Plain Words
Election prospects
Elections remain scheduled for February 18. There is scepticism whether polling will take place on that date. Sure, politics is involved in the doubt. But, generally, it seems that the elections will be held in time. Their prospects should be assessed, though doubts whether these elections will be free and fair are far more widespread.
If there is no rigging, the opposition stands a good chance of defeating the ruling coalition of PML (Q), MQM, PPP (Sherpao) and PPP (Patriots). Top of the list is PPP, which is sure to win most seats in rural Sindh and is sure to win some in Punjab.
The other winner is likely to be PML (N) riding a Nawaz wave in Punjab. PML (N) can win a majority of Punjab Assembly seats and proportionate National Assembly seats.
That leaves MMA, which is in a bad shape, with JUI feuding with JI. But JUI in its own right can win many seats in NWFP and Balochistan, though this time it is commonly adjudged that its tally cannot match 2002's. JI, too, can win a few seats in NWFP, if it participates.
What would an opposition win signify? First thing to note is that relations among all parties seem bad; there appears to be much animosity between PML (Q) and PPP and also between PML (Q) and PML (N). And so on. This does not auger well. Why? Because of close association between PML (Q) and President Musharraf, and Mr. Musharraf represents the Pakistan army and is also a nominee of the Americans, whose influence is known.
But the opposition is not really disunited. There is unity among them over relations with America, and the foreign policy's contours to be followed. All of them simply love to eat out of American hands, including religious parties also, if it is suitably packaged.
On economic policies, there is near unanimity between all opposition parties and the ruling party, or Americans or Pakistan army; they know only one policy, that which is recommended by the American Treasury, WTO, IMF etc.
Socially and politically, most are solid conservatives; there is not one radical party that is of any consequence electorally. With such an opposition, the army and the Americans should be well satisfied. Are they?
The PPP is everything that Americans want; it is the Pakistan army that, for historical reasons, distrusts PPP leadership. The only presumption is that the Pakistan army does not want any leadership that is independent of its influence.
PPP or PML (N) may be conservative and pro-American, but neither depends on the Pakistan army for getting into the citadel of power through elections -- to be sure not to take over completely but as a junior partner of the army. Even that is disliked by the army; it wants all in government to be its protégés.
However, there are some basic issues that do divide the parties, though they do not acknowledge the country's permanent problems: There is the perennial question of centre-state relations. All the three minority provinces demand more autonomy. None of the major parties is prepared to make any clear-cut commitment for more autonomy by defining the quantum of provincial autonomy.
Then, there is the issue of Pakistan being run according to Islamic injunctions. There is much mealy-mouthed obfuscation all around on the subject. PPP is claimed to be quasi-secular. Nawaz Sharif in office was close to religious parties' thinking, though not quite identical.
Nawaz perhaps regarded himself as Islamic as any Mullah and, at one stage, thought of becoming Amirul Momineen himself. Hopefully, he has come away from that position because he apparently regards that as his earlier mistake. But even the JI and JUI apparently differ over the leadership question, as also on the precise Islam either would impose.
This is an open question, and no one knows where Islamisation should begin or end. Indeed, should it begin at all? After all, Ziaul Haq had Islamised Pakistan to the extent that the Pakistan army thought possible. That has been controversial ever since: all liberals and most Muslim women have been opposed to his Hudood Ordinances. Curiously, no one is talking about their future anymore. Why?
There is some controversy over relations with America. The Americans are not behaving like mere friends; their actions are more like a master's. They are demanding something that is utter foolishness: to fight the Taliban ruthlessly with mainly military means.
In Pakistan, that means a civil war. Islamic extremism can only be fought by political means, if at all. No victory is assured for liberals, but the only way forward is through simple, unadulterated democracy (without adjectives). This formula is the solution that, over time, would hopefully resolve the issue of intolerant extremism.
If the people finally insist upon imposing Islam of an obscurant kind, they should be free to suffer it, and it is no business of America or Pakistan army to prevent. Being a liberal, the writer would fight for secular democracy without reservations.
But that fight is itself Islamic because Islam prohibits all coercion, much less military force, over questions of belief. One is against Islamic extremism because of the element of coercion in its view of what should be done.
There are other loose ends: what democratic liberties should the people have, and do the restrictions General Musharraf imposed on electronic media, the judges dismissal and the mutilation of the Constitution and the harsh suppression of lawyers (and journalists) need to stay? No obfuscation on the issue, please.
Pakistan should have strict rule of law, and not the military's or any other dictator's law; either the Constitution to be restored in its original form, as it was written, or a new basic law must be written in an agreed democratic procedure.
The law and order question requires people's association with their government to enforce laws over the land, without citizens being ordered around. Law and order problems should be resolved through democratic means -- through more democracy.
The deposed 60 judges have to be restored pronto, without reservation. Supreme and High Courts must be restored to as they were on November 2 last year, and all recent Constitutional amendments must be undone. These are the pre-requirements for normalcy. Inflation and man-made shortages of foodstuffs, heavy unemployment, and widespread poverty call for determined action. Musharraf and co. have sung songs of self-praise over economic management too long. What they have delivered is now writ large all over the country, in the shape of one crisis after another causing misery to the poor, with both high prices and non-availability. Which party proposes to do what to ameliorate the situation and how? The people have a right to know.
Is PPP committed to restoring the Constitution and the judges, and allowing media unfettered freedom of expression? Would PML (N) do that? Is PML (Q) interested in these issues? What about MMA? Will it undo the mischief that Musharraf did? These are the vital questions; all parties must answer these before general elections.
That raises another question: do we have any real opposition party? Most mainstream parties are variations on the same theme. An opposition party would be one that can show, through its philosophy and a carefully researched program, that it will change the life of common Pakistanis in such and such concrete manner and quantum.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments