In the land of political feudalism
Islamabad boasts its own dynamics. You can be amongst the whirl, whoop, gloom and frenzy of the entire country and suddenly two days in Islamabad and a kind of surreal disconnect descends upon one. This still happens, although Islamabad is no longer ‘five kilometres outside Pakistan’ as was often quoted a decade ago.
For one, in Karachi and elsewhere that I’ve recently been there is this huge clamour of ‘change’ that dominates conversations. Well, here, it’s the opposite. Change, it’s exclaimed, what are you talking about. You stutter and haw while presenting ‘evidence’ that you’ve gathered and conclude emphatically that it’s round the corner. Sorry to disappoint you comes the response; that’s just idealistic stupor. Wham! You come crashing down as what is termed ‘real evidence’ is rolled out in support.
Supposing you had a neighbour for twenty-five years and suddenly they decide to move due to difficulties and the people buying from them are someone deadly opposed to you would you not work at evolving something that could maintain the status quo. Mind you, you’ve had your difficulties. Your dogs have jumped the fence and played hell with their garden. Their servants have slapped yours and vice versa. And most of all you’ve intrigued fiercely against each other. But despite all that, you’ve come to develop a kind of benign camaraderie and are certainly better off together than a nasty new neighbour could ever be.
That’s the case with Zardari and Nawaz. They have been in the same political bed for the last two and a half decades, and fought intensive battles. Why should they be foolish enough to let in a third player while they have the option not to.
They’ve worked together the last five years, creating history in the first parliament to complete its term. No one has been harassed or jailed or threatened. They’ve operated within their respective domains virtually unchallenged. So when push comes to shove why would they make room; it’s pure common sense.
Ok, let’s see who are the happiest folks in the country right now. First would be Gen Kayani. He can do and does whatever he pleases totally unchallenged. He can have his way, though his role in giving full sway to democracy must be admired. Next would be the extended Sharif family. They hold the reins of the richest and most populated province, again virtually unchallenged. Third would be President Zardari, controlling Sindh and the Federation again, no real challenges. What’s a stutter every now and then?
Next comes Altaf Bhai; again unadulterated and unchallenged power. You can go on; adding the Chaudhrys and almost everyone in politics as virtually every party currently enjoys some aspect of political power. Are you going to tell me that these forces will just walk away and allow ‘change’ in? Not unless there is a really major cockup on the part of the key players.
Let us not undermine that the main political parties have a series of elections under their belt, and they know the hows, whys and wherefores on their fingertips. The PPP have been at electioneering since 1971, not to forget ZAB’s significant role in the 1962 elections, and he was in government for four years before that. The Sharifs since 1988; Nawaz in office since 1978, meaning thirty-five years! This is a colossal combined ninety years in office! A rude awakening perhaps, but a reality nevertheless. Pakistani politics has thus been dominated since 1958, of course other than Martial Law.
We talk of ridding the system of feudalism, especially in the three minority provinces, but what we have ignored completely is ‘political feudalism’ which dominates the entire country. If it’s feudalism in Sindh, its biradari in the Punjab and tribal domination in the other two provinces. In the years referred to in the preceding paragraph, three generations and more of certain politically feudal families, Sharifs excluded, have been empowered and consider it their God-given entitlement. Leaders are prone to playing God, never more obvious than while seated in those obsolete, atrocious, opulent golden thrones that are meant to define the difference between them and their subjects playing chorus either seated ‘farshi’ or standing, the fortunate being provided plastic ‘kursis’.
The only time this political feudalism was challenged was in the 1970 elections, historically adjudged as being the fairest of all. If change is to come then that is the only way it will. Look at all the photographs and films of the time, when the roti, kapra, makaan slogan was at its peak there were no golden thrones, there were no Land Cruisers; opulence was non-existent, there was no security, the people felt as ‘one’ with their leader. His message was different; his manifesto was inclusive. He was the deliverer. That it deviated is a different matter. Pakistan is in dire need of another; political feudalism must be shown the door.
Instead, we are strengthening it. For a while one thought that Imran’s PTI would be different. It’s not, in so far as it’s ‘Imran’s PTI’ just as it is PML-N is Nawaz’s or the PPP’s direct link to the Bhutto family proxy AZ. A dispassionate review will reveal no real difference in the eventual wish list of the contesting parties with power being the sole objective. The jargon touted has been heard for decades. So what chance of ‘change’?
For a while the ECP held out some hope. Bad eggs were momentarily weeded out and the inclusion of a column allowing for recording abstention was to be included in the ballot paper. All that has vanished leaving a feeling of despair. That all of that was just sabre rattling or dhundora peetna with no real intentions of actually implementing any of it. It will not be farfetched to believe that in certain instances the negative vote would have been the majority of votes cast.
Let us look at this for a moment. Have those candidates whose appeals have been accepted had judgements overturned for good or will the cases continue and the candidates hauled up even after being elected, if a higher court decides to uphold the judgement handed down initially? In which instance should a court or the ECP not rule that the election of said candidate would be held in abeyance and he/she would not be sworn in until such time as they are fully exonerated? This would be just and fair. Is suo motu intervention possible?
We can criticize the way political parties are run, the mode of governance et al but let us not forget that we as a people can play a great role and eventually ‘change’ is possible only if we empower and authorize it. If we continue to be lemmings, without a philosophy or an ideology reacting hysterically but subjugating ourselves to whatever is happening, no leader on this planet can bring us the deliverance we seek. The people need to galvanize their prowess, I don’t mean just physical prowess, but all the acumen at their command, compelling would-be leaders to accept the fact that they are no longer lemmings, that the leadership will be challenged and repeatedly. Until such time as the people are disciplined, productive and rational, they cannot prevail and the grass will definitely not turn green.
The writer can be contacted at: [email protected]
