June
30, 2006
Pakistan’s
Political Scenario Portends Violence but No Basic
Change
Pakistan’s opposition
parties may hold diverse views on major socio-economic
issues but right now they are unanimous on one point
- getting rid of the ruler in uniform. The Muslim
League (Q), the ruling party has, on the other hand
declared that it would have Gen. Musharraf re-elected
for another five-year term as President by the existing
central and provincial parliaments. That is neither
legal nor moral, contend the opposition. That is
not only constitutional but thoroughly in national
interest, retorts the party in power.
Would this conflict be taken to streets and lead
to death and destruction? Yes, in all probability.
But, would that lead to any change in the very structure
of the ruling elite in the country? Not likely.
The ruling elite have all along been staging civilian
and military farces to convey an impression to the
down-trodden that a shift of power from the man
in shalwar-kameez to the man in uniform or vice-versa
is a precursor of basic changes in the structure.
The pendulum of power has swung four times over
the past four decades, but the role of the common
man in the affairs of his country has remained unchanged,
next to nil.
Talking about the devolution of power to elected
officials at District level, President Musharraf
had said: “Unfortunately for us the place
of the departing colonial power was taken over by
a privileged class. Enough is enough. The time has
come for a change. This government is determined
to restore to the people the right to rule themselves.”
In a similar vein Nawaz Sharif had said earlier,
in the spring of 1997: “Our own rulers have
plundered us in ways that even the enemy would not
practice in occupied lands. What sort of freedom
is this? It is time for us to stand upon the ruins
of the last fifty years and pledge that we shall
take back our freedom.”
The identity of thought is not accidental. Both
are, more or less, hoodwinking the common man, putting
him under the anesthesia of sweet promises.
After Gen. Musharraf took the reins of power, some
40 political parties of all hues and pursuits from
the socialists on the extreme left to the religious
bigots on the right, from the self-acclaimed ‘mainstream
parties’ to those surviving on letter-heads
only, assembled in Lahore to submit a resolution
to the man in uniform who had hijacked power six
months earlier, to hand it back to them. The late
Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, the Don Quixote of Pakistani
politics and a dyed in the wool land baron, had
arranged the assemblage.
What this exercise amounted to was reflected in
its resolution. It submits to the military ruler
to remain within the time frame of three years given
to him by the Supreme Court instead of entertaining
visions of a ‘decade’ or twelve years
of ‘reforms’ of his earlier incarnations.
In other words, there was little objection to the
military take-over as such but only to its likely
prolongation beyond the three-year period.
Objections to the army takeover have generally come
from foreign powers. The political luminaries could
hardly question the man in uniform. For, the performance
over the earlier ten years by both Benazir and Nawaz
Sharif offered little to flaunt. Rather, the miasma
of corruption of the duo – the Twiddle Dee
and Twiddle Dum - smelled to the sky. Both were
convicted in courts of law on corruption charges.
Yet, their parties had declared one the Chairperson
for life and the other President of his party for
an indefinite period!
More important is the fact that the armed forces
comprise perhaps the most important component of
the triumvirate that rules the country, that is:
(1) the military and civil bureaucracies, (2) the
feudal aristocracy, and (3) the four dozen or so
rich families whose wealth is mostly ill-gotten
(for details see Shahidur Rehman’s book “Who
Owns Pakistan”).
The rural aristocracy, the so-called ‘feudal
lords’ have remained, from the colonial times,
the henchmen of all the governments of the day.
The dynastic system was condemned and abolished
throughout the world long time ago. India abolished
it directly after Independence.
Unfortunately, the founding fathers of Pakistan,
the two Quaids in particular, died within a few
years of Independence and could not attend to this
malaise.
The success of feudalism in maintaining itself at
the helm of affairs, in defiance of the law of meritocracy,
has rubbed off on all other sectors of society and
given rise to what is called the feudal spirit.
The nova riche dress, talk and even walk with the
typical swagger of the feudal lords.
The stalwarts of the PPP, who do not tire of masquerading
as champions of the poor and the instruments of
change, have themselves elected Benazir as Chairperson
for life of the party. That speaks volumes about
the depth of the roots of feudalistic values permeating
the society. The consensus of the PML(N) leaders
on maintaining Nawaz Sharif or his brother as their
chief reflects the same resistance to change.
The group of religious parties, the MMA, has been
playing their traditional role of providing religious
crutches to the ruling Sultan or the military or
civilian dictator. They have served to preempt any
other sector’s role in street agitation.
The military government, one regrets to notice,
has been tinkering with the system, particularly
the hold of the feudal barons, despite its claims
of revolutionary steps.
Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, the military-blessed
Prime Minister and a landlord, in his very first
address to the Parliament assured the landlords
that for the next five years there would be no land
reforms!
Such a resistance to change despite the mounting
frustration among the masses, owing to their pitiable
plight, might invite the extremists to take the
lead and cause havoc in the society. The outcome
of the chaos may not be something the founding fathers
had visualized. Of course the self-centered triumvirate
is handicapped by a limited vision and a desensitized
mind.
- arifhussaini@hotmail.com
