Is the policy of ‘muk muka’ seeing its final days? Or does the PML(N)-PPP alliance still have a way to go?
If you were watching the transmission from PTI’s Azadi March in 2014, you would have had to be both blind and deaf to miss the slurs and jeers thrown at the government. Liberal use was made of derogatory adjectives and some quite creative cricket metaphors, with “corrupt” and “match fixers” taking the lead. The word “dharna” was added to the Oxford dictionary, celebrities flocked to pledge their support and DJ Butt – for better or for worse – became an icon. And finally, my generation added a new term to our ever expanding political vocabulary: Imran Khan taught us about ‘muk muka’.
The charter of ‘muk muka’
“This ‘muk muka’ isn’t a recent development – this charter of ‘muk muka’ was developed in the Charter of Democracy.” – Imran Khan, 2014
In 2006, former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif signed what they called the Charter of Democracy, in which they said were efforts to aid the failing democratic process in Pakistan. This was an understanding between the two parties that, eight years later, Imran Khan alleged had led to – among other things – rigging of 2013 elections and massive corruption in government institutions. This alleged collusion has been the object of much media speculation, especially in light of the PTI chief’s allegations that the 2013 elections had been “fixed” in accordance with this “charter of ‘muk muka’” in order to allow both PPP and PML(N) to benefit from the electoral process while protecting their own interests. As Khan lamented while addressing the matter of the Gas Cess Bill:
“Zardari will say Nawaz is corrupt, Nawaz will say Zardari is corrupt, but neither will catch the other one.”
“It definitely exists,” said Raoof Hasan, a prominent political analyst and executive director of the Regional Peace Institute, explaining what he described as an “understanding” of sorts between the two parties, which has resulted in what many called their willingness to “accommodate” each other.
Recently, though, matters such as the arrest of senior PPP leader Dr Asim, the PPP’s opposition of the Karachi Operation, and allegations of ‘muk muka’ from within the government itself – among others — have started speculation that the “understanding” may have reached its peak.
Counting the costs of privatisation
To put it bluntly: the government’s bid for privatisation isn’t going as smoothly as it would have hoped. Instead of being brushed under the carpet, the protests of PIA employees gained traction, especially after the strikes took a fatal twist. Members of the opposition have racked up complaints with the PTI leader demanding the issue be brought to the attention of the National Assembly. Even the PPP has condemned the way the government has handled the incident.
“There is no question of the government’s mismanagement,” said Raoof. “But they (PPP, etc) shouldn’t have politicised the incident. That didn’t help matters either.”
The Karachi Operation: watch out – you’re rocking the boat
Talking to Raoof Hasan reminded me of a previous discussion I’d had with Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Punjab University, Hassan Rizvi, regarding accountability and the Karachi Operation. While they phrased things differently, their explanations for why so called champions of democracy opposed the quest for accountability echoed each other. To quote Professor Rizvi:
“No party accepts that politics and criminality are linked, even within their own systems. And corruption – at any level — has become the kind of activity that is not considered so bad if you can get away with it”
And therein lay the heart of the contention: the Karachi operation is opposed by those whose parties are being targeted, because it has done more than discover terrorist sympathisers and suspects, it has unearthed undeniable links between criminality and politics. Which, as Raoof explained, would understandably upset parties like MQM (which has long been notorious for its alleged hand in targeted oppression and violence in its bid to gain control) — but, it is also increasingly upsetting for PPP. The situation has seemed to only aggravate, especially after the arrest of Dr Asim, following which the PPP also became vocal in its concern regarding ‘danger to democracy’. Asif Ali Zardari has accused the prime minister of “falling back to 1990’s revenge politics” – an allusion to the complaint of political victimisation by many political leaders. PTI was of course quick to pour salt on this particular wound.
“When terrorists protected by MQM are caught and when corrupt of PPP are caught democracy becomes endangered,” Dr Arif Alvi mocked on September 14 on Twitter. “Actually, they endanger democracy.”
A sticky situation: Chaudhry Nisar confirms “‘muk muka’”
And finally, Chaudhry Nisar, the interior minister, placed the proverbial cherry on top when, in the middle of a press conference regarding the National Action Plan, he alluded to PPP leader Syed Khurshid Shah in a surprising outburst. The minister said he was ashamed to learn that a “Syed” had betrayed the trust of the public and been involved in ‘muk muka’ with the government for his own gain. Needless to say that didn’t go down well with the PPP. One private channel announced that the minister had confirmed the existence of ‘muk muka’, thus proving the allegations of PTI Chief Imran Khan correct. Khurshid Shah wasn’t the only PPP leader who lambasted Nisar for the remarks – Aitzaz Ahsan also had his say on the matter in Parliament. The prime minister had to repeatedly apologise to several political leaders, both in private and in Parliament.
“It was embarrassing,” said Raoof. “(Nisar) put him (Nawaz) in a sticky situation”.
Keep your seat-belts on — it’s just turbulence
So is that it then? Is the policy of ‘muk muka’ over? Has it, having done all it could do, now begun to accommodate itself surely, if sullenly, into dusty archives and textbooks?
“Oh, no. No,” snapped Raoof. “Not at all.”
In his opinion, PML(N) was already trying to mitigate the damage to its allies during the operation and would make a gesture of the sort either right before or right after the Rangers tenure ends.
And that makes sense. After all, the cycle’s almost done: 2018 elections are almost upon us, and these parties know well enough to employ the policy of protecting “me and mine”. As Raoof Hasan pointed out, these parties need this ‘muk muka’. The understanding they’ve developed – helped greatly by the signing of the Charter of Democracy – is crucial, if only to save their own skins. So, yes, we may yet hear more outbursts such as those of Chaudhry Nisar. And, yes, the Rangers still have some time left in their tenure to vigorously ruffle the feathers of Karachi’s political elite in their quest to cut off the heads of the city’s many headed serpent. But when the dust settles and the guns are withdrawn, it’ll be business as usual. Like any epic, Pakistani politics will have its share of all the “turbulence, twists and turns”, but – as Vilayanur Ramachandran once wrote – “that’s part of the game.”
