Adil Najam
I was going to use the term APC - All Parties Conference - in the headline but just realized that Dawn is now using the term MPC - Multi-Party Conference - to describe the meeting of opposition parties which is to begin in London within a few hours.
This is not just a semantic issue, it highlights one of the many challenges faced by this very important meeting which was already postponed once and will now be held under the shadow of the ongoing Lal Masjid operation in Islamabad.
An editorial in The Nation, lays out some of the key challenges.
DESPITE the diversion created by the Lal Masjid operation, many in Pakistan are keenly waiting for the outcome of the two-day APC convened by Mian Nawaz Sharif in London. Besides the ARD and MMA it is being attended by the nationalist parties and minority representatives. While Ms Bhutto has declined to attend the meeting despite being in London, she will be represented by a PPP delegation led by Makhdoom Amin Fahim. A committee of PML-N and PPP leaders has reportedly finalised the joint document to be issued at the end of the conference. This is likely to underline commonly agreed points like the restoration of the 1973 constitution as it existed prior to the military take over on October 12, 1999, formation of an interim set up and a neutral Election Commission in consultation with the opposition, an independent judiciary and the return of the exiled leaders.
What remains to be seen is how the participants resolve some of the issues and overcome suspicions that continue to divide them. The MMA has accused Ms Bhutto of trying to broker a power sharing deal with General Musharraf. The PPP, on the other hand, has challenged the religious alliance to resign from the Balochistan cabinet to prove its credentials as an opposition party. The nationalist parties accuse the others of ignoring the key issue of autonomy and want ironclad guarantees on it, while on their way to London, some of the MMA leaders have again condemned the PPP leadership in a veiled manner. To pre-empt criticism by the sort, Makhdoom Amin Fahim categorically ruled out on the eve of the APC any possibility of understanding with General Musharraf. He also maintained that the party would abide by all decisions taken by the APC with consensus.
Those participating in the APC hope to produce an action plan to remove Gen. Musharraf. It is here that the opposition stands badly divided. The PPP disagrees with the proposal to resign from the Assemblies in case the President was to seek election from them. Similarly, it insists on taking part in elections even if they are held under him. Most of the opposition parties, however, take a different stand on the issue. They also favour initiating a countrywide movement to remove the government. The PPP, on the other hand, maintains that nothing should be done to provide an excuse to the government to impose emergency and postpone the elections. Unless the opposition leaders devise an agreed action plan, and the exiled leaders announce a final date of their return, the APC is likely to be considered an uninspiring exercise.
Lets explore some of these points.
Much is, of course, being made of the timing of the Lal Masjid operation and how it might divert diverts attention from this meeting of the opposition. The timing is, indeed, suspicious. But then, given the state of current Pakistan politics, just about any timing would have been suspicious given that the government had let the Lal Masjid militancy brew for so long. The head of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD), Makhdoom Amin Fahim of PPP believes that the timing will affect the APC but is probably not a conspiracy.
Indeed, the distraction - which is very real - may well be the least of the challenges that the assembled leaders will have to face and resolve. The meeting has already been postponed once (in March, because of the Chief Justice issue) and postponing it again woudl not have been well-received. However, the real significance of the Lal Masjid operation is NOT the distraction, it is the very real differences amongst the assembled parties that it brings to fore. The issue is whether they can agree on dealing with religious extremism. It is not at all clear that they can; nor is it clear how their constituencies will react if they do. Tactically, the best approach for them would be unite against the ‘way the operation was carried out’ (on which they can agree) rather than to try to find a consensus on their views about the Lal Masjid and its leadership (on which they may not be able to agree).
.jpg)
There are also other significant differences within the opposition parties. The only thing that binds them is a desire to oust the Musharraf government, and even on that they seem unsure. Benazir Bhutto is refusing to attend even though she is in London right now. She argues that MMA is not really an opposition party because it is a government partner in two provinces. MMA for its part has raised the issue of whether there are any ‘deals’ between Benazir Bhutto and Pervaiz Musharraf. It has also been argued that if she can ‘talk’ to the government she should also be able to ‘talk’ to MMA. This rift and these mutual doubts are serious but will not be show stoppers, PPP will be represented but not by Benazir Bhutto. If steered rightly, the meeting will focus on what they can agree on rather than what they disagree on.
The real momentum behind the meeting comes from the Lawyers’ Movement in support of the Chief Justice. Till now the opposition parties have, literally, held on the coat tails of the lawyers who are clearly the leaders of this movement. The political reality is that it is the lawyers and not any political party that has captured the public imagination on this issue; not yet. But on the issue of the restoration of the institutional integrity of the judiciary, the parties do agree. The success of this London meeting will depend in great extent of whether they can build on this agreement to craft agreement on other issues, especially on the issue of the uniform and the next election.
And the next election, including the uniform issue, is really what this meeting is really about. The success of this meeting will - and should - be judged by whether the opposition parties can agree on a clear and united strategy on these issues. It is far from clear whether they can. They all have stated a public support for democracy, an opposition to the future of the presidency in uniform, and to transparent elections. However, too many Pakistanis doubt the level of their commitment. The real challenge before the leaders assembling in London is to convince Pakistanis that such doubts are unfounded.
.jpg)
Will this meeting be able to demonstrate resoundly that such commitment actually exists? Will the parties be able to arrive at and state clearly a common position and a clear strategy on these issues? Will they be able to excite the public and convince them that the parties goal is not simply to get back to power but a deep and real commitment to democracy?
If the meeting is able to do so, it will indeed be historic. If not, it will soon be forgotten; and not because of the Lal Masjid distraction.
You can visit ATP on your Mobile Phone. Here's how!
As usual, our politicians are disappointing at best. I have said this before - it is time to make them irrelevant. That is already the case in the current setup, though that is not what I am proposing. There are two immediate concerns for the country, one that Mush gives up the uniform, and two that the next President of Pakistan be elected by the newly elected parliament. It seems that both these critical decisions will be made by the courts, as Mush will try to get reelected by the current assemblies, and will refuse to take off the uniform. If anything the APC should not try to ignore these ground realities and prepare for the two contingencies; hence who will bring the cases to the courts,
and who will represent the parties to make their case? Aitezaz Ahsan, of course.
Given the direction the SC is heading with the CJ case, it appears that the government will lose the case, as the evidence in the case presented by the state is already thrown out by the courts. The courts are going to come out of all this as strong as ever, and ready to impose
their will. When the case of the Presidency will go to the courts, the defense the government will use to
perpetuate the current setup will be the “doctrine of necessity”. This argument will not hold under the current conditions, as many judges on the current bench have shown strong reservations against this doctrine. They are sure to throw that defense out the window. Mush’s election
will thus be quashed and the new parliament will have to decide the fate of the presidency.
This brings us to the question of transparency of the elections. Under the current setup, chances of transparent
(I did not use the term free and fair) elections
are remote at best. There could be minor surprises here and there, but overall the staus quo will remain. Moreover the
agencies are fully capable of tweaking the final results, by buying loyalties through the combined use of carrot and stick. All of this means that even if the courts decide against Mush for the mode of election of the President, he will still be the President come new year.
Benazir knows that. She knows that the three A’s are with Mush. Hence she is willing to make a deal, as long as the three A’s promise her the Premiership of the country. Not sure about Allah, but she has made every attempt in the last few months to placate the Americans, to make
sure that she is their choice for the office. Hence her refusal to sit with the MMA, and her stance on the war against terror, which backs Mush. This also shows that Benazir thinks of herself above others, and would rather use these machinations to get her end goal, instead of working with the opposition. There is a lesson in all this for the oppsition; she is not to be trusted. They need to see through her, and prepare for life without her.
What does all of this mean for an ordinary Pakistani? Many an idealogues among us would not agree with me; but not much. My main concern is that no one changes or should be allowed to change the economic direction of the country. We don’t want to revisit the decade of the 90s with 20% inflation, and 7% budget deficits. We don’t want to go back to the time when the whole budget was spent servicing the debt and supporting the Army, and not much left for anything else. We have bought some financial freedom with great effort, and we don’t want to lose that freedom.
APC is thus irrelevant, and so are politicians. I don’t see them making any impact in the next elections, because of reasons pointed earlier. Their history also suggests that they are incapable of inciting the people. Any calls for street protests when the election results are announced won’t make any impact. They need to look past these elections, and the time when Mush loses his uniform.
I also see an issue with the current opposition, which isn’t dynamic, and is incapable of taking the country
forward. There is a need for alternate leadership which is another subject altogether. Maybe other folks can comment.
Imran and Qazi seem to be talking exactly the same words and same language. I’ve also noticed they always appear side-by-side next to each other in press photographs. Imran’s earlier street power also came from shabab milli guys who were an offshoot of qazi’s party. Make your own conclusions. I myslef don’t have a good read on Imran yet.
UPDATE
Highlights of Dawn report on the first day of the APC/MPC in London. Written by veteran journalist Ziauddin, the report is worth reading in full (here).
This is a great article–wanted to share it with you all:
http://www.counterpunch.org/khan07032007.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cJ2B-n9B8uw
Day 1 news roundup of APC. Covers main points in speeches by Nawaz Sharif, Amin Fahim, Imran , Asfandyar Wali, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Rafiq Tarrar.
“However, too many Pakistanis doubt the level of their commitment. The real challenge before the leaders assembling in London is to convince Pakistanis that such doubts are unfounded.
Will this meeting be able to demonstrate resoundly that such commitment actually exists?”.
For what it is worth, I shall place my bets now. The answer to the last question above is a resounding NO.
The jokers assembled in London - like those they left behind in Islamabad - care for democracy and its cornerstones like an independent judiciary and transparent elections ** only when they are OUT OF POWER**. Not one of them is fit to be a leader of the people of Pakistan (or any other nation for that matter).
The sad part is that still - after having repeatedly experienced the the hollowness of their self serving solganeering, and their obsession with kursi - even the educated and the intelligent among Pakistanis (expats no exception) wait with bated breath upon the useless pronouncement which are certain to emerge from this unauspicious assembly.
The lawyer’s movement started out well. Till now that was the only bright ray of hope. Theirs was a struggle only for the dignity and independence of the judiciary, not aligned with any political party - or so it was claimed. Then they decided to send a delegation to the APC (or MPC or whatever). What for? Have they overnight become an opposition political party?
The Supreme Court soldiers on valiantly; they are completely free to issue ** one single ** judgement. No less than one of the CJP’s lawyers (Mr. Kurd) has publicly issued that warning. For whose benefit, then, is the whole nAtak being played out at considerable public expense?
If democracy is what the people of Pakistan seriously want, they must agitate for it all by themselves; which is why a sustained mass movement for a prolonged period of time is necessary.
Looking askance at the assembly of idiots in London will get Pakistan nowhere.
Imran Khan’s address to the APCL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHwXc2665-8
I’ve also uploaded a day 1 news roundup from Geo. It should show up in 10-15 minutes.
Imran Khan has begun to worry me. I just watched him on TV delivering his what seemed to be an opening statement at the MPC conference.
He said the Lal Masjid affair was a farce staged only to benefit Musharraf. He neither condemned the mullahs holed up in the mosque and what their actions have resulted in, nor did he condemn what they have been doing to the citizens of Islamabad in last 6 months. I thought Imran Khan was the one politician who has been consistently talking about the Rule of Law. True, Musharraf probably timed the Lal Masjid operation to suit him politically, but is Imran Khan saying the operation was not needed at all. Should the mullahs be allowed to take the law into their own hands? I wish someone pin him down on this.