Pakistan: Politics Of Boycott
By M B Naqvi
04 December, 2007
The News InternationalOpposition parties are making a spectacle of
themselves. All Parties Democratic Movement,
minus JUI of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, has decided
that January 8 election should be boycotted. The
reason given is that it is unlikely to be free
and would only perpetuate Mr Pervez Musharraf's
rule. Behind Musharraf looms Pakistan Army, whose
new Chief was his confidante. The PPP Chairperson
will contest the election, with a fig leaf of
doing so under protest. Anyhow, both JUI of
Maulana Fazlur Rehman and PPP are sure to contest
the election.The need for united opposition arises from the
fact that the ordinary citizens do not enjoy all
the civil liberties the way western people do. In
democracies, people's right to civil liberties is
respected by courts, governments, political
parties and all state agencies. In Pakistan
self-perceived strongmen have ruled
autocratically whether they were democratic
governments of PPP or PML-N or a General's
government.Take the case of treating the judges of superior
courts. PPP's record is not a bright one;
remember the harassment of Justice Sajjad Ali
Shah and his family. Mian Nawaz Sharif's goons,
led by a Cabinet Minister, stormed the Supreme
Court and the judges had to run for their lives.
What General Musharraf did on March 9 was a tad
less crude than what had happened in 1997.
Factually, there is a strong element of
commonality between major parties and the Army
itself.Army flaunts faith in Pakistan ideology and makes
others follow it despite its vagueness. It shares
the value system of feudals. It is a thoroughly
conservative force dedicated to keep the society
as it has always been. Now look at major parties:
PML-N, PML-Q, PPP or take the innards of smaller
nationalistic parties that often pass for being
left-inclined. Their leaderships belong to or are
descended from feudal class. Socially they are as
conservative as any Muslim Leaguer.All these parties have an unwritten agreement
with the military to leave the fundamentals of
social system untouched. Society with all its
inequities must remain as it has always been.
This is how the attraction of offices under the
leadership of a General or even a former General
is stronger than the facts about fundamental
rights and democratic norms. These parties
implicitly accept the apologias to the west that
these strongmen make about 'doing things their
own way'. Pakistanis are supposed to be quite
different from western people; they can be beaten
by the police and other law enforcing agencies.
They can be made to 'disappear', 'writ of the
government has to run' and so forth in the name
of Pakistan ideology.Even the conduct of a PPP government or the life
within the party is autocratic. The same applies
to PML-N; the other day its central body left the
final decision about election participation to
Nawaz Sharif alone. Their acquaintance with
democratic working of parties and governments has
been more theoretical than real.Fact is since the two main parties (JUI and PPP)
would participate, all others would follow suit.
They cannot leave field alone to others. The
sight of other parties' members becoming
Ministers of government(s) alone is unacceptable.
'If A can get a ministership or chairmanship of a
parliamentary committee, why cant my party allow
me to do the same', a feudal argues. While there
is a case for unity because people should have
the freedoms a democracy guarantees, so is a case
for disunity: the lure of offices has been strong
enough to overcome the appeal of democratic norms
and methods. After all, participating in a
military-led government is seen as doing no great
harm to society or their own standing. Since,
their ideas on social matters remain undisturbed,
what is wrong in participating, in winning
ministerships and being happy. Which is a basic
case for disunity.Sad fact is that Army or Army-dominated or
Army-controlled governments are actually
acceptable to PPP, PML-Q, MQM and many other
smaller parties. This is Pakistan's Rightwing
Consensus and it includes the Army and all the
other social elite groups. Their relationship
with the free-enterprise west is historically
close and ideological; their worldview is common
with the west. There is however a new
contradiction to be noted.This is emergence of a new middle class,
especially in the Punjab -- other provinces have
not seen the process. Only Karachi boasts of a
middle class that is the matter of what is known
as civil society. It is relatively affluent and
educated. It is aware of the denial of political
liberties, freely available in democracies. Their
love for democracy is genuine. Today civil
society is being led by lawyers, who ran four
months long successful campaign for the
restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
They mean to continue the movement until they get
the restoration of the Chief Justice and other
judges now under internment. They need democracy
keenly enough and would not rest content until
they get it.But civil society, luminous as it is, is
politically weak. When pitted against the phalanx
of the upper classes serried behind military-led
governments they need the support of either the
larger mainstream parties or of left parties if
there had been any. As it happens, there are no
cognisable left parties.Destruction of the left was the achievement of
the past Pakistan governments. They destroyed
students movements, banned unions, prevented
teachers from having effective trade unions. The
normal industrial phenomenon, trade unions, has
been all but destroyed. Most of the trade
unionists have been purchased or co-opted; some
stragglers are left. The lower social orders have
no organization; they have no voice. Their
political clout is today zero.The country's alliance with the west enabled the
CENTO's anti-subversion funds to help destroy the
left groups, trade unions and students' movement.
That had happened in 1960s and 1970s. The
Pakistan that used to talk of social inequities,
workers, peasants and the Karigars has now
disappeared. This weakens the middle class no end
because its natural allies would have been the
leftists in the fight for all freedoms.If the idea of a boycott means boycotting the
election and going home to sleep, it would surely
leave the field to all others no matter if they
were opportunists. To be significant, the boycott
should accompany a fierce popular agitation for
democratic freedoms, beginning with the
restoration or the Supreme Court and High Courts
as they existed on November 2 last and the
Constitution being rescued from the deforming
amendments that have been forced by successive
generals to make the President all powerful at
the expense of a show boy Prime Minister,
including what this latest PCO has done. The
question of provincial autonomy that will satisfy
smaller provinces can no longer be postponed
indefinitely. Without an all out political
struggle, boycott means nothing. It is a silly
thing if it stands alone as some kind of virtuous
gesture.
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
