The military government has made a great effort to implement the Supreme Court verdict, hold elections and set up federal and provincial governments. But it dragged its feet till people started wondering about its intentions.
The uniformed administrators also made it a point to assert their authority over political governments; power firmly remains where it has been since October 12, 1999, indeed from the early years after independence to now, except a brief aberration under Z.A. Bhutto. He was duly punished for the affront.
Bhutto was hanged, but he left the 1973 Constitution as a difficult legacy for ambitious generals. Its continuation is an albatross that cannot be cast aside. Beginning with the tampering with that Bhutto himself subjected it to, distortions have been continuously and forcibly incorporated in the constitution.
But it has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous scribes, the most prolific of them is currently in position to chaperon the new administration that, it has been made abundantly clear, would be an extension of the officially outgoing, but actually still all-powerful set-up prior to November 24, the day when Mir Zafar Ullah Jamali was sworn in as Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Arrangements for the change of facade were made before the polls, when many politicians were informed of what awaits them. Some individuals could not resist, or felt that they cannot afford to resist the persuasive techniques adopted by harbingers of true democracy for ensuring a transparent election. Quiet a few politicians realized the futility of a negative response.
Why were all the methods deployed for the presidential referendum not brought into play for success in general elections is anybody’s guess. Perhaps the authorities felt the need of an opposition as much as they needed political support for the implementation of its policies.
What transpired on October 10 and November 24 was predictable to the last punctuation. Benazir Bhutto lost the elections held after the dismissal of the PPP’s first post-Ziaul Haq government. Nawaz Sharif met the same fate when, behind the scenes, manipulators were displeased with his manner of wielding power. His party could consequently not have won in the next elections. But Benazir’s acceptability did not improve in her second government and Nawaz Sharif was revived.
The politicians made things easy by accusing each other of corruption. Both leaders did their utmost to prove the charge against the opponent; both of them succeeded in that. As a result, the ‘heavy mandate’ shrunk to irrelevance and the Bhutto party, known for the loyalty of its leaders and followers, as also for the failure of heavy-weight politicians who deserted it in the past, has come under major pressure from within for the first time.
The stage has been gradually prepared for a ceremonial role for politics and politicians in government and in national life. In the backdrop of events since the death of Ziaul Haq in a mid-air plane explosion, this should not come as surprise to anyone. But either some threads could not be fully secured or there is more than what meets the eye.
The authorities have used every conceivable tactic to undermine politicians, and the latter have been either clueless about the correct response or they were content with whatever was dished out to them. That is understandable to quite an extent. During the Zia years, I once asked a politician, a decent soul, as to what worth was politics under a martial law regime. He replied there was military rule in the country when he became qualified to participate in politics and he had no option.
There was nothing he could do but accept reality, join the prevailing system and try for change from inside. I must say that he made an effort, but the powers that be seem to have comprehended his designs and after initial success, ensured that he was ruled out of reckoning. Those who do not want to be consigned to the status of non entities — they cannot afford it, mostly for their local vested interests — accept whatever comes their way. One cannot really have anything against them.
We should look at our history, too. During the colonial period, the British rulers needed the support of locals for sustaining themselves. They created a class of loyalists. A host of favours were bestowed on elements whose allegiance to the crown could be trusted. They were given jagirs. The colonial masters looked the other way when loyalists mistreated farmers and others living on gifted lands. Their crimes were ignored as long as they served the crown. The future of their children was assured. They could stutter around as reflection of glory.
Given this tradition, politicians who align themselves with non-democratic rule in Pakistan, have history on their side, particularly when they are associating themselves with the army, custodian of national interests and defenders of territorial integrity of the country. They can argue, and their case is quite convincing, that they are acting as partners in the fight for Pakistan’s survival and the well being of the people. Ostensibly, there should be no disagreement with their reasoning and approach.
They, both the army and the politicians who assist it, have however got one basic fact wrong. There is another aspect of history that has either escaped their attention or has been deliberately ignored because it clashes with the role they assign to themselves. Pakistan is the creation of a democratic struggle and principles of its future and survival as a state were laid down before the state came into being. There, also, is the undeniably tragic fall out in the form of dismemberment of the original country, because the founding principles were abandoned. Fearing the worst, if mistakes of the past are repeated, it is only logical.
Meanwhile, there is the new factor of an alliance of religious political parties. Their emergence has been explained to anti-American rhetoric and as backlash of developments in Afghanistan after 9/11. Attributing everything to that is simplistic.
Whimsical policies such as the graduation condition and the manner of delimitation of constituencies also made a contribution towards strengthening the cause of the MMA.
The policy-makers may have been thinking only of politicians who were to be axed by the graduation requirement, but the condition proved double-edged. If the government had rejected education at seminaries, that would have been seen, and not wrongly, as a measure specifically designed at the behest of the US and as part of campaign against terror, to keep religious parties out of the political fray, indeed indirectly ban them.
Conditions for an effective showing by religious parties in the elections became more conducive than ever before once degrees from seminaries were accepted as equal to graduation from recognized universities. Perhaps the authorities could not visualize a massive vote in their favour. They should have known that whatever the planned permutations and combinations, polls and politics can always produce surprises.
Opposition parties in the National Assembly have been less than wise in their conduct so far, and if they persisted in the belief that they can get more than a few crumbs from the new system, they would come to more grief than they have experienced during elections or in the NA.
Sooner or later, and looking at the stagnating economy, unrest in various segments of the populace, plans and measures to deprive people of their rights, rising graphs of prices, unemployment and crime, the government, that is the invisible government, would soon be left with no choice but to accept the will of the people. But the politicians have to demonstrate convincing sincerity, honesty of purpose and unity, as against attempts to obtain short-term gains to force a change.
The military government has made a great effort to implement the Supreme Court verdict, hold elections and set up federal and provincial governments. But it dragged its feet till people started wondering about its intentions.
