Clandestine deals, role of opposition and democracy
For centuries there were Arabian Nights to amuse people. But Pakistanis were lucky to have one thousand and one bad, and as unreasonable, things about democracy to play with and use for their one-step-forward-two-steps-back journey since the country’s inception. And they are still not tired of it. Nor are there as few, and comparatively less evil, villains as there were in the whole Alif-lailwi stories put together. We have enemies of democracy hidden everywhere in 1001 garbs – sometimes the last odd one attired in politicians’ clothes.
One of those bad characteristics, which made democracy an anathema in this country, is the clandestine deals (muk-mukas) which politicians make among themselves for robbing the people. The latest example of this came when the government invited all the parliamentary parties for an APC and made yet another muk-muka among themselves about the formation of a judicial commission to probe into allegations of rigging in the 2013 general elections. Muk-muka it was because Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf was not a part of it. And any political gesture or effort that is made to solve problems amicably without causing destabilisation in this country (and which does not involve PTI) is a muk-muka. Or so its leaders and activists want us to believe.
But then what about the government-PTI deal? Has the party reached a clandestine deal with the government and has become just like other status quo parties, as they are called? Or should we call it an agreement made for the larger national interest because it involved a party whose patriotic credentials cannot be questioned?
The PTI’s 126-day refresher course resulted in ‘political awakening’ of the new generation. Daily speeches that were made from the top of the container contained lessons like these: existing political leaders — except IK and others standing with him there, like Murad Saeed — were corrupt, dishonest and cheaters; political parties were conglomerates of the corrupt elements in society; all the ills – including bad economy, bad governance, terrorism, scientific and educational backwardness, injustice, etc – are consequence of the failures of political leaders; no one else can be held responsible for the failures of the state except its civilian and democratic leaders and institutions (plus, particularly, Ch Iftikhar).
All these (and other such) messages cumulatively brought political awakening among the masses to the effect that democracy is nothing more than just another name for plunder in the name of the people. That politician was the only looter. And that the translation of politics was treachery, fraud and deception. Enter the next stage and dialogue, reconciliation, agreeing on important national issues, not destabilising the system, showing unity to save democracy and letting the elected government complete its tenure were all termed machinations of the devilish-minded politicians aimed at exploitation of the masses in the name of democracy. Democracy thus stands condemned in the court of the people. If Imran Khan as a democratic leader and PTI as a political party consider it a victory, it is their own discretion.
Lone-rangers in politics normally don’t make it to the finishing line. And even if they do, they fail to deliver
But the question is what should be the role of the opposition in a democracy? How should the people look at the government-PTI understanding? And above all, what made PTI concede some ground to PML-N and enter into an agreement with it?
The sole purpose of the opposition in a democracy is not to bring down the government of the day, oppose everything that is being said or done by it or blame everything bad under the sun on the rulers who are elected by the people. Not abandoning its principled political stand, a responsible opposition must lower the election-day’s fever soon after the process is completed. It should register its disagreement over issues and try its best to keep the government from executing policies that it considers detrimental to public and national interests; but remaining within the legal parameters and not jeopardising the whole system.
Unfortunately, the modus operandi adopted by the opposition parties in many of the emerging or developing democracies are sometimes opposite to the long term interests of the system. That’s why (including other factors) democracy in such political systems does not take root firmly even after comparatively long spans of time. This trend is more obvious in societies that remained under imperial (foreign) rules in the past and where tribal mindsets and values are considered more honourable and prized. Pledging revenge from those in power, abusing every competitor, giving extra-legal deadlines for meeting demands, issuing threats, looking down upon everyone and everything not compatible with one’s thinking and views, pledging to correct everything singlehandedly, terming everything different or not favourable as conspiracy and looking at oneself as the only saviour are but only some symptoms of this medieval mindset.
This kind of thinking is normally based on personal whims, which demonstrates a penchant for personalised rule rather than institutional development. All these features can sadly be seen in IK’s politics. However, there is an added misfortune of a deep sense of self-righteousness in the face of acute dearth of understanding and wisdom.
But having said that, not all the allegations of Imran Khan are off the mark. Nor are all his manoeuvrings and exercises in futility. His efforts have resulted in mobilisation of the masses and his party has made remarkable dents in other political parties’ strongholds, even that of MQM in Karachi. His political moment has created waves in a seemingly stale political environment. But the problem is that the whole thing is either directionless or is sometimes seen directed against the long-term objectives it claims to strive for; establishing rule of law and bringing true democracy. Ask any PTI supporter how the country can be put on the right track and the most polite answer will be, ‘hang all the politicians’.
With this contribution to politics and democracy, isn’t it strange when some of the political pundits claim and the rest of us syncing the chorus that IK has caused ‘political awakening among the masses for the first time’? Wouldn’t the opposite be truer to explain the reverses caused in the nation’s journey towards real democracy? Haven’t all his allegations against political and executive organs of the state made an elected government and democracy more vulnerable? Beside all other factors and Nawaz Sharif’s, Asif Ali Zardari’s, Altaf Hussain’s contribution towards this end, isn’t IK the most effective character today who has made democracy and every other civilian institution – like parliament, judiciary, election commission, etc – more discredited in the eyes of the people?
There are widespread and popular allegations in anti-PTI camps that IK is on the rampage on someone else’s behalf. While it is difficult to believe IK taking direct orders from the military establishment, the possibility of indirect manipulation cannot be ruled out. Neither can one deny that his movement has strengthened armed forces vis-à-vis the civilian side. This is clear from the fact that IK was compelled to call off his dharna on the ‘advice’ of the COAS at the APC in Peshawar soon after the APS tragedy. Rumours are making the rounds in informed quarters that PTI has made ‘concessions’ to the government on the judicial commission under duress. This is not something that is alleged by IK detractors; this is something even PTI-wallahs concede in private.
But the question is what should be the role of the opposition in a democracy? How should the people look at the government-PTI understanding?
Going by these speculations and applying IK’s ‘inductive political reasoning’ he is in muk-muka either with the PML-N government or with the military establishment. He himself had accepted after the Peshawar APC that after what was told to them in the army’s briefing, ‘we have to wind up our protest’. Otherwise it is implausible that IK would make friends with someone for the sake of whom he even condones/appreciates mob attack on a state institution like PTV as that would ‘build pressure on… to resign’, as heard in that telephonic conversation with Arif Alvi that someone ‘naughty’ leaked on Friday, March 27.
The fact of the matter is that PTI’s agreement with the government to resolve a political problem is a positive development and such matters should always be addressed. The problem is that IK’s political mannerism doesn’t allow anything like that and his party is always found ready to pick up a fight with everyone at the drop of a hat. That might be a satisfying act individually but that is not something which a national political leader or party is expected to practice. Neither can it take the caravan of democracy any further.
Leaders whose words or actions can bring positive or negative consequences to their people never react instantly. They take into account all the pros and cons of the matter before taking a policy position. They don’t make sweeping allegations without evidence. They take on board most stake-holders with them and not make everyone an enemy; lone-rangers in politics normally don’t make it to the finishing line. And even if they do, they fail to deliver.
But most of all a political leader worth his/her salt wouldn’t think of doing anything that can undermine democracy and democratic institutions; he/she will not cut the branch he/she sits on. Wittingly or unwittingly, IK has so far attacked everything that can strengthen democratic and civilian rule in the country. Keeping in view his attacks of politicians and institutions, can democracy withstand an onslaught today? Then let’s accept that if IK has not weakened democracy, he has certainly not made it any stronger. Or the present governments at the centre and in the provinces would not appear this weak and vulnerable; nor would IK himself be making decisions under duress. If his ‘political awakening’ has damaged ‘corrupt’ political leaders, it has damaged the democratic process and democracy even more.
He should understand it even at this late stage that belittling all other political personalities, weakening other political parties, ravaging civilian institutions which are already in shambles and playing havoc with whatever little political morals we are left with will not make him or his party strong. He should learn his lesson from just two examples; when he married and just a glimpse of what can be done to his popularity was shown to him; and now when just a one-minute telephonic conversation became public. They say in Urdu that for a wise person a slight indication is more than enough.
Make democracy and everything related with it strong and you will become stronger. There is no other way. You have fire in you but after all you are a politician not a revolutionary.
