By Imtiaz Alam
Dozens of smaller parties in the All Parties' Democratic Movement (APDM) -- which have been more enthusiastic about boycotting elections since they have nothing to lose -- have been isolated after former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N decided to participate and not to let the electoral field open to their rival league of defectors (PML-Q). The APDM, despite reaching an agreement over a 14-point charter of demands, met its demise over the boycott issue, opening up the new alignment of forces. It is yet to be seen whether, after the division in the APDM, the MMA will keep its unity or not, depending upon Jamaat-e-Islami which may not opt for losing its share of seats in NWFP to Fazlur Rehman's JUI. The best bet for the democratic opposition parties is a closer alliance between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. How are the major political actors going to play out this round?
The APDM met its anti-climax, just five days away from the finalization of candidates for the next elections, before launching any movement. It was formed for tactical reasons causing a breach between the two former prime ministers and the leaders of the two major parties and broke for tactical considerations, this time for more vital practical reasons. The compulsions and imperatives of truly mass parties are different from the smaller parties who on their own cannot win a dozen odd seats and have nothing to share positively, except negatives. If Mr Sharif could not carry the hodgepodge of the APDM as one of the major players, Maulana Fazlur Rehman could not sacrifice his pragmatic realism at the altar of Qazi Hussain Ahmed's egocentric isolationism. What is, however, good about the whole exercise of building consensus is that the broader spectrum of the opposition parties now agree on 13 points plus one with different approaches towards the reinstatement of the pre-PCO-II judges, albeit their agreement over independence of the judiciary.
On the issue of the pre-PCO-II judges, the PPP differed over the practicability of their reinstatement after their removal has been 'adjudicated' by the PCO-II apex court that has also upheld the November 3 proclamations of the PCO and the emergency. The only forum left for their restoration is next parliament on whose boycott the APDM was quite naively insisting. The fate of November 3 PCO, including those judges not called for or excluded from oath under the PCO-II, is going to be decided by next parliament. This is what Ms Bhutto argued. The PPP took a more principled and structural stance to establish an independent judiciary through a bipartisan process while pointing out the pointlessness of demanding their restoration from President Musharraf, under the PCO or otherwise.
It is quite intriguing that the APDM, instead of forcing President Musharraf to resign, wanted him to restore the judges who could have performed the job of ousting him. On the contrary, this is the job of political parties to overthrow one government or the other through democratic means and not the least of judiciary. Both the judiciary and the media had to pay heavily for the lack of potent political activism on the part of political parties. Judicial activism is good for the hapless citizens and rule of law, but it is no substitute to political activism. For long seven years, the PCO-I judiciary remained subservient to the man it had taken oath of its allegiance. It was only after Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended and the great movement for independence of the judiciary launched by the lawyers' community that a section of the judiciary woke up to the call of its duty. No doubt, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry wrote a glorious chapter by his defiance of a ruthless executive, independence of the judiciary cannot be established without a broad bipartisan consensus and sound constitutional footing.
The mainstream political forces, despite having the disadvantage of a PCO-II judiciary, could not afford to make their participation in elections conditional upon the restoration of the judges removed under the PCO-II. Mixing their restoration with the participation in or boycott of the elections was entirely misplaced. It took away the focus from the too crucial issue of holding free and fair elections on which depended the fate of the future political setup and the revival of democracy along with an independent judiciary and a free media. Among all politicians, Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman remained consistent in keeping firm in their resolve to fight the establishment-backed parties in the elections. They did not want to miss the great opportunity of reaching out to people, mobilize them and won the electoral battle, despite all odds. Now, Mr Sharif after getting the taste of public support has opted for the most appropriate tactic of participating in the elections which brings him closer to Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman. In the meanwhile, let all parties of the ARD, the APDM and the MMA agree on a 14-point agenda without dividing the opposition on the issue of boycotting the elections.
Most importantly, the restoration of democracy, independence of the judiciary and a free media depend on how Ms Bhutto, Mr Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the ANP and Baloch nationalists play their cards. They must agree to work together not just before the elections, but also after the elections. The bars, civil society and the media should avoid flying their lofty banners of liberal values against the democratic opposition. Their spirit and principle is same, fields are different. Civil society must remain vigilant, but must not extend beyond its role and size. The letter written by the leader of the lawyers' community, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, provides a creative way out of the burgeoning conflict between civil society and political parties. In the event of disagreement over the boycott issue, he has suggested that bars must run a campaign for public oath by the candidates to legislate for the restoration of independence of the judiciary and independent deposed judges.
The boycotters must realize that they are playing into the hands of undemocratic forces by leaving the filed open to the king's parties. Since they are least prepared for an effective boycott, they must stop substituting real action of participating in elections with demagogy. Civil society must not fall into their trap and avoid jumping over the shoulders of politicians. It must concentrate its energies on helping to bring in the best lot to new parliament. This is time to unify on principles and not to get divided over tactical issues. Above all, this is time to go to the people and not let their mandate once again hijacked by the usurpers of peoples' rights and the boycotters must avoid extending a helping hand to those who want to hoodwink peoples' sovereignty. Let the people decide.
The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal. Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com
Dozens of smaller parties in the All Parties' Democratic Movement (APDM) -- which have been more enthusiastic about boycotting elections since they have nothing to lose -- have been isolated after former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N decided to participate and not to let the electoral field open to their rival league of defectors (PML-Q). The APDM, despite reaching an agreement over a 14-point charter of demands, met its demise over the boycott issue, opening up the new alignment of forces. It is yet to be seen whether, after the division in the APDM, the MMA will keep its unity or not, depending upon Jamaat-e-Islami which may not opt for losing its share of seats in NWFP to Fazlur Rehman's JUI. The best bet for the democratic opposition parties is a closer alliance between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. How are the major political actors going to play out this round?
The APDM met its anti-climax, just five days away from the finalization of candidates for the next elections, before launching any movement. It was formed for tactical reasons causing a breach between the two former prime ministers and the leaders of the two major parties and broke for tactical considerations, this time for more vital practical reasons. The compulsions and imperatives of truly mass parties are different from the smaller parties who on their own cannot win a dozen odd seats and have nothing to share positively, except negatives. If Mr Sharif could not carry the hodgepodge of the APDM as one of the major players, Maulana Fazlur Rehman could not sacrifice his pragmatic realism at the altar of Qazi Hussain Ahmed's egocentric isolationism. What is, however, good about the whole exercise of building consensus is that the broader spectrum of the opposition parties now agree on 13 points plus one with different approaches towards the reinstatement of the pre-PCO-II judges, albeit their agreement over independence of the judiciary.
On the issue of the pre-PCO-II judges, the PPP differed over the practicability of their reinstatement after their removal has been 'adjudicated' by the PCO-II apex court that has also upheld the November 3 proclamations of the PCO and the emergency. The only forum left for their restoration is next parliament on whose boycott the APDM was quite naively insisting. The fate of November 3 PCO, including those judges not called for or excluded from oath under the PCO-II, is going to be decided by next parliament. This is what Ms Bhutto argued. The PPP took a more principled and structural stance to establish an independent judiciary through a bipartisan process while pointing out the pointlessness of demanding their restoration from President Musharraf, under the PCO or otherwise.
It is quite intriguing that the APDM, instead of forcing President Musharraf to resign, wanted him to restore the judges who could have performed the job of ousting him. On the contrary, this is the job of political parties to overthrow one government or the other through democratic means and not the least of judiciary. Both the judiciary and the media had to pay heavily for the lack of potent political activism on the part of political parties. Judicial activism is good for the hapless citizens and rule of law, but it is no substitute to political activism. For long seven years, the PCO-I judiciary remained subservient to the man it had taken oath of its allegiance. It was only after Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended and the great movement for independence of the judiciary launched by the lawyers' community that a section of the judiciary woke up to the call of its duty. No doubt, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry wrote a glorious chapter by his defiance of a ruthless executive, independence of the judiciary cannot be established without a broad bipartisan consensus and sound constitutional footing.
The mainstream political forces, despite having the disadvantage of a PCO-II judiciary, could not afford to make their participation in elections conditional upon the restoration of the judges removed under the PCO-II. Mixing their restoration with the participation in or boycott of the elections was entirely misplaced. It took away the focus from the too crucial issue of holding free and fair elections on which depended the fate of the future political setup and the revival of democracy along with an independent judiciary and a free media. Among all politicians, Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman remained consistent in keeping firm in their resolve to fight the establishment-backed parties in the elections. They did not want to miss the great opportunity of reaching out to people, mobilize them and won the electoral battle, despite all odds. Now, Mr Sharif after getting the taste of public support has opted for the most appropriate tactic of participating in the elections which brings him closer to Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman. In the meanwhile, let all parties of the ARD, the APDM and the MMA agree on a 14-point agenda without dividing the opposition on the issue of boycotting the elections.
Most importantly, the restoration of democracy, independence of the judiciary and a free media depend on how Ms Bhutto, Mr Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the ANP and Baloch nationalists play their cards. They must agree to work together not just before the elections, but also after the elections. The bars, civil society and the media should avoid flying their lofty banners of liberal values against the democratic opposition. Their spirit and principle is same, fields are different. Civil society must remain vigilant, but must not extend beyond its role and size. The letter written by the leader of the lawyers' community, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, provides a creative way out of the burgeoning conflict between civil society and political parties. In the event of disagreement over the boycott issue, he has suggested that bars must run a campaign for public oath by the candidates to legislate for the restoration of independence of the judiciary and independent deposed judges.
The boycotters must realize that they are playing into the hands of undemocratic forces by leaving the filed open to the king's parties. Since they are least prepared for an effective boycott, they must stop substituting real action of participating in elections with demagogy. Civil society must not fall into their trap and avoid jumping over the shoulders of politicians. It must concentrate its energies on helping to bring in the best lot to new parliament. This is time to unify on principles and not to get divided over tactical issues. Above all, this is time to go to the people and not let their mandate once again hijacked by the usurpers of peoples' rights and the boycotters must avoid extending a helping hand to those who want to hoodwink peoples' sovereignty. Let the people decide.
The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal. Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment