Plain Words
An assassination most foul
It appears Benazir Bhutto fell to an assassin's bullets and/or the bomb blast meant for her. Passing away of a charismatic leader is always tragic, and an unwelcome surprise. It always leaves behind a trail of bitterness. Even so, this was exceptionally so. What the country has to grapple with is its consequences, that may become trends.
Large numbers have gone on to protest, and express an anger that has a long history. Superficially, it may look like a sudden explosion of pent-up emotions. The kind of disturbances that have followed, and the loss of life and property involved, is troubling. Certain conclusions follow.
The apparent suddenness with which otherwise law-abiding people become rowdy in expressing anger, vandalising, or even occasionally killing, shows that the feelings had been pent-up for long and that people need an occasion to explode. They want a change. Not knowing how to proceed, or achieve what they vaguely wish to achieve, on the one hand, and, on the other, the inadequacy of national leadership -- government, political parties and other leaders of opinion -- underlines a dangerous all- round confusion when too many interests are contending for supremacy.
Too many ideas about social reconstruction, without adequately equipped leadership, can cause a lot of trouble. This is what has happened. Political leaders are associated with vague ideals. Benazir was no exception. She embodied feelings of her followers that were not likely to be fulfilled by her, and was perhaps not giving the lead that the people wanted or were ready for.
The reality is that there is (a) widespread confusion of what should be done and how should things be reorganised; (b) there is a tendency towards violence that has grown over the years due to inadequate leadership or lack of guidance from saner elements, leading to disillusionment with what has happened. The structures of state that keep law and order are virtually breaking down. A growing section tends to take the law in its own hands because it does not expect anyone else to enforce the law. This is anarchy.
Anyway, two questions arise, the answers to which must be attempted. One is about the future of the PPP. While its charismatic leadership has made it into the largest party in Pakistan, it has now chosen a new leader. Then, there have been complaints of distortions in the party's working because of the non-democratic way of its internal functioning. Shouldn't there be democratic elections for its top leadership. A new crop of leaders should emerge with every generation. The current generation has produced competent and attractive leaders: mainly lawyers and judges. This genuine new leadership is outside the PPP. Why? Will PPP remain the property of a dynasty?
The next question is about the future of Pakistan. The rampant ideological confusion and an unhappy, angry people sans responsive leadership make for a dangerous situation. With state structures becoming ineffective and people's tendency towards violence remaining uncorrected, the society's and the state's future becomes vulnerable. Vacuous patriotism of shutting one's eyes to actual grassroots trends poses a danger.
The confusion arises from the deepening fissures in the polity over basic questions. The oldest confusion, that is simultaneously easy and very difficult to resolve, is the contention over the nature of the federation: On one side are believers in a strong central authority, presided over by a stronger individual, and, on the other, are people in the regions possessing their own identity through distinctive language, culture, traditions and, perhaps, also race. Pakistan had come to grief on this question. If we continue as before, the next tragedy should not be unexpected. Isn't there a solution?
Another issue that now ominously divides the people is over the rise of a new Islam, represented by al-Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist groups that seize power from time to time in their areas on the ground that they are enforcing Shariah here and now, wanting to wipe out sins from society through Shariah punishment. The other side comprises traditional Islam, where the same "promotion of virtue and discouragment of sin" is taken to mean individual purity through good works and by persuasion. What is undeniable is that in Islam the relationship of individual with God is direct; there is no intermediary institution or group.
Everything desired by Islam is to be done at individual level by each Musalman without the use of force, except for jihad that requires all Muslims' consensus through a commonly accepted Caliph. In practice, most schools believe that injunction about jihad is no longer operative in the absence of its necessary requirements. Suppression of sin by others and enforcement of piety and virtue in others with a gun are new elements in the body politic of Muslims the world over. This leads to a clash of civilisations, nations, and religions, which can end in misery for all. Therefore, it has to be contained. It will destroy the very fabric of Pakistan anyway -- and probably other Muslim countries.
Then there are social questions. The Musharraf regime's propaganda of having reduced poverty and increased prosperity all around is contradicted by the behaviour of common Pakistanis. They are dissatisfied and angry; they had to tolerate injustice for long in silence; and that makes for building up of an anger that occasionally finds expression in violent protests. Benazir was associated with the idea of equitable reforms. She was taken to stand for the state that looks after the interests of common people and does not serve economic and social elites. It was thought that she would run the economy for the benefit of the common people and would promote a development that was oriented to job creation and poverty reduction. The fact is, no politician is paying any attention to these objectives. Most political parties are failing on that score, including the PPP. But old images too die hard, if accompanied with cynical rhetoric.
The insistent question is, what should be done in today's political crisis? The year 2007 had seen one crisis after another. The world press informs us that the authority and power of retired Gen. Pervez Musharraf are declining. But the observed fact is that his hold on governance is still complete, with America, conservative Arab kings, and Nato powers backing him; he remains a force who is suppressing the civil society, sacked an assertive judiciary, and is presiding over tumultuous events of the last few months with bomb blasts and suicide bombings in political gatherings. He does not look like fading away soon, though he had better take note of the new stirrings and popular anger. The state is becoming weak, and Pakistan is in real danger. Larger forces can be unleashed. The way he acts will make or mar the future for Pakistan.
Without much ado, it has to be asserted that, after him, there will be no deluge. The world's graveyards are full of indispensable men and women. He had better find a way out of his militarised "Islamabad." Otherwise, the cost to Pakistan would be just too great. He should transfer effective governance to a national government formed after an All Parties Conference -- like the one called by Ayub Khan in 1969. A new caretaker government comprising these leaders will help hold a free and fair election, sometime in late March or April. Postponement of the January 8 election is, anyhow, necessary. The best course is to evolve a broad consensus over initial reforms, but restoration of the pre-November 3, 2007, situation in respect of judiciary and media is the necessary first step. The ugly ducklings left behind by emergency and PCO need to be buried here and now.
M.B. Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments