National consensus
As much as we had been hoping that a genuine political consensus would lead to an eminently qualified bipartisan National Government led by Nawaz Sharif, which would cope with the economic and geo-political crisis that the country is facing, using all the available talent of the country, the ill-advised Long March has successfully sabotaged this premise and threatens to plunge the country into a political crisis, a situation that this country needs as much as we need two left feet.
The Opposition, having been frustrated by a lack of numbers to push through a no-confidence motion in the National Assembly and failing to cajole the President to repeat his 1990 “Constitutional duty”, fell back to using the democratic right to protest in a most undemocratic manner to remove the Nawaz Sharif Government, by storming and occupying Parliament. While the Government may have over-reacted in suppressing the Opposition, they were quite successful on two counts, viz (1) scuttling the Opposition’s objectives to go beyond their democratic parameters and (2) using the sheer weight of administrative draconian measures in ensuring that in the process not one single life was lost. The end thus justifies the means. While the PDA leaders may have been quite sincere in their differing motives to unseat the Government, in their heart of hearts they know that such an eventuality was not possible without (1) creating a Constitutional crisis by (2) paralysing the government machinery and (3) creating an international media event that would bring cynosure from foreign sources, mainly from the US where a new Administration under Democrat President Elect Bill Clinton takes over on January 20, 1993.
No government anywhere in the world could ever allow anyone, albeit peacefully, to take over any Government buildings, let alone a prime Constitutional institution like Parliament. The inflammatory rhetoric that was being bandied about left no doubt in anyone’s mind that the event was going to be anything but peaceful. The Liaquat Bagh-Parliament route was mandated to be a bloody one. Very early on during the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto era, snakes were let loose in Liaquat Bagh on an Opposition rally led by then NAP leader Ajmal Khattak. Over 300 are believed to have died in the shooting that was initiated by the then Government-in-power. The ultimate irony is that the perpetrator of this atrocity, the then strongman of Punjab, PPP’s Mustafa Khar, is now one of the leaders of the Opposition taking part in the Long March. In 1990, a peaceful rally led by women protesters by MQM supporters in Pucca Killa in Hyderabad resulted in over a 100 dead, the then PM, Ms Benazir Bhutto, on Prime Time TV spoke of quote, “only 28 dead”. The rape and loot subsequent to the policemen going berserk and opening indiscriminate firing is a matter of record. These two incidents illustrate that the PPP when in power has a different face from when they are not in power. While the excesses of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto are legendary, one daresays, however, that Ms Benazir’s record is generally much better. The numbers of dead are immaterial, when one human life is lost for somebody else’s vested purpose, it is bad enough. In sum total, no democratic leader has the right to put their supporters’ lives at risk when constitutional means are available to solve a political crisis.
According to information, Ch Nisar Ali Khan, Advisor to the PM, was in constant touch with PPP’s Iftikhar Gilani, to work out the modalities of the proposed demonstration so that it did not get out of hand, resulting in a law and order problem. Certainly it is in the Administration’s interest to see that the event passed off peacefully and as such they are quite justified in asking to negotiate the ground rules. For some obscure reason, Iftikhar Gilani broke off the discussions a day before the Long March, we can only assume that the intention of the Opposition was in keeping with their stated rhetoric, they wanted to precipitate a crisis that would lead the country into anarchy. In effect, the Opposition wanted the President to intervene, but given no response, a most unwilling (and thrice burnt) Army’s intervention was believed to be the next best thing, the political target being two birds with one stone since western democracies nowadays have no toleration post-cold war for totalitarian rule.
As much as one respects the democratic aspirations of the Opposition leaders, the aforementioned modus operandi is not consistent with democratic practices, this is rank adventurism. As much as one desires that a genuine open-ended dialogue would lead to a national consensus, for any government to succumb to such pressures would be an open invitation for any political adventurers to go the same route in the future, bring down the government by a mass demonstration, no thought being given to Constitutional mores of a mandate for a given period. One does not doubt for an instant the genuine sincerity of political leaders like Air Marshal (Retd) Asghar Khan and Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, they are veteran leaders of the 1968-69 Anti-Ayub Khan campaign that felled Ayub but rather than bringing them to power it brought in the then C-in-C Pakistan Army, General Yahya Khan, and led to the ultimate disintegration of the country. In 1977, these two stalwarts led the anti-Bhutto campaign that brought down Zulfikar Ali Bhutto but ushered in the COAS Pakistan Army, Bhutto’s hand-picked favourite general, Ziaul Haq, instead of installing a democracy. Gen Zia’s only saving grace during the next 10 years or so was the astute handling of the Afghan crisis, in that dark Martial Law decade almost all national institutions were irretrievably damaged, his cronies became millionaires many time over and have now bought respectability and political clout with their ill-earned gains. The only institution that survived, the Pakistan Army, probably did so because they were at the eye of the storm. Professional soldiers were kept mostly away from Martial Law duties and are at the helm of affairs today almost by default.
Twenty-five years later Asghar Khan and Nasrullah Khan are still at it despite having a proven track record in bringing down governments and subsequently ruin the country. The PDA protest certainly has genuine facets and it behooves the governments-in-power not to ignore them, democracy enjoins that the people’s representatives use the forum of Parliament rather than street power to unseat the Government. As democrats, the Opposition leaders must practice what democracy preaches, peaceful protest. If the people’s will is genuine no government can resist mass pressure, if the people are not willing no Opposition can bring down any government democratically. This should not preclude the Government from being sensitive to the people’s aspirations. The armed might of the Soviet Union crumpled before the unarmed demonstrators surrounding Yeltsin in August 1991, similar scenes had been seen earlier throughout Eastern Europe in all the countries except Romania where a bloody insurrection led to the downfall of the Ceausescu family. Rawalpindi by itself is good for 200,000-300,000 demonstrators by either side anytime, an assembly of only 80,000 people can turn Liaquat Bagh into a sea of humanity. Given that the Opposition would have managed to assemble even half a million souls, is the IJI less capable of coming up with the same figure? So what does all this prove? Nothing much, except good administrative or organisational capability in organising a demonstration, a far cry from orchestrating a people’s movement.
Given the charges of rigging in the last elections, the Opposition has failed in as many as 80 court cases to unseat members of the National and Provincial Assemblies, though some in various stages of judicial process. If one takes the stance that the judiciary is not able to unseat anybody given that no direct evidence exists (even Caretaker Ex-PM Jatoi seems to have intermittent memory lapses on this issue), then rigging may not have taken place. This incidentally is the same judiciary that is freeing Asif Zardari in case after case because of lack of evidence. Could they be wrong on both counts? Or is the perception among politicians about justice so slanted that they accept only those decisions that are favourable?
The Nawaz Sharif Government has come to power for a period of five years, to preserve and sustain democratic institutions it is important that they must serve out their full term. In the face of the Opposition’s obduracy in not accepting dialogue with the government and the lack of real democratic intent, one fears that should our sincere wishes for a national government to cope with our economic and geo-political circumstances have come about, it would have only resulted in a national paralysis. One can imagine the stone-throwing that would have gone on in the Cabinet Rooms. The Opposition leaders have a separate agenda, not finding the people’s support they want to escalate the crisis till a total political crisis economically strangulates the country and discomfits the masses, so that they arise in protest. This may not be totally political madness, but it is certainly political bankruptcy.
The first thing for both sides to do is to work to defuse the crisis by toning down the rhetoric. If there was rigging, then a political consensus could be evolved in how to avoid it in the future and give credibility to the ballot box. If this is a war of attrition, the maximum attrition will be on the integrity of the country, drawing the Army into the crisis when the Army is already busy internally in Sindh and facing off Indian forces in Kashmir. One can almost hear the sharpening of knives among our enemies, are we hell bent in succumbing to their nefarious designs? If we had to focus international media attention why not on Kashmir? The present crisis will go nowhere but will divert the international pressure being focussed on India. This is the time for all our leaders to enter into dialogue, whatever their reservations, in the national interest, to forge a national consensus based on compromise rather than the politics of confrontation. One must remember the saying, “Do not sow the wind, lest you reap the whirlwind!” Let our leaders show their nationalistic fervour by rising above themselves for the sake of the national cause.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment