WHO would have thought that in this country the day would dawn when adversarial politics would almost begin to seem a thing of the past?
After all, this is a nation whose development has been dogged from the outset by political bickering, and frequently the bone of contention has been the mundane spoils of office rather than momentous differences on the philosophical or ideological plane. Suddenly, much of the political spectrum is aglow with an unprecedented fraternal spirit.
There are, of course, exceptions, the most obvious one being what ought to be known for the rest of its days as the Kyoon League, given that its appropriation of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s title was arbitrary in the first place, and particularly audacious for an organisation set up for the purpose of bolstering a military dictatorship. The redesignation would also reflect the fact that the party of the Chaudhries appears to have misplaced its raison d’etre. Alternatively, should its primary concern in the months ahead be to distinguish itself from the even smaller and deceptively titled PML-Functional, it could opt for honesty and dub itself the PML-Dysfunctional.
Whatever its nomenclature, chances are it’ll wither away in due course. But it might not: the Chaudhries may well be drawing sustenance from the example of their previous political home, which owes its provenance to a previous, thoroughly discredited military regime, but which has defied the odds by surviving efforts to dismantle it. The fact that its democratic credentials are no longer widely questioned may have something to do with short memories. The king’s ex-party tried to highlight one broad discrepancy through advertisements that featured Nawaz Sharif offering fateha at the graves of Ziaul Haq and Benazir Bhutto and quoted him as vowing to carry out the general’s mission as well as that of his political nemesis.
The national mood was inconducive, however, to valid points of this nature producing much of an impact. The electorate tends to pay heed primarily to the hypocrisies and opportunism of the most recent batch of functionaries, and this tendency queered the pitch for the Chaudhries. The Nawaz League that relied on Zia and attached itself to his legacy has been replaced by the Naraaz League whose ministers defied Pervez Musharraf by wearing black armbands to their swearing-in at the presidency.
Anyone prepared to countenance the possibility that Sharif is a transformed politician ought, logically, to extend a similar benefit of the doubt to Asif Ali Zardari: notwithstanding underlying tensions, the ability of these two to transcend the rancour and bitterness of the 1990s seems commendable. The coalition they preside over is the closest Pakistan has come to having a government of national unity.
Sharif’s reservations about close cooperation with Altaf Hussain’s outfit are not particularly surprising, nor do they appear to be altogether insurmountable. The MQM’s coercive tendencies were reportedly much in evidence on polling day, but coopting it into the power structure at the provincial and federal levels is probably a more sensible means of curbing excesses than risking confrontation. No doubt Muttahida has much to answer for, but it is hardly the only organisation with a grim past.
Overall, the trend towards mutually forgiving transgressions is a positive one. Settling scores is obviously not a viable option. But can reconciliation endure in the absence of truth? Can forgiveness ultimately be meaningful if the relevant trespasses remain obscured? It’s all very well to let bygones be bygones, but they may come back to haunt us in the absence of a collective exorcism. Filling in the blank pages of history may not seem to be an urgent task in view of various other priorities, but we will neglect it at our peril.
Inevitably, spheres in which the Musharraf administration has spectacularly faltered demand immediate attention: notably the state of the economy and efforts to combat violent religious extremism. The World Bank has prescribed more pain in terms of rising food and commodity prices as the price of continued ‘growth’, a concept whose significance eludes those who are at the receiving end of the torment. In the other context, John Negroponte and Richard Boucher, who descended on Islamabad with unseemly haste in the midst of regime change, brought a similar prescription. In both cases, second opinions are necessary.
Was it a part of Negroponte and Boucher’s mission to stave off moves to dislodge Musharraf? There has been plenty of speculation along those lines, which doesn’t prove anything other than that the president is widely perceived as Washington’s man in Islamabad. If the Bush administration were a true friend, however, it would by now have advised him to implement an exit strategy, given that chances of a relatively dignified departure have steadily been receding since Nov 3 last year.
In recent weeks, Musharraf has repeatedly expressed his willingness to cohabit with those who he had once vowed would never again be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power. But his sour visage suggests there’s little joy for him in this arrangement, and a tactical retreat will no longer suffice. The national interest would at this stage be best served were he to march off into the sunset with a minimum of fuss. That would, among other things, facilitate the restoration of the judiciary. It would also flesh out the impression of a fresh beginning, eliminating the lingering sense of an incomplete transition.
Much will depend on how the PPPZ — as the latest incarnation of the ruling coalition’s largest component ought to be rechristened, pronounced ‘peepeepeezee’ in the American fashion — and its partners conduct themselves. Collaboration between the various political parties makes perfect sense, given that there is little that divides them in terms of ideology. Personal ambitions are a different matter, however, and Zardari’s assurances haven’t completely dissipated the suspicion that the temptation to step out from behind the throne may prove too great.
It’s difficult not to note, meanwhile, that the beneficiaries of democracy remain disinclined to introduce the concept within their respective parties. It’s equally hard to disregard the preponderance of feudal titles among office-bearers.
No sinner deserves to be denied the possibility of redemption, but in light of the fact that cynics and sceptics have in the past all too often been proved right, it’s probably too soon to count our blessings. Sooner or later, we’ll find out whether the semblance of camaraderie at the helm is anything other than an elaborate charade. For the time being, there is some cause for hope. That in itself is an uncommon enough phenomenon. Let’s relish it while it lasts. n
The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.
mahir.worldview@gmail.com