Mustafa Kamal’s call

Published April 16, 2016

THE demand by former Karachi nazim and Pak Sarzameen Party chief Mustafa Kamal for a ban on his erstwhile party, the MQM, is thoroughly undemocratic.

Whatever the Muttahida’s sins, it is unacceptable in a democratic dispensation for blanket bans to be slapped on political parties. Mr Kamal made the demand in Karachi on Thursday, repeating allegations he had made earlier regarding the MQM leadership’s suspected links with RAW.

His demand seems to have been fuelled by frustration as Mr Kamal has been unable to attract any first-tier leaders from the Muttahida to his new party, welcoming instead sidelined figures and minor players.

The MQM has earned quite a reputation for itself over the decades, where the use of muscle power and violence is concerned. It is also true that claims of the party being ‘anti-state’ have been around for a long time; but no government has proved these charges in court.

Additionally, branding groups ‘anti-state’ is an old tactic the establishment has used for those whose politics it disagrees with or dislikes. And the fact that the Muttahida has two wings — a political one and a militant wing — is hardly a secret; this must have been known to Mr Kamal when he was an MQM stalwart.

So while the state can and should take action against MQM members involved in illegal activities, banning the party is no solution, simply because — warts and all — the MQM remains the dominant political force in urban Sindh even after its militants have been neutralised to a large extent.

If Mustafa Kamal wants to challenge this reality, he must prove his mettle at the ballot box instead of wishing the Muttahida away.

Moreover, many of those that have joined the PSP, as well as those being courted by it, have shadowy reputations linked to their time as MQM members. So there is clearly an element of hypocrisy here.

Bans on politicians and parties are a reminder of autocratic rule in Pakistan and have no place in the current political system.

Published in Dawn, April 16th, 2016

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...