|
|
|
July 1, 2004
All the world’s a stage
Theatre has proved to be a catalyst for inclusive and meaningful public dialogue, and this enables participants to find solutions to their problems. Can this serve as a means of public action to reduce poverty? writes Sahar Ali
A new kind of inclusive politics is emerging to challenge the elite-centered governance processes in Pakistan. This was seen in an event that took place recently where people came from all over the district. Industrial labourers from Hattar, tonga wallahs from Abbottabad, women from Jhangra and surrounding villages. And men and women from Havelian itself where the event was taking place.
More than 1,500 people had gathered in Havelian, Abbottabad district, on June 13 to participate in the People’s Assembly on Poverty, dedicated to the memory of Omar Asghar Khan, who died in mysterious circumstances in Karachi on June 25, 2002.
A beloved son of Hazara, Khan worked tirelessly to include the poor and dispossessed in the political process. Acutely aware that the poor had been consistently marginalized from political discourse, Khan sought to create space for ordinary citizens to debate and analyze their issues and define their own political agenda.
A development activist and a political visionary, Khan was a firm believer in the politics of inclusion. He led a group of civil society organizations to initiate the People’s Assemblies in 1998 and set the stage for his brand of politics and political mobilization.
“People’s Assemblies will change the relationship between citizens and the state,” he said of the process. He was convinced that by mobilizing and organizing citizens into a robust and vibrant civil society in Pakistan, ordinary Pakistanis could be empowered to effectively assert themselves and engage with the state.
The People’s Assemblies were far removed from the usual political rallies where leaders wax eloquent and people only listen and clap. The People’s Assemblies reverse these roles — allowing listeners to speak and speakers to listen.
After the success of the concept, in February 2000 a process of public debate on devolution was held all over Pakistan. The People’s Assemblies on Devolution of Power engaged over 15,000 citizens from the village to the national level. About one-third of the participants were women besides whom there were farmers, labourers, political workers, social and human rights activists, business persons, trade unionists, media persons, professionals, teachers and students. The numbers and profile of participants were significant given that in Pakistan’s political culture ordinary citizens, particularly women, are not traditionally included in policy dialogue.
The catalyst for debate at a People’s Assembly is theatre. It is not theatre purely for entertainment, but issue-based interactive theatre which tackles topics creatively and in a way that involves the audience. Interactive theatre presents stories from everyday lives in a format that allows the audience to participate actively in the performance. People shy away from surveys and interviews. They are suspicious and unwilling to answer questions, or speak up at rallies.
The medium of theatre helps stimulate uninhibited debate in an engaging and entertaining manner. By inviting spectators to become ‘spec-actors’ and ‘play around’ with the script and dialogue, people take readily to the stage to assume the roles of characters in the original play, and present alternative courses of action to change the outcomes in the story. In doing so, they are identifying solutions to their own problems.
In Havelian, theatre activists from the Hazara-based Kook theatre group and members of the Interactive Resource Centre’s theatre team from Lahore presented a thought-provoking ensemble of stories about poverty drawn from real-life experiences of Pakistani citizens.
Titled ‘Faces of Poverty’, the absorbing performance highlighted the problem of water supply and scarcity, the horror of gender-based domestic violence (not confined to low-income households and as relevant an example of poverty as any other, according to the recently concluded Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment), and the prohibitive cost and paucity of basic healthcare services.
Can democracy deliver? Will it reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots? Is it realistic to expect that more democratic governance will eventually bring about a shift in the poverty line?
Despite Pakistan’s disheartening democratic tradition, it is still the only solution. “Jamhooriyat . . . khushhali ki zamanat” (Democracy . . . the assurance of well-being) read a poster at the People’s Assembly in Havelian.
Drawing on the lessons learnt from the People’s Assemblies and other subsequent initiatives such as the Democratic Rights and Citizens Empowerment Programme, the People’s Assembly in Havelian was part of the programme dubbed the Supporting Democratic Development in Pakistan.
Initiated in October 2002, the programme includes a series of public engagement activities focused on building civil society coalitions at the district level, and promoting debate through a series of people’s assemblies in 91 districts all over Pakistan.
In Havelian, the Omar Asghar Khan Development Foundation and Khwendo Kor, a women’s development NGO from Peshawar, joined hands to organize the event and draw the poor into a debate on poverty, linking the alleviation of destitution and dispossession to democracy.
It was a connection the people themselves established by proposing that the key to solving their problems was social organization. “We cannot improve our situation unless we organize ourselves, and strive collectively to solve our problems,” was the solution repeatedly voiced in Havelian.
It was heartening to see their belief in the democratic process, and the conviction that collective action is the key to solving their most common and pressing problems. The belief is that they will not be ignored if they unite and demand their rights to potable water supply, free and easy access to government health facilities, and an end to violence against women in their homes.
There were a few voices of dissent from the assembly, however, “Why must we ask anybody for anything? We should say our prayers and spread our hands only in front of God,” said a participant. There was a murmur of agreement, and nodding heads in the crowd.
Public engagement has a downside. It does not allow space for informed debate. The fact that demanding one’s rights from public representatives is not in conflict with religion was not an idea that could be convincingly impressed upon some sections of the Havelian gathering.
The challenge for those who are bravely carrying on Khan’s political mission is two-fold. First, how can the quality of debate at the People’s Assemblies be made more informed and substantive? Second, how to translate the impressive participation of ordinary citizens at places like Havelian across the nation, into action.
Now that citizens have been mobilized to participate in the People’s Assemblies — to articulate their concerns and propose solutions — how can they channelize this incredible energy into a process of public action to reduce poverty?
|
|
|
|
