Why the Muslim Street is quiet

In Pakistan, and other authoritarian Muslim countries, the state apparatus wants to control and calibrate the people’s opinions. Political parties capable of mobilising public opinion have been sidelined through a barrage of propaganda and manipulations of the political system. Small anti-US demonstrations are not only allowed but also encouraged to show Washington the difficulties that have befallen General Pervez Musharraf as a result of supporting the United States. But other than that, Pakistani streets are kept clear of political dissent, paving the way for extremists to operate out of their hiding places.

Compare that with the conduct of the successful democratic nations. The large crowds that turned out in New York, London, Rome and Sydney opposed their governments’ eagerness to invade Iraq. The demonstrators in Berlin and Paris, on the other hand, endorsed Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac’s reluctance to stay in step with President Bush. But in each case the important thing was the ability of the masses to voice their sentiment.

US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair owe their jobs to voters, not to the armies or secret services they command. They also have the constitutional right to go ahead with unpopular policies until the next general election in their respective countries. But if their policies remain widely unpopular, they run the risk of losing their jobs at the polls. And that, more than anything else, is the beauty of constitutional democracy, which has been consistently denied to the people of Pakistan and to most people living in Muslim majority states.

So, notwithstanding the message of the demonstrators, the real victor in the present debate in western countries over whether to initiate a war or not is the process that allows such debate. None of the heads of government that support the war have described anti-war demonstrators as traitors. Organisers of the demonstrations have not been rounded up on the excuse of corruption nor has any world leader dismissed them as having ‘‘psychological problems’’. (Remember General Musharraf’s reaction to criticism by Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the Jamaat-e-Islami?) While some foreign policy experts and military strategists might hold that view in private, there has been no public statement saying, ‘‘What do these people know’’. There is no effort to ban protest marches nor is it the contention of the marchers that their demonstrations be treated as a substitute for the mandate given on Election Day. This ability to allow everyone to voice their opinions and to have a system of decision-making clearly defined by an enforceable constitution enables the democracies to recover from mistakes such as Vietnam and possibly the one not yet made in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the western nations do not always promote their own pluralist political system in the rest of the world. Anti-American sentiment is widespread in large parts of the Muslim world and US policies are often blamed for Muslim rage. Reaction to support for Israel is certainly a major factor. But the policy fuelling this sentiment most is the US decision to continue supporting unpopular authoritarian regimes in most Muslim countries. There can be no doubt that some of these regimes also invoke anti-Americanism as a strategy to seek higher rent for their continued alliance with Washington. US decision-makers know this, which explains their tendency to ignore adverse public opinion in countries whose governments depend on US military and economic aid.

During the first Iraq war twelve years ago, the US led a coalition including most Arab-Muslim countries to liberate Muslim Kuwait. But that did stop anti-US demonstrations in the Muslim-majority countries including Pakistan. Now, however, dissent within the Ummah is somewhat muted. In Pakistan, there is neither a credible civilian government nor an open political system. General Pervez Musharraf is ostensibly in the US corner and the religious parties are still leading small anti-American marches while simultaneously calling for jehad. Considerable US largesse in grants, new loans and loan rescheduling of almost $3 billion has not won the US any friends among the Pakistani public or, for that matter, the elite. But the criticism of the US over Iraq is only being voiced in newspaper columns or in drawing room conversation. When public opinion is consistently overruled by the ruling elite that is all that is left of the political process.

Pakistan is not the only Muslim nation facing this quandary of simultaneous alliance and apolitical hatred involving the United States. Successive US administrations have ignored the Muslim Street — from Morocco to Indonesia — seeing it as a minor irritant that does not impinge on its alliance with friendly potentates and dictators. In over half a century of US involvement in the Muslim world, only once have street protests led to a revolution that eroded US influence over an entire country — Iran.

The US has been complacent about public opinion in the Muslim world because by and large it has managed to get its way, notwithstanding genuine as well as manipulated manifestations of anti-American sentiment. US policy would be more effective if it did not ignore Muslim sentiment and encouraged Muslim nations to embrace open political systems that facilitate debate. Demonstrations in Cairo, Amman or Karachi that fall short of overthrowing a sitting king or dictator do not seem to have any significance for US strategic planning. US decision-makers see them as the passing phenomenon they were during the 1991 Gulf war and the Afghan war in 2001. But just as the large demonstrations in western cities have a message for US decision-makers and reflect the strength of western societies, the absence of similar protests in Muslim cities is also significant. The anger of the masses against their own rulers and the US is probably leading to fresh recruitment and motivation by extremist groups. Aren’t peaceful demonstrations a healthier alternative to that?

(Pakistani columnist Husain Haqqani is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC. He served as ambassador to Sri Lanka and as advisor to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto)