Lack of an alternative — I
Two facts are that the military is not an alternative and political parties have not risen beyond patronage politics.
Wherever you go, you can hear the buzz about the need for a political alternative in Pakistan. The two facts of Pakistan’s politics are that though the military is not an alternative, political parties have not really risen beyond patronage politics. And that there is a shortage of a visionary leadership and a vision for the state and its society. Leave aside the claim regarding the main political parties constantly struggling to survive the sword of a possible military takeover; the reality is that most lack the ability to take the country anywhere.
Just to cite the example of Karachi which is in the middle of another cycle of bloodshed. As the fight goes on amongst different parties and stakeholders for the control of the only genuine cosmopolitan and commercial capital of the state, battle lines are drawn on ethnic lines. For an average Karachi dweller, it is disappointing to see that parties such as the ANP, MQM, PPP and PML-N have not really managed to cut across ethnic lines and connect different communities. While not all muhajirs are part of the MQM, the party is essentially all-muhajir. The same applies for the ANP and the PPP. As for the PML-N, the problem is that its leadership does not even bother to go and establish itself in Karachi. Perhaps the party wants to eventually outsource Karachi to its political allies, such as Pir Pagara and others.
This sorry state of affairs does not suggest that the military leadership has better vision. The GHQ continues to use the same old colonial tactics of divide and rule. The upshot is that there seems to be no political alternative on the horizon. The issue with Imran Khan is that, despite his commitment to getting rid of corruption, he has not real vision for Pakistan. The state of political homosexuality hurts him. He is neither a liberal nor a conservative.
So why are we in such a condition? It is probably due to the death of politics, which is about a higher art of negotiating power and resources on the basis of a vision. In so many years, we have been psyched to believe that politics is bad. It is not a game for nice people to play. Furthermore, we are told that politics is only a game to be played by the educated. Between the two military regimes – those of Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf – society was gradually de-politicised. Zia’s clamping down on students unions and trade unions deprived the country of two major nurseries for producing political workers and leaders.
The political system, which emerged from Zia’s martial law, was characterised by more personalised control. The PPP, which comprised several schools of thought including the liberal-left, the Islamic-left and the traditional status-quo, emerged as a party controlled centrally by Benazir Bhutto. The choice was between pragmatism and political idealism. Our obsession with pragmatism has helped party structures to survive without their real spirit. PPP’s ideological demise was hurtful for the country, as the party was really the first organised political movement of Pakistan and was connected with the people. The Muslim League belonged to another generation.
The lack of a political alternative is also due to the death of the Left as an ideology. The PPP itself was a product of the ideological richness that existed during the 1960s and resulted in what comrade Lal Khan has described in his book as the 1968-69 revolution. A combination of factors such as the close linkage of left ideology with the Soviet Union, the demise of the Soviet state and the ascendency of capitalism and neo-liberal ideology created conditions in which politics cannot stay alive. Many of my friends, who at one time belonged to the Left, almost believe that Left politics is just about opposing the US. The Taliban and other militants are an alternative which will one day kill the capitalist state. The problem is that the victory of the religious right and their partners will also doom the region, as then oppression will seem to have God’s sanction.
Sadly, we are in an ideological and intellectual muddle which will pull us down even further. The ideological right is also neo-liberal. Without conceptual clarity, we won’t produce alternatives.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2010.
Just to cite the example of Karachi which is in the middle of another cycle of bloodshed. As the fight goes on amongst different parties and stakeholders for the control of the only genuine cosmopolitan and commercial capital of the state, battle lines are drawn on ethnic lines. For an average Karachi dweller, it is disappointing to see that parties such as the ANP, MQM, PPP and PML-N have not really managed to cut across ethnic lines and connect different communities. While not all muhajirs are part of the MQM, the party is essentially all-muhajir. The same applies for the ANP and the PPP. As for the PML-N, the problem is that its leadership does not even bother to go and establish itself in Karachi. Perhaps the party wants to eventually outsource Karachi to its political allies, such as Pir Pagara and others.
This sorry state of affairs does not suggest that the military leadership has better vision. The GHQ continues to use the same old colonial tactics of divide and rule. The upshot is that there seems to be no political alternative on the horizon. The issue with Imran Khan is that, despite his commitment to getting rid of corruption, he has not real vision for Pakistan. The state of political homosexuality hurts him. He is neither a liberal nor a conservative.
So why are we in such a condition? It is probably due to the death of politics, which is about a higher art of negotiating power and resources on the basis of a vision. In so many years, we have been psyched to believe that politics is bad. It is not a game for nice people to play. Furthermore, we are told that politics is only a game to be played by the educated. Between the two military regimes – those of Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf – society was gradually de-politicised. Zia’s clamping down on students unions and trade unions deprived the country of two major nurseries for producing political workers and leaders.
The political system, which emerged from Zia’s martial law, was characterised by more personalised control. The PPP, which comprised several schools of thought including the liberal-left, the Islamic-left and the traditional status-quo, emerged as a party controlled centrally by Benazir Bhutto. The choice was between pragmatism and political idealism. Our obsession with pragmatism has helped party structures to survive without their real spirit. PPP’s ideological demise was hurtful for the country, as the party was really the first organised political movement of Pakistan and was connected with the people. The Muslim League belonged to another generation.
The lack of a political alternative is also due to the death of the Left as an ideology. The PPP itself was a product of the ideological richness that existed during the 1960s and resulted in what comrade Lal Khan has described in his book as the 1968-69 revolution. A combination of factors such as the close linkage of left ideology with the Soviet Union, the demise of the Soviet state and the ascendency of capitalism and neo-liberal ideology created conditions in which politics cannot stay alive. Many of my friends, who at one time belonged to the Left, almost believe that Left politics is just about opposing the US. The Taliban and other militants are an alternative which will one day kill the capitalist state. The problem is that the victory of the religious right and their partners will also doom the region, as then oppression will seem to have God’s sanction.
Sadly, we are in an ideological and intellectual muddle which will pull us down even further. The ideological right is also neo-liberal. Without conceptual clarity, we won’t produce alternatives.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2010.