Daily Times

If the definition of political party is to provide a structure and platform to articulate, refine and present aspirations and demands of people in a systematic way in line with its predefined ideology and line of action, then of course, today Pakistan presents a bleak scenario. Most political parties are negating in the face of their originally or publicly laid down program and slogans. Many of them cannot even think or dare to realign to a specific, extant ideology for fear of completely collapsing in the face of rapid economically motivated global ideologies.

Today, Nawaz Sharif is posing to transform into anti-establishment through defiance of the praetorian nature of the state as the cause of political and economical stagnating decay for 70 years. Anybody possessing cursory knowledge of the political history of the state of Pakistan would disagree with him. Nawaz’s change of mind can be construed ambivalently to be borne out of the very praetorian system inducing him to play the anti-establishment card due to personal predicament. But one should not ignore the nature of human psyche and thinking process as well as political history.

There are similarities and contrast between Z A Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Both of them started their political career under the tutelage of military dictators. Bhutto did not create the atmosphere for democracy but the crumbling totalitarian environment turned him into a reluctant democrat, otherwise he would have supported Mujibur Rehman’s right to form the government in East Pakistan. During his government he laid down the underpinnings of the current security state paradigm that provided the required tentacles of a praetorian state, a stumbling block which democracy never surpassed. Nawaz is showing signs of regenerating from a reluctant democrat to a die-hard democrat. Bhutto alienated and further marginalised ethnic nationalists and regional parties but Nawaz tried and succeeded, to some extent, to mainstream them.

As a nation we do not have enough time to waste leg pulling and squabbling over political turf. Why should we not, therefore, give the benefit of the doubt to a seemingly chastised Nawaz Sharif who pledges to take the fight of democratic forces to its logical conclusion?

Bhutto had reduced his PPP to a cult entity creating a void by gradually eliminating the second tier. When Bhutto was finally arrested in murder case, there was no structure to mobilise the cadres and masses on the streets. That forced his party, or rather his family, to contest his case in the judiciary in an adverse circumstance instead in the streets.

Nawaz and his PMLN are also facing the same menace. Would the PML-N be able to mobilise the masses and his cadres in absence of Nawaz Sharif? For that Nawaz has to devolve powers to make the PML-N the centre of gravity with well organised structure, particularly at the grassroots level instead of centre-staging his family. It is hoped nomination of Mr Shahid Khaqan Abbasi is the first step towards this direction.

Since the 1990s, the PPP-led coalition government’s only glaring achievement was the 18th Amendment, a major blow to centralisation for greater provincial autonomy. But that owed primarily to the consensus created by the Charter of Democracy and cooperation of the PML-N. The PPP dropped whatever was opposed by the PML-N such as the amendments in Articles 62-63 and renamed the NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa without the prefix of Khyber.

It seems today the PPP is striving to emulate the PTI in many instances. Though, post 2011, the PTI looks like the reincarnation of pre 1999 Muslim League and post 9/11 JI, the PPP is also sending signals yet to take a complete radical stance of challenging the paradigm. Instead of reverting to the previous tactics of compromise and bargaining, it should opt to emancipate politics through the pledged Charter of Democracy.

In politics, everyone has a bag of history. If Bhutto and Nawaz were the creation of establishment, the left and nationalists also demanded their pound of flesh. From the PNA to hobnobbing with Musharraf, reposing faith in his sham ‘enlightened moderation’ the latter was overshadowed by the MMA leading to an increase in Talibanisation and militancy.

Instead of revealing unambiguous stance, the PPP was also initially waiting on the fence in the hope of a favourable deal. PkMAP Chairman Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Asma Jahangir are the only two individuals who did not deter nor compromise on their original anti dictatorial stance unlike others’ policy of ‘wait and see’ after the 1999 coup. The two condemned Musharraf’s Martial Law within hours of imposition without a second thought.

Therefore, we should not be caved by the baggage of history and learn to move ahead with a forward looking approach. As a nation we do not have enough time to waste in leg pulling and petty political turf squabbling. Why should we not give the benefit of doubt to a seemingly chastised Nawaz Sharif who pledges to take the fight of democratic forces to its logical conclusion?

Borrowing words from Mahmood Khan Achakzai’s speech at Oxford two years ago: “A democratic sovereign federal parliamentary welfare state respecting and accepting ethnic and religious minorities with equal cultural, political and economic rights can be a viable state.”

The current circumstances necessitate consensus among democratic forces more than ever as the 18th amendment or in other words the structure of the federal parliamentary system is in the eye of storm.

The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat

Published in Daily Times, August 18^th 2017.