THE enthusiasts for the long march towards Islamabad are justifiably feeling let down by the grand posturing, thundering rhetoric and the subsequent retreat from agitation outside the dreary citadels of power in Islamabad’s dark heart.
A Bastille, which was not meant to be? Interpretations abound and explanations are flowing in from the motley groups who ventured to change the contours of state-society relations. The lawyers’ movement is profoundly significant. It constitutes the finest historical ‘moment’ in our troubled history. However, many observers have hinted at its limitations and the problematic phase that the movement has now entered.
Unlike China, Pakistan’s long marches have been nefarious for their results. Orchestrated by political and non-political actors to undermine the democratic process, we are well aware of this stratagem. This time it was different, complex and refreshingly path-breaking alas with similar results: pressurise the beleaguered PPP government still trying to find the proverbial power-ground beneath its truncated legs. In that sense, the march was a roaring success. From the sloganeering against the much maligned Asif Zardari, to de-legitimising three decades of PPP’s valiant struggle against dictatorship culminating in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Irony, that all is now a forgotten snippet of history. What is indeed more pressing, as we are told time and again, are the sacrifices made by the honourable judges. Indeed they have altered the parameters of the state and perhaps buried the subordination of the judiciary to the all powerful executive. Well, one may ask what about Asif Zardari and his eleven and a half years in jail without a single conviction? Therefore the vilification of Zardari by anti-Musharraf sections of the media and by the historical long march is symbolic. It is a testament to the deep-seated middle class trend of demonising politicians and party politics that are prerequisites for democracy and means to establish the ‘rule of law’.
The opportunism of individuals and groups jumping onto the lawyers’ bandwagon is also alarming. It is most convenient to have been all-powerful army chiefs, heads of the ISI and former honchos of the civilian bureaucratic monolith and once the party is over, re-christen yourself as firebrand democrats. The patriotic Hameed Guls, Aslam Begs and Faiz Ali Chishtis and the neo-constitutionalist Roedad Khans and right-wing ambassadors (who slept while Afghans were killed for strategic depth), must be questioned by the anti-Musharraf movement for it was their historical culpability that undermined civilian governance. Is it not important that circumspection be exercised while letting them be the spokespersons of the new vanguard? If Zardari has to be isolated then these dubious characters must also be questioned.
Perhaps the most worrisome aspect is the ‘activism’ of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s touted apology to the nation was just another political ruse. For most of Musharraf’s reign, JI supported army rule and participated in power-games such as the legitimisation of the seventeenth amendment. The PPP’s constitutional package enunciating amendments to restore the federal and democratic character of the polity is now being trounced by JI! This is cynical hypocrisy. History has still many questions for the JI: from the nefarious role in supporting army action against civilians in former East Pakistan to the jihad games of the 1980s and legitimation of another dictator, Ziaul Haq, whose shadows refuse to leave us. Another guest star of this movement, the fearless jirga-loving Imran Khan was also campaigning for the dubious referendum of 2002. It is still intriguing as to how jirgas fit in the ‘rule of law’ paradigm?
The Jamaat and Imran Khan are deciding what the election results were. Their temerity in doing so goes unnoticed — after terming the February election a farce they refer to the results ad nauseum. Paradoxically, they are rocking the system that has resumed almost after a decade?
Today, Aitzaz Ahsan stands out among the politicians for his oratory and sense of history. It pains to see him dabble into these alliances with groups not known for their principles. Ahsan is a dyed-in-the-wool secular democrat; and is aware of the cul-de-sac where the movement might end i.e. pushing the people’s verdict into the right-wing of Pakistani political spectrum well known for its closeness to the national security state.
Nawaz Sharif might have learnt his lessons in history a la Pakistan style. He has to be wary of the born-again democrats; and may wish to revisit the public statements of these ex-servicemen cohorts, Imran Khan and JI after he was overthrown despite the two-thirds majority. Rationalising civil-military relations therefore should be a foremost priority given that Sharif is eyeing Islamabad in the next election. This can only be achieved through strengthening the democratic process. Unfortunately there is no alternative.
The puritanism of the lawyers’ movement and pitching it against the civilian government is unwittingly making things easier for the invisible hand in Pakistan’s political marketplace. The establishment (that does not include Mr Zardari and his transient sojourn in the corridors of power) could not have it better. The crumbling of the PPP-PML coalition, the continuation of a distorted constitution and resumption of 1990s’ political polarisation is the best formula for business as usual. Hence for any ‘rule of law’ movement, the stakes are bigger than the individuals that the movement is targeting.
Thus the need for a shift in the strategic focus of the movement arises. What is wrong with a refined constitutional amendment if it is backed by parties and the lawyers’ movement? Once enacted, Musharraf’s exit will be certain. This would be an unravelling of the authoritarian insertions and triumph of the legal and democratic system. Justice is not restricted to benches with men of conscience; it also denotes the redistribution of power. Not just between the pillars of the state but also to the disempowered through political representation and electoral accountability.
The other, oft-repeated rhetoric is the route of confrontation. Many had hoped that the thousands in Islamabad would carry out a dharna. But that did not happen ostensibly for ‘lack of resources’. Or is it that the guest stars of the movement are not willing to take on the state? Bourgeois movements rarely lead to street battles. The right could very well be fishing in troubled waters with the tacit support of the faceless power-centres. The route of constitutional process and parliamentary sovereignty can still be considered over the unclear, dangerous path of confrontation.
The writer contributes to Jahan-e-Rumi and Pak Tea House. This article also appeared in Dawn. here.
You are being unfairly harsh. Even the Chinese long march did not bring immediate change. What the march was supposed to do was to send a clear message to Musharraf, to Zardari and to their American masters that the judges issues is still alive and is the benchmark of democracy movement in Pakistan. It did that.
Yes, the movement has attracted some nasty characters. Certainly Jamaat i Islami is one. I think Nawaz Sharif may have actually been reformed. But the point is that this is a mark of the success of the movement that even mainstream parties now have to take this seriously. that is what we call people power.
Actions speak louder than words, and whatever deal or sell-out has been perpetrated by leaders of the long march, will be evident soon enough.
The Pakistani nation’s appetite for rhetoric is amazing. It must be close to two centuries now, that people have been fed vain promises of a glorious future by politicians and ‘leaders’, and yet the poor and the innocent continue to be seduced without learning any lessons at all from their mistakes of the past.
‘A wise man learns from other people’s mistakes, a fool from his own.’ What is he who doesn’t even learn from his own mistakes?
Benazir and Zardari and Nawaz Sharif and their multitude of croonies have miserably failed their own so-called mandates time after time, and yet people worship them like Pirs and Pirnees. And at the same time when the NRO is being enshrined in the constitution, bicycle thieves goes to jail and the jobless commit suicide. What a country, Mr Guide!
The problem here is a fundamental difference of goals between the PPP and the ‘civil society.’
For the ppp and its supporters, the goal is to push the military out and make their own government as powerful as possible, without any checks and balances. This includes the NRO to protect their loot. All their efforts, activism, writings and “sacrifices for democracy” are primarily geared towards this basic goal.
For the “civil society” (which has emerged as a new player), the goal is to have governments that are under appropriate checks and balances and can be held accountable. According to them, even an elected government needs to be kept under constant watch and pressure to make sure that it’s serving the people and not looting and undermining the country.
The writer obviously belongs to the former group and hence his misgivings about the lawyers’ movement are understandable.
This becomes very clear from the following quote from the piece:
“What is indeed more pressing, as we are told time and again, are the sacrifices made by the honourable judges. Indeed they have altered the parameters of the state and perhaps buried the subordination of the judiciary to the all powerful executive. Well, one may ask what about Asif Zardari and his eleven and a half years in jail without a single conviction?”
Rumi Sahib is comparing apples and oranges. CJ Iftikhar got into trouble because he was trying to give relief to the common man and for preventing the loot sale of steel mills and other such theft. Zardari got into trouble for totally different reasons; even if he had been jailed for 100 years or hanged, it would not have made him a hero. The comparison is outrightly ridiculous.
Nation divided by its corrupt politicians into various ethnic groups, can achieve = Zero
Very well written article, Raza. I also fear that good politicians like Aitzaz and Imran might end up being the casualties. Personally, I think that what started as a true movement for justice, was hijacked every few months by a different group; we had Nawaz Sharif, who holds the distinction of sending party goons to attack Sajjad Ali Shah, then we had dubious “Islamic” parties doing their classical 180-degree turns joining the fold, and lately, we saw ex-generals who had enjoyed lucrative corporate positions courtesy of Musharraf but had somehow had a change of heart during the last few months.
I feel that Aitzaz should have kept a distance between his group and these other opportunists. The long march was also deprived of the essential fuel that had kept it alive during 2007: Musharraf’s utter stupidity. Probably the most important reason why the chief justice gained the sympathy of the masses is that the government’s draconian measures were broadcast live on television for the whole country to see. From the coverage of the long march, it seems, perhaps rather ironically, that if Musharraf had used his brain in 2007 (never mind his conscience) and simply allowed the lawyers to conduct peaceful protests, he could have nipped the movement in the bud.
For now at least, it seems that Zardari has outfoxed the Sharif brothers. I hope the judiciary will be restored soon; the bitter pill of the so-called “constitutional package” might even be acceptable as long as it is ensured that no such grabbing of power will be allowed in the future. I hope the restored judges will get to work right away and will focus on the critical corruption and other issues, rather than on settling scores with PCO judges and other politicians; this is the only way in which they can demonstrate to the common man, the importance of having an independent judiciary.
A deserved didley! That is what they achieved.
“This is cynical hypocrisy. History has still many questions for the JI: from the nefarious role in supporting army action against civilians in former East Pakistan …”
The military action in East Pakistan was first and foremost the responsibility of the Generals in power at the time. Unfortunately, in those days the party that played the major role in bringing about the destruction of Pakistan was Peoples Party under the leader ship of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto, who had won primarily from Sindh and Punjab, did not want to sit in opposition while Awami League and other parties from West Pakistan formed a ruling coalition. This support was important; it would have been considerably more difficult for the generals to justify their actions in East Pakistan to people in West Pakistan. Here is a quote from an article on “Chowk” website:
=================================
{
http://www.chowk.com/articles/8932
A few days after the elections, Gen. Yahya Khan along with some senior military generals huddled up with Bhutto in his hometown Larkana. Soon after those meetings, Bhutto took a belligerent stand against Mujib and eventually went on to tell National Assembly members to not to show up for the assembly meeting in Dacca or their legs would be broken. Then in a speech in Lahore, he came out with his famous declaration “Idhar hum, Udhar tum.” Within days, Gen. Yahya Khan postponed the assembly session in Dacca causing a violent reaction there. It became clear to all that Bengalis would have a huge struggle ahead of them to control their destiny.
Bhutto’s declaration of “Idhar hum, Udhar tum” was not some burst of emotions but a signal to the army that he would put his neck out for the army. It was also a signal to Mujib about what was to come next. Mujib got his cue and there never were any serious negotiations with the army. The Awami league leadership began to slip out to India and when finally the military action began, most of the Awami league leaders escaped arrest. Mujib was the only leader arrested by the army.
}
=================================
Some additional relevant quotations are:
================================
{
http://www.ghazali.net/book1/body_chapter_5.htm
There was not a single national party in the country which enjoyed the confidence of the people of Pakistan, both East and West Pakistan. Two regional parties — the Awami League under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)– won 160 out of 162 seats allotted for East Pakistan. But in West Pakistan it could not secure a single seat …
…….
The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) under the leadership of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto won 81 out of 138 seats for West Pakistan. But the PPP did not even dare to set up a candidate in East Pakistan. The remaining 57 seats of West Pakistan were shared by seven parties and there were fifteen independent candidates. The PPP emerged as the single largest party in West Pakistan with majorities in Sindh and the Punjab; and the National Awami Party together with their political ally, Jamiat-ul Ulema-i-Islam, JUI, (of Maulana Mufti Mahmood got clear majorities in Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province. None of the West Pakistani political parties, like the PPP, could win a single seat in East Pakistan. The religious question played little or no part in the elections. There can be no doubt that in East Pakistan the principles which won the consensus of opinion was the single basic notion of autonomy.
………
On the other hand, Bhutto was more interested in getting power, no matter whether in a united or divided Pakistan. In fact he realized that in a united Pakistan, he had little chance of becoming either prime minister or president. According to GW Choudhury, “he realized from his discussions with Bhutto before and after the 1970 elections that if he had to make a choice between the two ‘Ps (power or Pakistan), he would choose the former. He was more interested in getting a 21-gun salute as the head of the state than in the maintenance of the unity of Pakistan.” [5]
……..
On the other hand, Bhutto was more interested in getting power, no matter whether in a united or divided Pakistan. In fact he realized that in a united Pakistan, he had little chance of becoming either prime minister or president. According to GW Choudhury, “he realized from his discussions with Bhutto before and after the 1970 elections that if he had to make a choice between the two ‘Ps (power or Pakistan), he would choose the former. He was more interested in getting a 21-gun salute as the head of the state than in the maintenance of the unity of Pakistan.” [5]
……
On Bhutto’s role in the cessation of East Pakistan it is argued that as the National assembly was to sit at Dacca, Bhutto prevented members of the National Assembly from West Pakistan from going to Dacca, by threatening them that he would break the legs of those who went to Dacca. He also tore to pieces the Polish Resolution in the United Nations which had proposed that the two belligerent states should revert to their original positions before the war had begun. “You on that side and I on this side,” is another expression which Bhutto is alleged to have addressed to Mujib.[8]
}
========================================
The long march was an attempt to bully the Parliament and force decisions of one’s own liking from it. I am glad the long march ( or short drive) was a flop.
Pakistan does not need confrontation at this stage.