On the face of it, the opposition’s apology for boycotting the polls sounds reasonable. There is no way, it says, the regime would hold ‘free and fair elections’. Apart from what is likely to happen on the polling day, the opposition insists, the ‘rigging of the election process’ has already begun. The proclamation of the PCO was a crude attempt to ensure that Musharraf was re-elected president for the second term at the cost of deposing as many as 50 judges of the higher judiciary. A compliant Supreme Court, as it stands today after only four of the 17 judges condescended to fall in line, is not capable of functioning as the ‘guardian of the Constitution’, nor in a position to enforce rule of law. And under the circumstances there is nothing to stop the regime from arbitrary functioning or manipulating the polls process to secure its ‘desired results’. The ‘boycott option’ is a compulsion of circumstances now prevailing in the country, appears to be a logical stance if seen in isolation from the ‘holistic’ picture of the political scenario.
If a boycott would disrupt the polls, or induce a preponderant majority of the electorate to abstain from voting, it could be accepted as a viable alternative to the regimes applecart. But if the ‘boycotters’ fail to stage a worthwhile ‘parallel show’, as the polls process goes on with a measure of popular participation, it would deemed to have been a counterproductive political strategy. If the people are sick and tired of living under the bondage of a dictatorial regime, as opposition claims, and are waiting for someone to pull them out of the quagmire of ‘misrule and injustice’, they should welcome the opportunity if the opposition gives a call for the boycott of polls designed to perpetuate the unlawful political order. Thus the popular response to the boycott call is the key variable, no matter how lofty are the ideals for which the opposition says, it wants to stay away from the polls.
The opposition has a formidable charge sheet against the Musharraf regime. It is a despotic power arrangement sustained for more than eight years through ‘coercion and manipulation’, as fundamental rights of the people and civil liberties have been wilfully violated. While the civil society has been held in bondage, nothing has been done to improve the lot of common people who have yet to experience a change in their quality of life. Notwithstanding, fraudulent claims of progress and prosperity, the opposition insists, the have-nots are ‘poorer, and more exploited’ today than they were ever before. While it has become far more difficult for them to make both ends meet as jobs are scarce to get and prices have skyrocketed, what has added insult to their injury is the environment of fear and insecurity in which they are living. The conditions of peace and security are so hopeless that the people have lost faith in the ability of the so-called ‘protectors’ to save them from a kidnapper, dacoit, or a ‘suicide bomber’.
If the living conditions of the populace are so hopelessly poor, as the opposition says, the great majority of the people must have suffered the pinch of the raw deal given to them. Then why don’t the people rise against the ‘unjust and oppressive’ regime is the key question. The opposition leaders have been, ever since Musharraf seized power in October 1999 predicting that the people would soon rise in revolt and overthrow the dictatorial regime. Needless to say that has not happened and nor is there any indication that this may happen in near future. Under the circumstances, one is led to believe that the political leaders of the country who are known to have a substantial mass following do not either have the political will or the capability to muster street power. According to critics the people are prepared to vote for them but not follow their calls for agitation, since there appears to be a ‘credibility gap’ between them.
To fight for the rule of law, the opposition says, is a cardinal principle of its democratic struggle and insists that it is a problem, which concerns everybody from plebeians to patricians. The lawyers were indeed the frontline agitators against the regimes manoeuvres to clip the wings of higher judiciary and have been battling with the law enforcement agencies to underscore their protest against undermining of the rule of law. A Gallup poll conducted by a NGO suggested that the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had more votes than President Musharraf as their choice for a national leader. Nonetheless, the subversion of the judicial system, in particular the en mass sacking of the judges, failed to arouse the wrath of the masses to the degree that they would come out in the streets to express solidarity with the upholders of rule of law. Perhaps the country’s highly agitated intellectual elite is trying to communicate with the masses on a wavelength, which does not cut ice with them. Small wonder, Benazir Bhutto is not prepared to raise the question of ‘deposed judges’ as a pre-condition for participation in the polls.
Popular indignation against an unjust regime can be expressed in many ways. It is not necessary that the people have to come out on the streets to agitate for change of government. There were at least two notable instances in history when the so-called ‘silent majority’ stunned the establishment with a voted of dissent. In the 1954 elections in East Pakistan, a united front of the opposition parties swept the polls, marginalising the ruling Muslim League (winning only ten of 310 seats) amidst the usual charges of ‘rigging’ the electoral process by the establishment. And critics acknowledged that in the wake of a popular wave ‘rigging’ becomes irrelevant. In the 1970 election Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s triumph was a humiliating defeat for the well-entrenched ruling elite in West Pakistan, which brought home the message that the electorate in Pakistan were quite capable of bringing about a ‘silent revolution’.
To opt for boycotting the polls is a vote of no confidence in their own ability to rally round support in an electoral battle, no matter how a partisan establishment is seen as poised for rigging the polls. Rigging can make a difference in the outcome of elections if there is only a marginal difference in the strength of the competing parties. But, if the regime is as hopelessly isolated, as the opposition says, the King’s party would pose no challenge to opposition parties vowing to restore democracy and rule of law. But, if the opposition parties can neither muster enough street power to topple the regime, nor have the assurance that they can upset the regimes apple cart by winning the election, there must be something basically wrong with their style of functioning. It goes without saying that the people are not willing to accept their version of what has gone wrong in the country in the past eight years and welcome their call for a ‘do, or die’ encounter with the regime.
The opposition in Pakistan is not only a house divided against itself, but also seen as crowd of unscrupulous power seekers who did not deliver when it was their turn to run the country. If the people are not receptive to their calls for agitation and boycott, their lack of trust in the ability of the opposition parties to offer a better alternative is rooted in their grossly disappointing track record. Why should people stick their neck out for a cause, which does not promise a better future is the moral of the story? The people can be aroused for political action only if they have faith in an alternative leadership to set things right. Unfortunately, there is no man like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on the scene of action who could capture popular imagination to lead a mass movement.
