Opposition: Anyone for lessons from MRD

This sort of trouble is inherent in the fractious politics of this country. Whenever Army takes over, which is frequent, some of democracy's enthusiasts promptly start forming one- or two-point united front of all parties. As the experience of Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD) in early 1980s showed, such united fronts start crumbling under the weight of their own internal contradictions.

About MRD's agitation, stories of brutal lashings, long sentences by military's Kangaroo courts even for shouting slogans, and heavy repression are all that are remembered. What is not remembered is that the movement never really took off -- except in Sindh where committed followers of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were beside themselves with anger over their leader's hanging. They resorted to disorganised protests and some sabotage.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Nothing much happened in the other three provinces -- all because parties strong in Balochistan, Frontier or even non-PPP ones in Sindh demanded MRD to commit to many reforms in addition to simple democracy. PPP, representing Punjab's interests and of Sindh's landed aristocracy, refused to commit itself to anything beyond the vague restoration of 1973 Constitution. That is what really killed the MRD -- and not Gen. Ziaul Haq who merely did what could be expected of him.

Looked at more closely, the situation today is not much different from the one in early 1980s. For a variety of reasons, Benazir leadership cannot take a stance of radical opposition to the overlordship of Army. For one thing, that may shake up its hold on Punjab's Chaudhries and Nawabs -- the Punjab that is seen as its base and is also the hope for its regaining power in Islamabad. That is what has sealed the fate of ARD. Not that ARD is nothing without PPP. Its cutting edge comprises smaller parties of Balochistan, NWFP and Sindh and hopefully a few new ones in Punjab.

Let's remember the Benazir leadership of PPP is sociologically indistinguishable with the Q League's -- which was also the cream of what Nawaz League was. PPP wants to be an alternative mainstream party -- as wedded to the latest popular notions in Washington as Ch. Shujaat Hussain or Gen. Pervez Musharraf are. It is only the vicissitudes of Army takeovers that throws it in a hopeless position when it has to talk about opposition unity. Change that situation, Benazir leadership would again be the bulwark of the federation, meaning the current monopoly of power by Islamabad.

But let me rise above particularities and take an overview of country's politics. The central fact today is Gen. Musharraf has chosen to appear to uphold modernism, enlightened toleration of dissent -- what else is moderation? -- pluralism and democracy; he is supposed to oppose rigid orthodoxy that resists all change and is totally intolerant -- intolerant of what? --, heterogeneous and plurality that our society is. The values he favours demand, in fact, a secular democracy in which religion is none of state's business; faithful of all religions or sects can go on preaching and practicing their faith freely. Only, everybody's freedom is equally sacred: all "other" opinions or positions are no ground for state to pass a judgement on them.

Now this is the oldest and basic polarisation in Pakistan. A lot of idiotic confusion is created by treating the term secularism to mean Atheism. It is nothing of the kind. It simply says that the state should not side, or identify with, any organised religion; let all faiths flourish and people should be free to practice any faith they please. This is a rational view of human equality, with absolutely equal rights -- and equal obligations that citizens freely prescribe for themselves. This presupposes a democracy in which no particular economic or political group has any reserved privileges. Who the 'others' are -- are known, who take their stand for converting the state into an instrument of promoting just one set of beliefs -- leaving out many somewhat differing sets of beliefs or interpretations.

The opposition parties have to be clear on this. Superficially it is a polarisation of MMA on one side and Gen. Musharraf and Q League with its turncoat allies on the other. Where does ARD stand on this major issue? PPP claims to be on the General's side, waiting to be taken onboard. It is only a matter of agreeing on a few terms and conditions. On which side is PML (Nawaz)? While the general rhetoric of Mr. Nawaz Sharif has been similar to MMA's -- and perhaps his personal beliefs are much the same as MMA's -- party's general character and many of its leaders will find nothing wrong with Musharraf's enlightened moderation. The party has been termed by many as objectively being modernist and moderate. Which side will the rump of the party, with its potential in the Punjab, go?

But there is far more to ARD than the PPP and PML(N). True, these two are important for their parliamentary strengths and not for much else. In terms of hard struggle, requiring sacrifices, other seemingly smaller parties are more important. But they all, more or less, want to go beyond the one point of removing Musharraf. What else should change is their concern. They do want end of Army rule like everyone else. But they immediately proceed to demanding guarantees against future Army takeovers and violations of the Constitution. They also want more autonomy for provincial governments. This is essentially a demand for a new Constitution. Those who say that changing the Constitution will be opening the Pandora's box are in fact the defenders of Islamabad's excessive administrative role that so much suits the military's Bonapartes and which keeps the upper crusts in clover all over Pakistan, only the common people never had it so bad.

Time has come to ask searching questions. Was Pakistan created to be a happy hunting ground for military-bureaucratic predators? Was such ugly centralism integral to the idea of Pakistan? Would the poor forever remain deprived and dispossessed? What will be the point in changing Mr. Shaukat Aziz with a PPP replacement? What will change? The real question to be asked is: for whose benefit would the resources of Pakistan be used? When can two meals a day for all Pakistanis be ensured?

One forebears asking minor questions like what precisely do Musharraf and his company mean by enlightened moderation? Can they countenance its implications? Is PPP leadership modernist and enlightened? Let's finally separate wheat from chaff.

But some problems have remained untackled even intellectually. The question was posed in MRD days: what is the point in struggling for democracy and making sacrifices if in the end another military freebooter will take over and throw the Constitution on the dust heap? Pessimists still say that the Army will never let go power, now that it occupies all strategic heights in politics and economy. The whole political business becomes pointless. That alienation dissolves the bond between the citizen and state. Why identify with a state that is sure to remain under freebooters? Question of questions is, how to persuade Army to vacate the political field and keep them out permanently?

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.