The two kinds of politics

By M B Naqvi
The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

There are two types of politicians in Pakistan. The first comprises those who are broadly satisfied with the way Pakistan's polity and economy are organised. This group also includes those who are unhappy with one particular detail -- the way the Army generals intrude, overthrow civilian governments and begin recasting political institutions for longer life to the dictator of the day -- despite being adequately satisfied, or unconcerned, with the social structures work. But a majority is too opportunistic to question the generals' right to rule; they all seek to share power with the military.

There are other kinds of politicians and intellectuals who are deeply distressed by the results that the polity and economy are delivering. They want a radical enough change in both politics and economy. They want to reorient these to achieve results that add to the rights and privileges of the people. They aim to end today's unsatisfactory conditions. The criteria these people use must be explained. They do not recognize anyone's right to rule over the state without obtaining freely given consent by the people and that applies to all assorted despots, generals included. Many of them are thoroughgoing democrats who want to go as far as humanly possible to have a participatory system in which the common voter plays an increasing role in decision making and in the execution of policies.

A word more about this category. Their primary value is human being and his freedoms -- to become what he wants to, to do what he wishes to and speak and act the way he thinks necessary. Human rights presuppose that no human being can be left to starve; his right to gainful employment -- failing which some social security assistance -- must be accepted as a legal responsibility by the state, without any abridgement of all other human rights. This has nothing to do with the old debate between socialism and capitalism. The latter ensures this right even in smaller countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Netherlands, let alone the larger ones. It is time that Pakistani capitalism, in its democratic version, should do the same. This paradigm shift is now overdue.

But one look at the newly elected mob in Islamabad and one's heart sinks. Most of them are extraordinary quiet about any issue that might need discussion or consultation with people. With exemplary single-mindedness they are looking for what they can get in the quest for power. The only people who have mentioned any issues being involved are MMA and Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan (ARD) of current concern. MMA is no mean player in the power grabbing game, though. But one credit cannot be denied to them that they have raised questions regarding the oath, constitutional amendments, the President's election and the need to abolish NSC.

One endorses Pakistan Bar Council's view that politician should not go to the courts on these issues. One says so not because the Judges, who have taken oath on PCO, are unlikely to upheld the other position. One's reason is different. These questions go to the heart of the political system: if you want a basic change in the current political set up -- given by a General on the strength of the Army -- it is the job of an elected Parliament to do the right thing. The courts have no locus standi.

Politicians do need to be flexible -- and even pragmatic. But pragmatism needs to be distinguished from opportunism. Those who belong to elite classes and are fully satisfied with the way the society renders unto them both cash and respect, can be left alone to remain engaged in the struggle for power and be happy with the crumbs that fall from Gen Musharraf's table. Their highest aim can only be to share power without disturbing any major institution or policies.

People of goodwill need to engage themselves with those who (i) may be socially conservative but desire political institutions of a formal parliamentary democracy and (ii) are radical enough democrats who believe in human rights as an ideal or as the primary value and who are prepared to go some way in adding economic and social rights to political ones with the aim of intellectual enlightenment and cultural enrichment. If necessary they have to reorder their priorities and to perceive that no progress is possible in extending and deepening democracy or taking democratic precepts to the economic sphere until the Army's hold on the society is broken. It has to be made to transfer power to the elected people.

There is no use going on about the electoral malpractices. No election, other than that of 1970, has been free from the ministrations of intelligence agencies. So long as Army sits at the top of the social structure, it will manipulate elections -- to ensure victory of opportunists, toadies and turncoats. An election has been held so recently. We have to make do with the results that have been handed down. One shall deal with the larger significance of MMA's rise separately. Right now there is one large question: what to do about these results? In practice, the groups that participated have already tacitly, and many have explicitly, accepted them. The purist idea of rejecting them was never even considered. So all of us have to see what is possible.

Insofar as MMA is concerned, well, it is a fact of life; it is going to control NWFP and Balochistan provinces. It has been elected mainly on an anti-American vote. It does not like the way the current campaign against al-Qaeda and top Taliban leaders is being conducted. Either MMA will pipe down and it shall agree to serve under the Musharraf Presidency after all concerned have sorted out the issues MMA has raised. Or, a Crisis might be caused in both Pakistan-American relations over the question of inducting a civilian government that might demand true transfer of power from the Army and end of American bases. We do not yet know how would the Americans react. That could be a 1971-like situation also; the possibilities are not pleasant to contemplate.

The government and MMA constituents know each other rather well after having cooperated all these many years. MMA leadership comprises politicians that possess much this-worldly savvy. The Yankies are also no strangers to the MMA heavyweights. All of us will be watching how they and President sort out political and foreign policy issues. MMA ought not to preempt our attention from the main issues.

PPP appears to be talking with two voices: there is a faction that does talk of issues and echoes what the Nawabzada says. But the other luminaries are more narrowly fixated on a share, any share, in power certain personal questions. PML(N) does come through as being genuinely concerned with issues. But then, its numbers are so few that a big role is not possible for them to play; they can play a far more useful role on the opposition benches if only PPPP's leaders do not fall for a small share in power, if at all.

If the PML(QA) can rough-hew an alliance with MMA -- and the "issues" do not intrude -- President Musharraf can then look forward to a long inning. Needless to say the power struggle among half a dozen PMs-to-be can scarcely be settled without a Presidential wink and nod for one of them. Small parties -- PTI, PAT, TI and Millat Party -- pose no problem; the "issues" had been settled for them on Aug 21. Only MQM remains. On the question of engaging in power struggle it is second to none. But its Chief has been articulating a politics that cannot permit participation in any likely government. But the more knowledgeable say that its leadership knows the art and craft of making two qualitatively different ends meet and indeed co-exist. The otherwise anxious PML(QA) leaders appear to be sure that NA parties, MQM, SDA, PML(F) and a few others will join them in making a government with MMA -- a so-called national government that might even include PPPP. Issues be damned.

One more word about MMA. Administrative force majeure to keep them out, with or without foreign advice, will -- apart from being arbitrary and unwise -- open floodgates to subversion and multifarious trouble. Democracy sustained by rule of law is nothing if not a broad-based club where pluralism rules supreme. Democratic norms demand that whoever has been declared elected shall get what his numbers entitle him to. Some extremists and some Americans are sure to tar MMA with the brush of extremism and terror supporters. Antidote to terrorism and extremism is not what Bush and Ashcroft in their panic are doing in the US: it is more genuine democratic freedoms. These are to be supported by good and efficient policing within the four walls of law. If democracy cannot defend itself democratically, it loses its right to survive. Violating democratic precepts and practices will be disastrous. That should be in nobody's mind.

National government idea has been conceived as a means of fudging the "issues" and being ready to take one's (infinitesimal) share of power from the all powerful President, behind whom looms the Army, though he has yet to get the Americans off his hair.

[taken with permission from http://www.jang.com.pk]

Date/Time Last Modified: 6/3/2004 7:08:44 AM

© 2004, Human Development Foundation. All rights reserved.
1350 Remington Road, Suite W, Schaumburg, Il. 60173
Toll Free: (800) 705-1310 | Email: info@yespakistan.com | Privacy Policy