Pakistan’s democracy and elected civilian political arrangements are on the edge. These can become dysfunctional and fall apart but these can also be rescued. If the latest experiment with democracy falters, the primary discredit will be that of the political and societal leaders who would be missing another opportunity to sustain participatory political system. In case, the elected institutions and processes overcome the current drift towards chaos and become efficacious, the political leadership will get the credit for such a miraculous return from the brink.
However, democracy cannot be salvaged merely by sloganeering or making verbal commitments. What matters most is the disposition of political parties and leaders and how they actually deal with concrete political and societal problems. The key question is if the principles and spirit of democracy are reflected in their actions?
The recent spate of violence in Karachi demonstrates the narrow, partisan and, at times, bigoted approaches of the political leaders of the three political parties, especially the PPP and the MQM. Each party leadership projects itself as mazloom or the oppressed and describes the rival political party as zaalim or the oppressor and evil. This has divided politics in Karachi, making it extremely difficult to address the problem of the city as a whole. The dominant worldview in the city is that of the MQM but others are equally stubborn in interpreting the developments in their own way. Every party has an exclusive narrative of the problems of Karachi.
The hardline and prejudicial disposition manifested in the statement of Sindh’s senior minister, Zulfiqar Mirza, was wrong. As a leader of the PPP that rules Sindh, he should have been cautious in the selection of his words. Such statements are bound to cause a hostile reaction in Karachi’s conflict-ridden environment.
The comments by Zulfiqar Mirza need to be condemned. However, it is not possible to be oblivious to the fact that the MQM unleashed its hardliners on the streets of Karachi. The violent situation improved after the MQM supremo, Altaf Hussain, issued an appeal for calm. His appeal calmed down the MQM hardliners who pulled back from the streets. Had the agitators been from another party they would not have listened to Altaf Hussain. This day, July 14, was reminiscent of Karachi’s situation on May 12, 2007, when the MQM’s hardcore activists did not let the then ousted Chief Justice and his supporters come out of Karachi airport and the city experienced terrible violence.
The July 14 incident provides the latest evidence of the hold of the MQM on Karachi. This increases the bargaining power of the MQM in Sindh but it hinders its efforts to establish itself as a nationwide party. In other provinces, especially in Punjab, the violent situation in Karachi was noted with much concern and reinforced the impression that the MQM is overwhelmed by its urban Sindh temperament that may make it difficult for the MQM to relate itself with socio-economic dynamics of other provinces.
The three Karachi-based parties, the PPP, the MQM and the ANP, will have to make a combined effort to ensure peace and stability in Karachi. They should set up a combined committee comprising their top leaders in Karachi that should visit the troubled areas. In case of violence, all members of this committee should work jointly to diffuse the situation.
All political parties should tone down their political rhetoric. They should not run day-to-day politics like an election campaign. The parties should not encourage the defiance of state authority by their activists. Sometimes the PPP and the PML(N) engage in trading charges. The PML(N) and the MQM leaders exchanged highly personal negative comments earlier this year. Now the PPP and the MQM are fighting a war of words.
The political parties and leaders appear more bent on engaging in shouting matches with each other rather than joining together to address the problems that threaten Pakistan’s functioning as a nation state. Their desire to oppose each other has become the dominant consideration that has raised the question if the present system can function for a couple of years. The political leaders need to recognise that if the democratic system collapses, the ruling parties will lose power but the opposition will not win. All of them can lose to non-elected state institutions.
The media should also recognise the growing threats to Pakistan’s internal harmony and democracy. They should emphasise soberness in their discussions rather than encouraging the leaders to make contentious statements or verbally attacking their political rivals. This adversely affects the political environment. The media should not repeat the statement or visuals that inflame emotions or cause conflict in the society.
Democracy can collapse if confrontation develops between different state institutions or an institution endeavours to overwhelm other institutions under the pretext of a self-proclaimed mission of rectifying the ills of other institutions. The military attempted that through four coups but did not succeed. Pakistan’s superior judiciary has now stretched its constitutional powers and now periodically encroaches on the domain of the elected federal government. The superior judiciary may be genuinely committed to improving the efficiency of the federal government and removing corruption from there. However, one wonders if these ills are found only at the federal level and that judicial intervention is the only way to address these problems. We have recently witnessed defiance of law and state authority in Sindh and Punjab, spearheaded by the MQM and the PML(N) activists respectively. It is hoped that the superior judiciary has noted these developments.
Some opposition leaders are hoping that the Supreme Court would one day knock out the PPP government. Some of them are floating the idea of setting up a government by technocrats in place of the present federal government under an order by the Supreme Court which would be enforced by the Army. Such speculations that involve going beyond the constitution cause uncertainty.
The future of democracy is closely linked with the management of civilian and participatory affairs in a smooth and constitutional manner. The politicians should not put democracy at risk for serving their narrow partisan interests. They should not entertain the idea of political change through the judiciary or the military.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.