How does a nation unite?

These wishful thinkers set much store by democracy and want the General to actually reconcile primarily with either PPP of Benazir or with PML(N), depending upon their affiliations. That would be the high road to democracy and progress. It appears that all sides find it expedient to go on advocating this reconciliation theme: the General can have the satisfaction of seeing PPP and PML(N) remain wary of each other over the issue of cutting a deal with Musharraf and his League; that keeps ARD uncertain and confused rather than united and militant.

Many think that Benazir, advised by her American friends, is actually anxious for a deal with Musharraf if only he will allow her to return in safety to run her party. She will stay within the limits natural to a basically military regime; she thinks she can wait, being confident of eventually winning power on her party's strength. Similarly, Nawaz Sharif is also confident; his having actually won Punjab makes him hopeful of doing it again. While Benazir is anxious for a deal, he is not; he too can wait in virtual Saudi custody, though PML(N) numbers in Assemblies continue to dwindle.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

A simpleton's question is: why is this grand reconciliation necessary? Gen. Musharraf may not agree, but everyone else seems convinced that the state of polity and long-term trends are scary. Army, bureaucracy and the Q League are all but contentedly shouting: "God is in His Heavens and all is for the best in all possible words." Most others however feel pessimistic and scared about the way terrorism is being fought, leaving its roots intact. Also the causes of various polarisations that characterise the polity are being ignored. Politics in Pakistan remain Army dominated; Army seems to have taken permanent control of the state apparatus, reducing citizens into subjects. The economy has been undermined by an arms race that is being imposed on a situation of growing unemployment, poverty, and inflation.

The case for radical change is obvious; the reality on the ground is profoundly depressing. The economy that common citizens encounter daily promotes misery. Look at the common folks in cities, towns, and villages, ignoring how grandly do the elites live in their palaces. Seventy per cent find it hard to make two ends meet. Polarisations between the rich and the poor, with virtually little in between, is on the rise. And so is the rise of heinous crimes. It appears that state institutions -- the police, judiciary, tax collectors, and bureaucracy -- are in an advanced stage of decrepitude. Democracy exists in the realm of ideals, while the reality comprises an oligarchy of civil and military bureaucrats. Corruption reigns supreme.

Superimposed on bad governance -- certified by IMF, WB, and most others -- and the military's dominance of policy-making are schools of thought that divide the nation vertically as well as horizontally. There is the primary division between shrill Islamicists and the west-oriented moderate and modernist Muslims -- plus assorted non-Muslims. Given Pakistan's War on domestic Terror -- both against those who are so called by Americans and the sectarian terrorists -- Islamabad rulers are fighting terror only with their own terror-producing apparatus: police, paramilitaries, and army. That leave the roots of terrorism untouched. The Musharraf regime permits confirmed Islamicists, the MMA, to fill the vacuum created by effectively preventing modernist and moderate parties, PPP, PML(N), and regional parties, from playing their role. The army thinks it can fill all the vacuums, though it fails to notice any in Pakistan.

As it happens, military rule intensifies perceptions in Balochistan, Sindh, and the Frontier of Punjab domination, their bete noir. This sentiment feeds into regional and ethnic nationalisms: Sindhis, Baloch and Pathan people can scarcely fail to notice that the army, bureaucracy, and especially Islamabad's government, are heavily dominated by Punjabis; their conduct during all these years has left non-Punjabis profoundly disaffected; these elites make politics that broadly favour Punjab, leaving others relatively deprived and powerless. People have pointedly noticed that Punjab domination has historically been a substitute for democracy and it cannot but oppress them. Thus there is Punjab versus the rest polarity.

In democratic countries there is a natural horizontal division, based on economic interests of the haves and have nots. With the destruction of the Left and trade unionism by 1960s and 1970s, Pakistan has no cognisable parties devoted to the interests of workers, peasants and urban lumpen proletariat. Politics mainly comprises various vertical factions among right-wingers, some based on fake religiosity. Anyhow, regional nationalisms pose a current, and importantly long-term, threat to today's rulers, the rich oligarchs. Gen. Musharraf had initially mentioned the removal of provincial disharmony as one of his objectives. His undiluted rule is now into the sixth year with the Shaukat Aziz cabinet now shimmering and disappearing in the next movement -- and the problem has been growing more intractable and dangerous -- as has the threat from political religiosity.

How to overcome their powerlessness is not easy for the deprived majority. Superficially, the Messiah has to come from Punjab who alone can break the nexus between Punjab, feudalism, army, and bureaucracy by making democracy prevail throughout Pakistan without recognising holy cows. Given democracy, Islam is one of many realities of life; Islamic history has shown political toleration of pluralism and moderation -- of course with exceptions. In a true democratic framework, problems posed by exploitative and strident Islamicists as also regional nationalisms, can be finally tackled. Only, democracy should not contain the dross of multiple centres of power, today's holy cows. People need to be supreme in action as much as in theory.

The second condition is that it should deliver: unless equity and peacemaking intent inform economic, social, and foreign policy-making, democracy will not last. The third condition is that the federation should reflect the spirit of federalism; let all provinces be equal qua entities, with true autonomy and power. Within their respective spheres, neither the Centre should make laws that restrict provincial autonomy nor provinces put conditions on the Centre; law should be one: central on the Centre's subjects and provincial within the provinces.

Finally, institutions alone do not make a democracy. The purpose of those institutions is to empower citizens. This requires actually enjoyed human rights, not simply what is written on a parchment. That is the purpose of the state: why should a man pay taxes if he does not receive anything in return?

The range of human rights goes beyond classical civil liberties. Freedom from hunger was recognised by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1941 Atlantic Charter. The right to gainful employment was enshrined in the Second Social Rights Charter of the UN. It is time that it is recognised as a fundamental right of every citizen and should be legally binding. Let the state be reorganised for implementing all the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to jobs for all able-bodied and willing adults, or else mandatory social security payments be made if a job cannot be found for anyone.

Let the state deliver in this manner and all fissiparous and destructive tendencies can be counteracted in tandem with the success in democracy building. The way out of the military's or Punjab's domination is building a new democratic state. And that is true national reconciliation; the present struggle is for a share in the loot, and reconciliation means more partners.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.