What sanity demands

THOUGH symbolic inasmuch as it was well-attended and diverse in its outlook, the multi-party opposition rally in Lahore on Sunday was symptomatic of the bigger, chronic problem plaguing the country: absence of a credible political process and lack of national cohesion. The PPP, the PML-N and the religious and smaller regional and nationalist parties which congregated under the shadow of the Minar-i-Pakistan seemed only to agree on a one-point agenda: that the army must stop meddling in politics and go back to the barracks to mind its professional duty. Other than this, there was nothing one heard from the podium that could point to a serious effort being made by the combined opposition to bring the ideologically divided political parties together on a broader national reconciliation platform. But the fact that the motley collection of leaders and party workers agreed on the return of the army to the barracks could be a good beginning towards building a badly needed national consensus on many issues, including provincial autonomy. The sooner the present dispensation, comprising mainly the military’s handpicked legislators in whom the people have little confidence, is dismantled the better it would be for the country which is holding together without the binding ties of unity.

Inter-provincial relations are arguably at their worst. There is no sense of belonging together in a federation presided over by a civil-military establishment that is seen to put the majority province’s interests above those of others. This sense of alienation owes much to the failure to practise responsible politics. Neither the Punjab government nor the mainstream opposition parties have cared to reach out to the smaller provinces to allay their misgivings — nursed by ethnic nationalists and the prevailing feeling of deprivation among the Baloch, Sindhis and others. There are fissures in the ranks of the opposition too: the Baloch and Sindhi nationalists are equally vexed at the army’s handling of the Bugti crisis and at the role played by the MMA in Balochistan. At Sunday’s meeting the former demanded en masse resignations of all sitting opposition MNAs and MPAs — an appeal supported by the PML-N and the MMA, but for different reasons; the two want President Musharraf out and the Hudood ordinances retained in their present, controversial form. The PPP for now did not endorse the call.

The Lahore meeting nevertheless brought to the fore a potential political catalyst: it tacitly offered General Pervez Musharraf an honourable exit strategy, yet again. This, despite all the troubled waters rocking the boat since the 1999 coup and the subsequent military actions in Waziristan and Balochistan. If better sense prevails — and that is a big if — the president can undo some of the damage done to national unity as well as the democratic process by resigning as army chief and holding free and fair elections under a consensus-based caretaker administration and an independent election commission. Pakistan may not yet have reached the brink of the precipice as it did in 1971 in East Pakistan, but it is racing along the same road. There is still time to halt the downward slide, introspect and retrace steps in the greater national interest. The general should not allow the voice of sanity now being echoed all around to be lost in the cacophony of his advisers and ministers who, guided by their tunnel vision, are not likely to bring him or the country any good.

Women’s bill fiasco

FAR from having the women’s rights bill passed and adding a feather to its cap, the government seems to have created an utter mess as much for itself as for the original and basically sound idea of amendments to the Hudood ordinances. That the Hudood laws would not be repealed but would be amended was itself a climbdown from the hopes aroused by the repeated declarations by President Pervez Musharraf that one of the aims of his government was to improve the lot of women and minorities and other disadvantaged groups by doing away with discriminatory laws. Later, it became obvious that the government did not have the courage to stare the still-strong Zia lobby in the face and make the necessary changes in the Hudood laws if a repeal was not possible. Now the events of the last few days, the deferment of the bill twice in five days, and Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s ego-boosting heli-lift testify as much to the clerics’ power as to the ruling party’s political pussyfooting.

One might now be tempted to ask whose brilliant idea it was to synchronise the passage of the women’s rights bill with the president’s visit to the US. In the first place, it is doubtful that a parliamentary approval of the bill would have really made a difference to the outcome of the president’s American trip. At best the president could perhaps have an easy time with the American media, the rights groups and the plethora of boisterous and volatile Pakistani associations in the US. In fact, possibilities are that the president will be grilled much more on the North Waziristan situation than on the proposed changes in a law that few even on Capitol Hill or among the US media have any idea about. Whether the law in its final form will really conform to the original aim behind the women’s rights bill remains to be seen, but the plain fact is that the government has shown an appalling lack of political sagacity and its vacillation in tackling the forces of obscurantism which claim for themselves the sole right to interpret Islam in the 21st century.

More swara victims

DESPITE strict laws that prohibit medieval practices like vani and swara, in which young girls are married off to settle disputes, the practice continues in Fata and Pata. Part of the reason is that the law does not cover these tribal areas. However, that can be changed if the president and the NWFP governor issue notifications making it possible for the law to be extended to both Fata and Pata — and it must be done sooner than later. This will give the law enforcement agencies the power to enforce the writ of the law — as is being done elsewhere in the country. Making vani and swara a criminal offence has saved many girls as young as five and six. The youngest victim was a three-month-old baby who was handed over as part of a settlement in the NWFP last month. This was done despite a Peshawar High Court ruling in 2000 that declared swara as tyrannical and contrary to Islamic law. But the incident still occurred. Five people were arrested for their illegal action and later released on bail, but at least the baby was spared a cruel fate. But for all those who have been saved, many others have fallen victim to swara and vani, and it is the well-being of such girls that needs to be protected. In this regard, the Supreme Court has played a remarkable role by taking note of these medieval practices and directing police chiefs in all provinces to protect women from un-Islamic customs.

But the strict enforcement of law is not enough to ensure the safety and protection of women. To tackle these barbaric customs, society has to be educated and sensitised into recognising why honour killings, vani, swara and the like are hideous and unacceptable. Campaigns in the media are one way to spread enlightenment. Greater access to education in areas like Fata and Pata is another way to make people conscious of what is right and what is wrong.

Tony Blair’s exit strategy

ISRAEL and the occupied territories must have seemed like a haven of tranquillity to Tony Blair when he flew there following an extraordinary week in British politics. It is even more likely that he relished the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, a posture that would have been hard to adopt back in London amid the growing perception that a substantial number of his own party’s legislators are even more keen than the opposition to hasten his departure from No.10 Downing Street.

The British prime minister has long favoured the idea of playing some sort of a role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which can arguably be construed as a commendable impulse, regardless of whether or not it is related to any sense of Britain’s historical responsibility for the mess in that part of the world. Unfortunately, the likelihood of constructive action diminished rapidly once Blair opted for more or less complete subservience to the wishes of the United States, whose present administration hasn’t even pretended to strike any sort of balance in its approach to the Middle East. One almost felt sorry for Blair when, at the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg earlier this year, he was caught begging George W. Bush for authorisation to act as a scout for Condoleezza Rice in the context of the Lebanese crisis.

At the time, Bush, between bites on a bread roll, brusquely told Blair to stay put. Presumably, permission must lately have come through, and the British leader seemed to have achieved some success as a shuttle diplomat: in separate statements on Sunday, following meetings with Blair, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that they were prepared to meet each other unconditionally. That would, on the face of it be a step forward, although it’s far from clear whether it would lead anywhere. It’s hard to see, though, why this relatively minor mutual concession required the British prime minister’s mediatory presence, and it is by no means inconceivable that the announcements were orchestrated as a Blair-booster.

Although Blair expressed his support for the concept of a Hamas-led government of national unity in the occupied Palestinian territories, he did not meet any of the Hamas leadership and insisted that the Islamist organisation recognise Israel and renounce violence. The conditions seem reasonable enough, although any meaningful renunciation of violence must be reciprocal, else it simply wouldn’t last very long.

Of course, neither the besieged Palestinian Authority nor the beleaguered Israeli government considers itself under any obligation to heed the head of government of a small European island that continues to harbour delusions about its significance on the international stage on account of its past as a formidable colonial power. At the same time, neither side could have failed to notice that while Blair met the families of the three Israeli soldiers captured in Gaza and Lebanon, the question of extending the same courtesy to the Palestinians — thousands of whom are in Israeli custody, in some cases after having been kidnapped — presumably didn’t even arise.

A few days ahead of Blair’s visit, hundreds of Palestinians put their names to a newspaper advertisement declaring him persona non grata and advising him to stay away. “He is coming here in order to wash his hands, that are dripping with Lebanese blood, with Palestinian water,” read the advertisement. It did not deter the prime minister, not least because he must have desperately needed a break from Britain, where he came within a hair’s breadth of being declared persona non grata by the Labour Party. The protests and snubs he encountered in Beirut on Monday are likely to have made him feel more at home.

Over the past 10 days or so, the British press has, naturally enough, overflowed with detailed coverage of political developments, with some newspapers describing the anti-Blair revolt as an intra-party coup attempt. Beyond the role played in last week’s events by the unfulfilled ambitions of the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, there is general agreement that many of the MPs keen to see the back of their leader are concerned primarily about their own seats: public opinion has turned so vehemently against Blair that they fear his continued incumbency will irreparably damage their chances of re-election. But with the focus on all manner of power plays and other shenanigans, there has been insufficient analysis of why Blair has become so profoundly unpopular.

The ghost at Blair’s farewell banquet (which is expected to be stretched out for six months or more) has, of course, been the Iraq war. He was an overly enthusiastic participant in the myriad deceptions, big and small, that were employed to build a case for a predetermined invasion. He was equally complicit in efforts to rewrite the narrative once the initial lies could no longer be sustained. He was justifiably ridiculed for his surreal claim that last year’s nasty acts of terrorism in London were unrelated to the situation in Iraq. He could, perhaps, have redeemed himself marginally had he distanced himself from Washington’s implacable opposition to a ceasefire after the Israeli air force began bombing Lebanese cities and villages earlier this year, but he chose to play along. And now British troops are dying in Afghanistan.

Much of the British public has steadily been sceptical about the Iraq misadventure, and a substantial section of the Parliamentary Labour Party harboured strong doubts about the legality and morality of the Anglo-American intervention. Some Labour MPs continued to support Blair out of expediency: he was seen as a vote-winner. That is no longer the case. The party’s majority in the House of Commons was sharply slashed last year: it retained government with the support of one-fifth of the electorate. Since then, it’s showing in opinion polls has slid from poor to dismal, and a rejuvenated Conservative Party under David Cameron has become a serious contender for power — not because the Tories have better policies to offer in any sphere, but because Britons are yearning for a change of face and style, and a transition from Blair to Brown isn’t what many of them have in mind.

Last week’s rebellion — in which one junior minister and half a dozen parliamentary private secretaries resigned after informing Blair that his continued presence at the helm served neither the nation’s nor the party’s interests any longer — had little to do with foreign policy. Although Brown has denied fomenting the revolt, it was clearly linked to his impatience to shift from No.11 Downing Street into No.10. Twelve years ago, when a leadership contest loomed following the unexpected demise of John Smith, Blair and Brown met in a north London restaurant called Granita and reached a pact: Brown wouldn’t challenge Blair at that point, provided the latter agreed to hand over following two terms in government.

The pact wasn’t legally or constitutionally binding, and although Brown has for some time now offered regular indications that he was keen to enforce it, only the downswing in Blair’s fortunes has given him the courage to bring matters to a head. And even then, not quite: more than one British commentator compared him last week with the Grand Old Duke of York, who marched his men to the top of the hill and then marched them down again. At least Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative detractors, once they had picked an opportune moment to unseat her, were prepared to go all the way.

In the process — which included a shouting match with his boss last Wednesday - Brown has succeeded in sharply diminishing the likelihood of a smooth succession. Blair has apparently agreed in private to announce in February his intention of stepping down in May next year, after completing 10 years as prime minister. But he does not plan to endorse Brown as his heir, and a number of Labour luminaries indicated last week that in their opinion the chancellor is unfit to be head of government. Brown will almost certainly face one or more challengers in next year’s leadership ballot (in which, in addition to Labour MPs, ordinary party members as well as members of affiliated unions are entitled to vote), and there is no guarantee that he will win.

Beyond an early expression of concern about the financial aspects of the commitment, Brown has remained silent on matters such as Iraq. A free hand for him in the economic sphere was a crucial component of the Granita pact, and New Labour’s behaviour in that context has been characterised largely by a concerted effort to update Thatcherite policies for the 21st century, with particular focus on privatisation, tax cuts for the rich and the primacy of the profit motive. Although none of the possible alternatives to Brown is likely, as leader, to strive for a radically different direction, last week’s backstabbings raise the tantalising prospect of New Labour’s self-induced collapse and the possibility, thereafter, of a less neo-liberal entity emerging from the rubble.

Blair, meanwhile, is desperate to leave behind a legacy that won’t be viewed with complete disdain by succeeding generations. But it’s much too late for that. His disgraceful attachment to neo-Thatcherism has been one of the more unappealing features of his squalid reign, but even that will be overshadowed by his contributions to the international carnage of the past five years. He will be remembered primarily as an unquestioning collaborator with arguably the most obnoxious US administration in living memory. His political epitaph may as well read: “Here lies Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, sidekick to Dubya, Murdoch’s minion and Maggie’s heir. He suffered no qualms about the blood on his hands, because half-concealed beneath the veneer of a higher purpose lay the mundane truth that he simply didn’t care.”

Email: mahirali1@gmail.com