Hybrid movements, hybrid regimes

Unlike Algeria and Haiti, Pakistan and India were formed through peaceful and democratic struggle and violence was not part of the freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhi is praised for achieving independence by using non-violent means, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah is hailed for using negotiating skills and constitutional means. They set the course for future politicians and social movements in the two countries. However, both Pakistan and India failed to address the grievances of their deprived regions democratically, which resulted in violent uprisings from time to time. Yet, mainstream politics is largely believed to be democratic in both countries.

Consider the case of Pakistan, since 1965 the country has gone through nearly a dozen nation-wide political movements. Every movement was primarily secular in its rhetoric and had just one objective — to overthrow the incumbents.

The main purpose was to come to power for the sake of power. Repetition is the mother of learning but when the purpose is to satisfy greed, you cannot learn from any repetition. No wonder every civilian ruler successfully isolated himself within a couple of years of his rule. Although military dictators had all the resources as well as might to frustrate the resistance, they too became vulnerable. Consequently, unlike their counterparts in the Philippines, South Korea, Chile and Indonesia, our dictators quickly isolated themselves. The only difference between the civilian rulers and military dictators of Pakistan is that the deposed military generals could never stage a comeback, while civilians did so only to meet their earlier fate.

It is widely believed that the establishment has always played some role in the overthrow of civilian governments. One wonders whether the establishment also played any part in support of political movements. Circumstantial evidence shows that very often there had been a collaboration of sorts against sitting governments. Thus, every nationwide political movement was a hybrid movement. And each hybrid movement should have given birth to a hybrid government.

What differentiates the PTI’s ongoing movement from the previous ones is its solo flight. Almost all the previous political movements consisted of united fronts of almost all opposition parties, including non-parliamentary parties and those who didn’t even believe in elections. For instance, Awami Tehreek of Rasool Bux Palijo and Mazdoor Kisan Party of Major Ishaq, Afzal Bangash and Fatehyab Ali Khan and their followers actively participated against the regimes of Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. The trade unions and journalists’ associations also joined them. Their participation in the movements acted as the most effective catalyst in the overthrow of the three dictators.

PTI’s current solo ‘uprising’ appears to be organic, the most popular and widespread in the history of Pakistan. Though some opinion writers tend to compare it with Bhutto’s rise in the late 60s, PTI’s resistance is unique in many ways. For instance, Ayub Khan had exhausted himself and become isolated when Bhutto launched his party. Also, before Bhutto’s rise, nationalist and progressive parties, labour unions, students and journalists had already caused a dent in Ayub’s regime. In East Pakistan (Bangladesh) Mujeeb-ur-Rehman of the Awami League and Maulana Bhashani had also weakened Ayub’s regime. According to some estimates, about 15 million people had participated in the anti-Ayub movement. Army generals too wanted Ayub Khan to retire, which demonstrates that a tacit civil-military collaboration was in action.

In March 1977, the country experienced another uprising. A nine-party alliance called Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) managed to overthrow Bhutto from power with the help of military generals. It was not surprising to see PNA leaders later join Zia’s government. However, soon the same parties as well as the PPP, which they had overthrown a few years ago, formed the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) in 1983. The movement was brutally crushed but it forced General Zia to hold general elections. The movement also made him quite vulnerable before being killed in a plane crash in 1988. The question of who killed him remains unanswered.

Between 1988 and 1999, four governments were dismissed, and there were clear signs of opposition parties collaborating with the establishment. With a two-thirds majority in the new parliament, Nawaz Sharif sought to become Ameerul Momneen through a 15^th constitutional amendment which sailed through the National Assembly but was defeated in the Senate. Everybody who opposed the proposed amendment suffered harassment including NGOs, journalists and writers. This repression gelled everyone to a common goal. Most political leaders and civil society activists heaved a sigh of relief when the generals finally removed Sharif from power in 1999.

In March 2007, General Musharraf sacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Within a couple of days, civil society, journalists and lawyers occupied the constitutional avenue. I was one of the regular participants in protest demonstrations for the restoration of judges. There were no containers and no tear gas shelling. The movement spread all over the country and within a few months, the All Parties Democratic Movement was formed. Reportedly, General Kayani played an important role in its success.

In the current times, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) is alleged to have been supported by powerful institutions. Therefore, the current PTI uprising is against enormous odds and has no support from the establishment. Rather in Hamza Alvi’s words, the tainted regime has the support of the international bourgeoisie.

The PTI is single-handedly fighting a coalition government of 12 highly experienced and skilfully cunning political parties, partisan media, enraged bureaucracy, and biased Election Commission Pakistan. At this moment, PTI’s movement appears to be the only non-hybrid political movement in the history of Pakistan.

In my view, this is a blessing as well as a break from the past, if the PTI keeps away from the establishment. The party must end its isolation, which can be done by reaching out to the organic civil society such as labour unions and special interest associations. It must consider alliances with unions of factory workers, associations of sweepers, nurses, teachers, drivers, hawkers, peasants, barbers, small shopkeepers, minority groups and social networks.

Their support is necessary to equalise the influence of powerful wealthy groups of the party. They only have one interest — to promote group interests rather than loyalty to the party. Also, since 1988, leaders of main political parties instead of making alliances with marginalised groups created separate wings (such as labour, youth and women wings) which have destroyed the social movements and corrupted them. This eroded the social base of so-called mainstream parties which ultimately has not only deepened the political leaders’ dependency on the establishment but also destroyed the moral fabric of democratic governance in the country. No wonder today we have two Pakistan — one of the haves (1%) and the other of the have-nots (99%).

No political party including the PTI has have-nots on its central executive committee. In one of my recent articles, I argued that there is a close relationship between union density (percentage of working people having membership in unions) and the quality of democracy and governance. Almost all the Nordic countries are at the top of indices on quality of democracy and governance. Interestingly, they also have the highest union density (61% to 92%) in the world. Article 3 and 38 of Pakistan’s Constitution provide sufficient space to build a non-hybrid civilian-centred and civilian-led movement, which is the only guarantee for good governance in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21^st, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.