There are men who destroy everything for the sake of principles while others believe in right is might and power is the key mechanism. Those who prefer principles often choose to win over the hearts and those who prefer power rule over minds and the mighty have nothing but to use their might.
In Pakistan, the situation is not unique, but congruent with the mentioned maxim. Since its inceptions, Pakistani hearts and minds are ruled by leaders, political parties, feudal mafia and military juntas. All of them are in continuous struggle for wining this race of getting the command of the nation. They adopt three routes for reaching their destination. The men of principles, the route of moralism, power aspirants go through pragmatism while the mightiests have to check all with might.
During the course of events, only pragmatists had been successful in making alliances with either of the other two players. The main thing with pragmatists is that they apply, give and take policy either for personal gains or for conflict resolution but the moralists’ stick to their principles and the mightiest are, too adamant to be persuaded to leave coercive measures.
At the onset independence this divide was clear and a struggle for power might and principles started. Soon after the departure of Quaid-i-Azam, the politicians in power became pragmatists, the opposition moralists and consequently in 1956, the military mightiest.
The Convention Muslim League made alliances with the military junta of Ayub Khan against Fatima Jinnah and other opposition parties, who were ruthlessly suppressed. But the moralists were too firm on their stances that nothing could make them step down, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto through his pragmatic maneuverings, exploited the situation, bade farewell to his former alliances with military and went in confrontationist discourse.
He was successful in gaining and retaining for sometime, his power but when he came into clash with moralists, the Generals took their revenge and seized control of white and black in Pakistan. Same was the fate of General Ziaul Haq who ruled for almost a decade with the help of Muslim League of Junejo. But after the demise of his regime, the era of democracy started where PPP and PML (N) with Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI, were in their way to power through pragmatism. Jamaat-i-Islami and nationalist parties opted for moralism, whereas the then presidents from Ghulam Ishaq Khan to Leghari along with the army had the remaining choice of might. The historical and natural rift among the three opposing dialectics led to the dissolution of assemblies three times in 10 years.
The prevailing political scenario is nothing more or less than a repetition of the past. The Constitution has been held in abeyance, emergency imposed and PCO issued by the army chief who wants to undermine judiciary together with political parties and press and electronic media.
The elections have been scheduled and the political forces are gambling for their interests while the country is under the grip of abject poverty, high inflation and record unemployment.
According to a survey conducted by Asian Development Bank in Pakistan, unemployment has been high during the last two years as compared to the previous eight years. Poor health conditions, price hike and law and order situations are the worst of their kinds. Major powers and the neighbouring countries are creating internal as well as external security threats.
Whatever the situation may be the real problem lies with the public. What they need is not clear to the parties or they deliberately turn a blind eye to their needs and demands. Does comman man need emancipation from poverty, radicalism and extremism or political freedoms and justice with impartiality?
Is it Musharraf who creates problem or are they the political parties or the public? Where does the responsibility lie? Who created Taliban and for whom are we fighting war on terror, or as Ayaz Amir said, ‘someone else’s war’ internally as well as externally? These and many others are the questions which must be given due consideration by all political parties, the military, judiciary and the press and electronic media.
But unfortunately, the judiciary and press and electronic media have lost their former freedoms due to PCO and promulgation of emergency. The judges have been deposed, press censored and private TV news channels banned. Press and electronic media is to suffer for their coverage of events which the government wanted to keep secret while the judiciary for its dealing the cases of missing persons, humiliating the intelligence agencies and challenging the legitimacy of the military regime. However, Musharraf for soothing the public sentiments has shown good gestures by doffing off his uniform, announcing the lifting up of emergency and scheduling elections.
Elections, but free and fair as usual, have become the cry of the day. But the government has become untrustworthy in the eyes of the opposition for its reneging upon the promises in the past regarding uniform and other issues. The credibility of free and fair election is questioned by all the parties. To ensure it, they are pressurizing the government by chanting slogans of boycotting the polls. They fear a massive rigging in the upcoming voting. Although, there are differences of opinion regarding boycott, the political parties have a common consensus on the issue that independence of judiciary should be restored so that the possibility of rigging the elections may be removed.
The reason has been mentioned by Munir A. Malik in his article, “First things First” that judiciary controls the election process and that without independent judiciary it is impossible to hold free and fair elections.
However, the opposition has failed to achieve a common agenda. The ARD wants a programmatic approach for capturing power while the APDM has become the moralist while the MMA is swinging between pragmatists and moralists. It is clear from the statement of Qazi Hussain Ahmed that before going into elections, Fazlur Rehman has to quit MMA. Fazl, on the other hand, stresses on participating in the elections. Similar stances are found on the side of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif on one hand and Benazir Bhutto on the other. This shows that moralists as a whole have been hijacked by the JUI and PPP.
The PPP is engaged with the government, seeking concessions for Benazir Bhutto in exchange for supporting Musharraf in the post election era, and at the same time with the APDM to pressurize the government for more concessions and to persuade the opposition to take part in the electoral process in order to ensure its credibility of being free.
Not free and fair elections but power is the demand of Benazir Bhutto. She will cling to all those demands, to all those means which will ensure her the premiership in future. This was one of the reasons why she did not attend the All Parties Conference in London. It was her lust for power that led her to strike a deal with Musharraf regarding uniform and her corruption cases and power sharing in future. Again, what compels her to seek American help and reciprocally promising them of continuing the war on terror? Obviously, power. As a pragmatist, she has compromised the sovereignty of state, powers of the future prime minister and the cause of the lawyers’ movement for her personal stakes. It becomes paradoxical when Benazir Bhutto speaks for restoration of independence of judiciary instead of reinstatement of the deposed judges of pre-November three. She knows it well that if the judiciary comes to pre-November 3 status quo her corruption cases will be decided against her. Her dreams of becoming the future prime minister will be shattered. Now if Nawaz is looking for Benazir Bhutto’s support in boycotting the elections, he has to ensure her with succession to power. If she has no chances of forming the government in future, she will not agree to any charter of demands and deal and no deal will always be on the headlines of our newspapers.
As far as the future of MMA is concerned, it is doomed. Qazi Hussain Ahmad wants democracy, free media and free judiciary while his counterpart in the JUI, Maulana Fazlur Rehman knows nothing but chair either in the government or in the opposition. He is the power hungry pragmatist and this was the reason that made him support the 17th amendment, showing dual nature in resignation from the assemblies before presidential election of October and now in boycotting the elections.
Unfortunately, it is the public which is to suffer in this battle of principals, power and might. However, without the common man’s participation, the battle cannot be fought. The public is divided into three categories. One supports the men of principles; the other pragmatists and the rest are neutrals. The decision which will hand over the power to any of the parties will come from the neutrals. The neutrals must elect those who will work for the general welfare of the state and public good. They must sacrifice their neutrality for their own sake, for the national cause and for the sake of the country. Otherwise Dante says, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of crisis choose to maintain their neutrality.” Voltair says, “So long as people do not care to exercise the freedom, those who wish to tyrannize them will do so: for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious or otherwise, to put shackles on sleeping men”.
