Daily Times

Last week witnessed two important political events at this critical juncture through which the country and democracy are passing. Both the events have their own importance for drawing basic inferences regarding the role and stance of major political actors. On December 2, 2017, Mian Nawaz Sharif, the ousted prime minister and president of Muslim League, together with Mahmood Khan Achakzai addressed a large public gathering in Quetta organised by the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) to commemorate the 44th death anniversary of freedom fighter and democrat Khan Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai, who was assassinated on December 2, 1973 in Quetta.

And on December 5, 2017, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) organised an impressive show in Islamabad to celebrate the golden jubilee of the party’s formation.

Both the events sent different signals at this historical phase which seemed to be a watershed for the democratic as well as anti-democratic forces.

In Quetta, Nawaz Sharif reiterated his determination to fight for representative democracy and civilian supremacy while taking along other democratic forces. He seemed undeterred by the mounting pressure from various directions involving different elements to tarnish his popularity and dent his constituency.

Perhaps, this time unlike the PPP, he learnt the lesson that political deals and compromises can be a catalyst to incumbency but without power and emancipated political environment. Another significant aspect of the Quetta event is Mahmood Khan Achakzai coming out of his previous shell by broadening and mainstreaming his political outlook and preparing to play a wider political role to fill the leadership vacuum created by the absence of some towering nationalist personalities like Wali Khan, Ghaus Bakhush Bezenjo, Khair Bakhush Marri and Atullah Mengal to represent the sub nationalist forces in the democratic struggle.

Achakzai hinted at the willingness of the role while sharing the same stage not only with PML-N but with the Baloch as well. He calibrated this assumption by unequivocally declaring that Baloch and Pakhtun in Balochistan had political differences but were willing to bridge and shun them for the sake of peace and democracy. He also referred obliquely to bringing the disgruntled Baloch to the negotiating table if a fair political and constitutional deal was guaranteed to them.

Ironically, the PPP’s sufferings have always matched its compromises for gaining power. Every incumbency weakened the party and sapped its popularity and credibility because it accepted conditional power from the deep state instead of the people

For anyone who knows about the politics of Balochistan it is not a small gesture in the face of two deep political fault lines running through the province; Pakhtun vs Baloch for identity and their share in resources; Baloch and Pakhtun vs federal government for autonomy.

In the 1960s, it was the democratic struggle that glued together the Balochi, Sindhi and Pakhtun nationalists, later joined by the PPP in the 1980s. But, perhaps, due to lack of pro democratic political leadership, Punjab was indifferent or standing on the other side.

Currently, it seems that the PML-N under Nawaz Sharif is replacing the PPP as anti establishment force. In addition, Nawaz’ plus point is his proven track record and ability to take the regional nationalists along with him. In this regard, the PPP’s image is more tarnished than Nawaz’ because the leadership of the small provinces got a rough deal from the PPP, particularly from ZA Bhutto’s heavy handedness against NAP’s leadership and later Benazir’s failure to continue alliance with the ANP beyond 6 months in 1990.

The last ANP and PPP coalition from 2008 to 2013 is the only exception that now seems more to do with the Zardari personal pragmatist politics than political integration or mainstreaming agenda.

The otherwise statistically impressive show of the PPP in Islamabad last week was marred by sending confusing signals exhibiting double faces and employing double speaks.

At the time PPP tried to speak to two different constituencies. Bilawal’s speech was tailored for the plebeian by employing the socialist and progressive rhetoric while Zardari’s speech was more a message to the powers to be. Apparently, he was transmitting the signals of willingness for a deal and compromise in return for share in the power. Zardari tried to translate this signal into action by meeting PAT’s chief, Tahirul Qadri on December 7, 2017.

However, no matter whatever Zardari insinuates through this diametrically opposing line from the PPP and Bilawal’s public stance, his meeting with Qadri equates him, thereby the PPP, with PAT and PTI. If it is the reality, it posits degeneration for the PPP. Zaradri cannot justify his hobnobbing with Qadri in the name of getting justice for the victims of Model Town while forgetting to get justice for the victims of Karsaz and BB.

Ironically, throughout history the PPP’s sufferings match its compromises for getting into the power corridors. Every incumbency weakened the PPP and sapped its popularity and credibility because of accepting conditional power from the deep state instead of the people. The PPP’s ideological rhetoric never matched its action, neither during its incumbency nor reflected by its organisational structure.

The party always tried to wrap its weakness in the victimhood narrative. Thus any question of failure and ideological erosion was answered through the sufferings mantra. Instead of making ZA Bhutto and later Benazir Bhutto a symbol of democratic struggle, PPP leadership turned them into bargaining chips for reaching hollow power. They claim for power as a reward for their sufferings.

PPP accepted the conditional power stunts in lieu of their sufferings without empowering the people as a basic source of power and changing the state paradigm. That makes one assume that it did not willingly make sacrifices for the larger cause of democracy. The PPP’s strategy of ‘entryism’ failed to create space for democracy and change the state paradigm during its five incumbencies. Similarly, Nawaz Sharif’s two heavy mandates could not turn the tides either.

However, the difference this time seems that Nawaz learnt a lesson to make the ballot paper a genuine source to power through resistance and political struggle. But Zardari, once again, opted for an easy way through political wheeling and dealing.

It will be a miracle if Zardari makes to bunker presidency as he did in 2008 or deflate pressure. At such a crucial time for democracy and civilian supremacy, his dithering will not bode well either for Bilawal or the future of PPP.

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

Published in Daily Times, December 10^th 2017.