There is no politics without the ambition for power. The competing interests work for gaining and sustaining political power and endeavour to deny this to the adversary. However, the search for power and attempt to consolidate it are made within the framework of constitution and law and this struggle is often moderated by ethical considerations.
In Pakistan, the role of power politics among various political parties was never denied. Their track record always raises doubts if they attach any importance to moral considerations and the welfare of the common people.
What we have witnessed in Pakistan, especially in Sindh, over the last two months appears to be an unprecedented display of narrow partisan drive for power and influence on the part of the political parties while killings went on in Karachi. Different political parties are not cooperating with each other for controlling violence but they are using these incidents to trade charges and counter charges with one another.
The MQM’s politics revolves around protection and advancement of its political monopoly in urban Sindh, mainly in Karachi and Hyderabad. Its leadership can resort to any political method to ensure that there is no serious challenge to the MQM’s primacy in Karachi. This goal cannot be pursued without maintaining a decisive capacity to reward those working for the party and punish those who challenge or betray the party. This requires that its nominees are elected to local/district government, provincial assembly and the national assembly. This block of loyal parliamentarians and local leaders increases the MQM’s bargaining power at the provincial and federal level, enabling it to protect its monopoly of power in Karachi and Hyderabad.
Two additional strategies are needed to sustain the commanding position. The first is the demonstration of street power from time to time to sustain the loyalty of its members and supporters and to impress other political forces. The second method is to build partnerships with other political parties but maintain an element of uncertainty in the relationship so that the coalition partners are never sure how far and how long its support will be available.
The MQM periodically threatens to quit the coalition or actually withdraws from the ruling coalition in order to express its displeasure on the government policy or to maximize their political gains.
Of late, the MQM is under pressure as the demographic map of Karachi is changing gradually and new political forces are emerging like the ANP and the Sunni Tehrik. The PPP is also endeavouring discreetly to make inroads into Karachi. The MQM-Haqiqi is trying to resurface.
It was not surprising that the MQM decided to withdraw from the coalition at the federal level and in Sindh towards the end of June 2011 and engaged in tough polemics with the PPP because it felt that the PPP was quietly undermining its interests in Karachi.
The PPP retaliated by getting the Sindh Assembly’s approval for replacing the local government system of 2001 with the 1979 local government system and restored the commissioner system. As the local government system of 2001 had helped the MQM to consolidate its position in Karachi and other urban centre, it felt extremely upset and demonstrated its street power. As all political parties have militant activists, the MQM show of street power was challenged by others.
The PPP politics is also shaped by a strong desire to hold on to power at the federal level and neutralise the attempts of the opposition, especially the PML(N), to seek early elections so that the Senate members are not elected by the present assemblies in March 2012. It won over the support of the PML(Q), to weaken the PML(N) in the Punjab. While building pressure on the MQM, the PPP did not want the MQM to go close to the PML(N). It offered to change the local government system in return for MQM’s cooperation which it agreed to because the 1979 local government system would have weakened its hold over the cities. The Machiavellian compromise was that the MQM got its favourite local government system and the PPP was able to stop the MQM working closely with the PML(N) on the opposition side.
There are no ethnic or moral issues involved in the political moves by the PPP and the MQM. It was a pure and simple power game to protect their respective partisan interests. In a way, the PPP was able to ward off any threat to the federal government inside the parliament and it has also outmanoeuvred, at least for the time being, the opposition parties, especially the PML(N), that were throwing hints to the Supreme Court and the army to join together to knock out the federal government, including President Asif Ali Zardari.
What do the common people get out of this self-serving politics of the political leaders? The answer is nothing whatsoever.
Despite the killings in Karachi over the last three-four months, the political leaders are not willing to adopt a joint strategy to control the on-going violence. Rather, they are accusing one another for the trouble. The fact of the matter is that in addition to criminal gangs, land mafias and other extortionists, the political parties have their militant wing. Their hotheads are fully armed and they help the party to show street power and ward off the militants of the other parties. These militant activists may not be fully under the control of the party leadership but the parties generally protect them.
No political party has done serious homework for addressing a couple of other problems that afflict Pakistani society. These include religious extremism and terrorism, troubled economy, price hike, inflation, electric power and gas shortages and require a shared approach by the political parties. If the PPP-led federal government is clueless on these issues, the opposition parties have not offered a plan of action to cope with these problems either.
The neglect of these problems causes much frustration among the common people who are increasingly alienated from the political process. This gives ample space to extremist and hardline religious groups but also strengthens the clout of non-elected institutions like the military and the judiciary that may like to improve their image by building pressure on the civil government for poor governance. In the long run, these trends would make it difficult for the political parties and leaders to ensure effective governance and domestic peace and stability.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.