The political horizon has suddenly turned ominous. The Supreme Court has convicted the prime minister but the latter is ‘defiant’ with the support of the coalition partners. The ‘opposition’ (read PML-N) is threatening to march upon Islamabad in a bid to oust the ‘non-prime minister’. Using a more grizzly metaphor, the country is sliding into a murky pond, which is full of murderous crocodiles, with their jaws wide open, ready to gulp the prey.
But who are the prey? Are they rival politicians, embattled institutions, democracy or simply the laity, the most vulnerable, those who lose their rights and liberties and face economic hardship whenever the political system comes under a spell of turmoil? And who are the crocodiles? Are they anti-democratic forces, the inflationary and economic consequences of political instability, the centrifugal forces that are bound to gain space as the state’s central authority recedes, or the regional and global powers who, as our conspiracy theorists would love to refer to, want to ‘disintegrate’ the country for their regional and global designs?
These questions will be raised in the coming days and weeks, relegating the more urgent, rather existential ones related to the economy and the increasingly worsening law and order in the country, particularly in Sindh and Balochistan. But would these questions lead to some real solutions, a real change in the quality of the common man’s life, in the socio-cultural and political environment? Indeed, the dominant view is that the various political and institutional actors, true to their past conduct, would exploit the obtaining crises to their own personal/partisan/institutional advantage. Such nihilism takes further root when one looks at the past conduct of the ruling, business and social elites.
In the late 1960s, a dictator refused to read the writing on the wall until the entire country, including the fledgling working class and students, forced him out. The ruler was ‘changed’ but the political system and state policies were continued by the new military dictator. Ultimately, the state was dismembered after a disastrous and humiliating civil and international war. But we didn’t learn anything from it.
Resultantly, another political breakdown occurred in 1977 when an urban-based agitation was launched by a rightist alliance against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, accusing him of rigging the polls. Later, many opposition stalwarts admitted in their books that they continued the agitation despite fearing a military takeover. The agitation led to the execution of a popular political leader and ex-prime minister and the state slid into a long retrogressive, violent, divisive and regionally disastrous era that refuses to fade away. Society continues to live under the menacing shadows of that era that caused the development of sectarian violence, ethnic militias, state coercion, depoliticisation, suppression of workers, minorities’ oppression and so on.
From the mid-1980s through the 1990s, the country was in a quasi-democratic mould. A sort of electoral process picked up, the mainstream politicians tried to wriggle out of the powerful establishment’s shadow, efforts were made to mend fences with India, the economy underwent a steady process of decentralisation, privatisation and liberalisation, and no new war or regional conflict was entered into. But also, it was during this time crony capitalism took birth, public-run enterprises and banks were misused by the elites, and corruption and political bickering saw new heights. As a result, the common man saw no improvement in the quality of his life, whereas his counterparts in neighbouring India and China turned more sanguine.
But the Musharraf era, the so-called era of consumer-driven high growth, again pushed the country back into the vortex of conflicts — internal, regional and global. His power rested on three convenient planes: pandering to the business-landed interests, keeping the state-patronised non-state actors alive and active, and cooperating with the US-led NATO alliance in the war on terror. But he acted and yet did not act in the war and the country earned the infamous sobriquet of ‘double dealing’. He succeeded in his subterfuges as long as the Afghan war remained a ‘secondary affair’ for the Bush administration.
But the chickens came home to roost when the Obama administration entered the White House on the plank of winning the Afghan war, the ‘real war’. Since then, the US relations with Pakistan (to be more accurate, with the establishment) have seen a downward trend, boiling down to a one-liner: Pakistan must disown its non-state proxies operating in the region. As a result, Pakistan is no more able to support cross-border Kashmiri militants and is also struggling to save the ‘strategic links’ with the powerful Haqqanis, who are believed to have been behind the recent attacks in Kabul, and which is said to have again put the normalisation process on hold.
No doubt when this government took over, the economic and foreign policy-related issues were pretty grim. But it had a political atmosphere that was conducive to mend the torn state and social fabric. Civil society, the media and judiciary were on their side. The new politico-cultural milieu had turned open, leaving no space for secrecy. More importantly, the establishment was under public scrutiny as regards its strategic, operational or institutional matters. Generals were feeling the heat under their colour if something went amiss. At this opportune juncture, the new rulers, comprising the entire major political forces, could have demonstrated their capacity, commitment and vision by coming up with a long- and short-term policy framework. Then they should have stuck to it.
But this huge opportunity was lost. Politicians fell out. State organs battled. Business and landed interests paid no taxes and stonewalled reforms. The executive, at all levels, turned corrupt and inefficient. The newly resurgent judiciary virtually took over governance. And finally, the country lost its regional and global moorings by snapping ties with the US-led alliance of 49 countries, its primal source of aid and trade.
So it is the elites’ consistent refusal to mend their ways that has turned the country into a bloody pond of crocodiles and the common man, their prey. But the logic of history and Darwinism says the crocodiles are finally preyed on by the prey.
The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at [email protected]