London it was and London it is. The Charter of Democracy (CoD) was signed in this famous city of Europe and the budding romance between the aggrieved and the deceived is about to take place in the same city. Asif Zardari finds the cool and sunny summers of London irresistible; Shahbaz Sharif encouraged by the MQM’s quarterly exit from the government decide that a rendezvous in London was the tonic for his fading party popularity; Maulana Fazlur Rehman, never to miss a free lunch, rushes to the English town to join the merry go round. Away from the heat and humidity of the country this political pilgrimage to London is nothing but a story from history.
In the corporate world the leaders of the organisation go off on annual management retreats where on a scenic resort they ponder together on the vagaries of the uncertain environment and then envision the future. Such retreats are a proactive planning process where organisations develop strategic alternatives for dealing with the uncertainty of the future. In contrast, the political retreat of our politicians is a reactive approach to an environment becoming too hot to handle, both geographically and politically. The purpose of this retreat is not to do creative envisioning of the future in store but a re-creation of the past and repeat the same mistakes they made each time they got together in this marriage of convenience. London presents two types of “political asylums”, one long term and the other short term. The long term one is being utilised by the long distance leader of the MQM, Altaf Hussain, and the more recent one by Pervez Musharraf. These are fugitive leaders who for different reasons have decided to shun the legal and political music in the country and constantly proclaim desperate love for their homeland. The shorter ones are these meetings of the dissident political parties who believe distance will increase their fondness for each other.
The summer of 2011 is again brewing up for the partnership of people who apparently have not much in common but on deeper thought have much in common. All these parties have been ‘friendly opposition’, have left or threatened to leave the government and gone back to it, have a past full of moral holes and have a habit of changing their stances like a chameleon. With so much in common it is but inevitable that from time to time they are pulled together by their common vision of grabbing and perpetuating their power regardless of their performance and popularity. Each one has in their times of opposition, been generous about being obscenely profane and embarrassingly vulgar to each other. However, each one of them is also very insecure. The MQM knows that their repeated talk of being with the poor and yet courting the rich has made their party struggle with its attempt to go beyond a city or two. The JUI-F has always had just nuisance value and yet craved for a more formidable position. The PML-N has found itself become a permanent mouse in the cat and mouse game with the PPP. Individually, having run out of steam, these parties have no alternative but to go for togetherness, which may force the PPP to take them seriously or for the electoral to collectively bless them with a respectable election showing.
The competition between one alliance and the other is tough and heated. The PPP has cohabited with the PML-Q for reasons more than obvious. Both parties are contenders of the title of who will win the highest political bid for selling out their voting rights. The PPP wants their support to teach all their disobedient coalition partners a lesson and for the PML-Q it is another shot at government with the additional bonus of Moonis Elahi’s release from the NICL scandal. The fact that the government has been desperately trying to dislodge Zafar Qureshi, the Additional DG at FIA, from this investigation is a clear evidence of the corruption of intent behind this alliance. They are ready to take on the Supreme Court in a desperate attempt to abide by the barter deal negotiated by the PPP with the PML-Q.
All these alliances, no matter how disgusting they may seem, are always shrugged away as all being fair in politics and war. However, this is not always true. With a very active media and a very determined judiciary, things are not as smooth as they may seem to politicians lounging in plush residences on Mayfair lane and revelling in shopping sprees on Bond Street. The signs of a breakaway from the tradition are palpable. The Supreme Court has already replaced 35 million bogus voters’ list with a genuine list of voters. This may again be dismissed as not a big deal but is a clear step towards making the path to re-election of most of these parties a bit steep and uneven. The time for traditional politics is over and these parties must understand that the emergence of the non-traditional politician is on the rise. You just have to look at the public receptivity of Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Marvi Memon’s decision to take on their party decisions and resign and you sense that the emergence of principle-centred politics is not just a flash in the pan. Many may argue, especially those belonging to the alliances, that this is too inadequate an attempt to affect a political structure rooted in corruption and mass control. However, remember the changes happening all across the Middle East world. Most of them were triggered of by some minor act of bravery or defiance of individuals who were never even noticed by the ruling regime.
It is always the denial of the obvious that proves the nemesis of the mighty. It is always the pursuit of the impossible that inspires the not so mighty; and it is the combination of the two that sparks the process of challenge and change. The only durable alliances are those formed on the basis of the common purpose of not only the members of the group but the benefits to the masses they are leading. Alliances based on lofty self-serving goals are bound to crash as soon as one party sees a greener pasture on the other side of the ground.
The writer is a consultant and can be reached at [email protected]