23
IT speaks to the relevance of the party or our obsession with politics that even in times of a pandemic, the PML-N’s ‘policy’ and bayanias (narratives) are never far from talk show discussions. Shahbaz Sharif’s informal chat with a journalist, which was reported in the latter’s column, or a formal one to a new channel has diverted attention — temporarily at least — from the unending debate over “to lockdown or not to lockdown”.
The controversy began with Sharif junior’s assertion that he nearly made it to the prime minister’s slot in the 2018 election, with the blessings of the establishment; according to the column, even the cabinet members had been finalised. But then the elder brother’s bayaniya snatched the proverbial defeat from the jaws of victory for the Noonies.
The revelations were obviously much discussed. There was curiosity over who made it to what spot in this ‘cabinet’, and much guesswork over the identity of the two journalists who are supposed to have played messenger boy (or girl). But more so, there has been much horror and shock over the revelation that the party, in its revolutionary avatar, was negotiating with the big, bad establishment and seeking its ashirwad (blessings). The party’s critics have expressed horror with much glee as they concluded that Noon’s revolutionary fervour was no more than sound and fury, and its supporters disgust as they asked why the voters were led up the garden path of defiance.
Parties opt for violence only when the state leaves them with no political space.
But really, it’s hard to understand what the palaver is all about.
All those voicing their haw hai seem to be implying as if they really believed that the Noon had evolved into the offspring of Che Guevara and cut off all ties and channels of communication with the other side. Did anyone, anywhere in Pakistan (and beyond) buy this? Does anyone believe that Maryam Nawaz is now silent only because the channels wouldn’t cover her if she did talk; or that Nawaz Sharif was allowed to travel abroad only because of the low platelet count?
These questions are not intended to criticise the party but simply to point out that there has been ample evidence in the recent past proving that the entire party leadership is not averse to negotiating and dealing with the establishment. And rightly so.
And if both Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz, who personify the defiant side of their party, can fall quiet to ensure some reprieve, be it bail or travel abroad, why is it so much worse if Shahbaz Sharif was in discussions with the establishment to acquire power?
After all, the party dealt with the same big, bad establishment in 1988, 1990, and even in 2008 and 2013. As has every other mainstream party in the country.
This is because the hybrid system which has been in force in Pakistan, for decades (and not just since 2018) is one in which elections are regularly held, governments formed to run the country, and behind the scenes they share (or try to share) power with a dominant establishment.
From the 1990s onwards, most political parties have had to contend with this. Once in power, most of them have found it difficult to govern but have made this clear once they have let go of the reins. The PML-N is no different but despite its loud pronouncements on the difficulties of this formula and their rhetoric during interviews and political rallies, their actions show they think there is no alternative available.
They are not willing to, say, boycott elections and take to the streets to battle it out till the establishment gives up. They are not willing to opt for violence and defeat their ‘opponents’ either. The PML-N, after all, is a political party and political parties will usually opt to take part in a political process, however flawed and unfair.
The PPP, as one of the oldest parties around, has tried the alternatives and not found them worthwhile; it boycotted the 1985 election and regretted it later. Some members of the party opted for a more violent route post the Zia coup and found little success, even with the public.
Indeed, parties opt for violence only when the state leaves them with no political space — as has happened in some Middle Eastern states. But the state in Pakistan has usually not pressured the mainstream political parties to this extent. And perhaps contained the resistance it may have to contend with, otherwise.
In other words, the PML-N is not too unique in its habit of playing hide-and-seek with the establishment. But then, this is why its revolutionary rhetoric should be taken with a pinch of salt by those watching or even voting for it. For its own leadership is itself very pragmatic about it — if the party behaviour rather than speeches is observed.
And for this reason, the party accommodates and owns both the approaches of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif, including the two brothers themselves. Chances are that the siblings realise that there is a time and place to whip up defiance and then to replace it with hard-nosed pragmatism. They have done this in the past and they will continue to do this in the future, as well.
(The PTI also does it as it accepts to share power — rather publicly — and govern. And so did the PPP, post 2008. But perhaps in a closer parallel to the current PML-N strategy, the PPP under Benazir Bhutto ably finalised a deal with Gen Pervez Musharraf to return to power in 2007 and then immediately struck a defiant tone on the dismissal of the judiciary after the latter imposed an emergency and sacked the judges.)
It is simply good politics. And we would do well to remember it rather than investing too wholeheartedly in the rhetoric of Nawaz Sharif or turning our noses up at Sharif junior. For neither’s approach is going to be eclipsed anytime soon. Such is the nature of politics in our land of the pure.
The writer is a journalist.
Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2020
