation of their nuclear programmes the US did interfere in both policies on the nuclear issue itself!

Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka there have been strong protests about the interference by Western powers under the name of the international community in Sri Lanka's Tamil problem.

Whether the people like it or not, the ultimate decisions on a political or military solution, the kind of constitution with devolution of power etc. will be determined in Washington or London if Washington so wishes to pass on the power to our former colonial master. India, the regional power, goes along with decisions of Washington and London. And all this is done in the name of democracy and human rights.

In the Maldives pressure is being exerted on President Gayoom who has been ruling the archipelago for 26 years to change his ways of guided democracy. How did Western powers be able to make a come back and decide on the way South Asians should conduct ways of governance since the '90s?

Running to Western embassies

The answer lies in the fact that South Asian leaders did not know how to conduct themselves in a democratic manner. Tolerance of democratic opposition ceased to be and once in power, ruling parties became fascist, corrupt organisations under the label of democracies. India is the least guilty in this respect

Opposition parties being dealt in the same roughshod manner by ruling parties that were treated likewise when in opposition is the main cause. The opposition bereft of any protection ran to Western embassies and even regional embassies, pleading.

Mahinda Rajapakse will recall how as leader of a Mothers' Front against President Premadasa he sought the support of British High Commissioner, David Gladstone and even the fire eating anti-imperialist Somawansa Amarasinghe fled through New Delhi to London and was granted asylum there.