Of hate and glory...Legal eye

Whether or not you plan to vote for Imran Khan’s party, if you wish for democracy to prosper in Pakistan, it is hard not to wish for the PTI to emerge as a viable political party. The political arena in Pakistan doesn’t provide a level-playing field. Many see Pakistan’s political landscape as a choice between evil and the lesser evil. The critique of continuity of political process as a solution to our national challenges is: what if continuity keeps throwing up the same tried, tested and failed representatives and further entrenches the status quo instead of providing for change? This is no trivial concern.
A key element essential to make procedural democracy a solution of sorts is internal party democracy. And this has been missing from all promises of reform by our mainstream political parties. There was no mention of internal party democracy in the Charter of Democracy signed between the PPP and the PML-N. And as part of the 18th Amendment both these parties came together to erase the requirement of mandatory party elections from the constitution. Political parties are the engines of democracy and their internal functioning provides a trailer of the nature of democracy they will afford citizens when in power.
It is not surprising then that a few players have traditionally monopolised Pakistan’s politics. The barriers for fresh entrants remain sky high. Imran Khan is gate-crashing this party by virtue of his celebrity, charisma and sheer perseverance. Pakistan now seems to be heading into elections with three mainstream parties. This is welcome news, as the more viable choices there are to choose from the better for democracy and the political process. Further, his is the first party to have had meaningful intra-party elections. The PTI cannot be praised enough for this feat amidst a political culture that provides no established route to upward mobility within parties.
Our political parties are largely hereditary and make no bones about it. The PPP has been handed down as an heirloom and is being managed by the legal guardian of the successors who have not yet come of age. The PML-N is not as brash about its top leadership being a family enterprise. But the fact remains that scions of our party leaders have a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement to inheriting the mantle of party leadership if they are politically inclined and second-tier leaders readily accept such familial ‘right’. The problem of top party position not being open to merit-based succession results in the art of sycophancy and not personal merit becoming the primary vehicle to climb up within party ranks.
In this regard the PTI has stood out so far. Imran Khan has announced that his kids will have nothing to do with his party. Internal party elections threatened to entrench divisions within the PTI very close to national elections and jeopardise its performance at the polls. But the PTI’s leadership did not falter. Can there be any justifiable basis to argue that while democracy is a good thing for the country, it is not essential for internal party governance? Those who present procedural democracy as a cure to our ills must not be selective in practising it.
Ayesha Jalal has convincingly argued that democracy remains frail and vulnerable in Pakistan because the style and scheme of governance under elected governments is autocratic and hardly distinguishable from that under dictatorships. If controlled democracy is bad for the country, it can’t be good for political parties either. Charity begins at home and full marks to the PTI for putting its money where its mouth is. The other major contribution of the PTI has been its role as an effective pressure group. It has successfully flagged issues and brought national attention to focus on them. Its presence in the political arena is undoubtedly forcing its potential competitors to embrace reform.
But does the PTI wish to be a vehicle for change and not just a pressure group? Why is the PTI bent upon making it impossible for proponents of change within Pakistan to support it? That nobody wishes to engage a hack to treat a life-threatening condition is a given. But how is a scrupulously honest and well-meaning doctor any good if he keeps getting the prognosis wrong? The PTI emerged on the national scene with a bang in 2012. By then it chose to consolidate its gains by inducting a menagerie of tainted ‘electables’. It is ok to make mistakes so long as you learn from them. So how does it build on its success after the March 23 jalsa? It goes ahead and announces seat adjustment with Jamaat-e-Islami!
Without procedural democracy there can be no substantive democracy. But mastering procedure means nothing if the substance that it brings along won’t uphold rights that form the heart and soul of democracy. We are living in an age where democracy has come to be affiliated with a minimum content: rule of law and guarantee of inalienable human rights including the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity. Thus majority rule must promise a core set of rights and values to each and every citizen if it wishes to qualify as democracy. Can the JI’s worldview and political programme create such democracy for Pakistanis of all faiths alike?
When we speak of meaningful change, we no longer have the luxury to bandy about platitudes and banal solutions. Here are some of the drawing-room solutions that are dangerously misconceived: all we need is one good leader to sort out our problems; there would be no terror only if America were to leave us alone; only if we could exploit our natural resources honestly we’d be an economic giant. Let us understand that corruption is a manifestation of our socio-political condition: our abominable political ethos rooted in the bigotry that cultivates and sustains regressive cultural values and traditions, and state and societal institutions that imbibe and strengthen such ethos and traditions.
Any vision for a progressive new Pakistan must recognise intolerance as our foremost ailment. And further that the brand of intolerance afflicting us is inspired by the idea that state has a right to enforce a view of religion on its citizens. Pakistan is struggling with multiple fault-lines, prominent amongst which is the progressive-extremist divide and the civil-military divide. The JI on both counts falls on the wrong side. As a historical matter it qualifies as a retrogressive pro-status quo force that has mixed faith with politics, confused morality and religion, muddled sin and crime and advocated a programme that undermines both procedural and substantive democracy.
It has pursued a politics of hate coupled with a false promise of glory built on concocted history. It has diverted attention from our urgent need for social reform and behavioral change by pointing fingers at ‘foreign powers’ and nurturing xenophobia rooted in a conspiratorial mindset. The JI’s politics has stood for everything that must be rejected in a rational and progressive society. This is no theoretical debate about whether liberalism is better than conservatism or whether Pakistan was conceived as a Muslim country or an Islamic state. This is about what kind of society we wish to raise our kids in.
When a patient is terminally ill and medical science has no remedy (or hope) to offer, it is understandable for the superstitious to rely on faith healers as last resort. But Pakistan isn’t terminally ill yet to turn to bearded and un-bearded faith-healers. We need sensible, pragmatic and bigotry-free politicos to begin implementing proven measures for progressive social, political and economic reform that focus on needs of citizen in this world and not the next. If the PTI’s leadership decides that its worldview, agenda for reform and political and social value-set is close enough to that of the JI to merit an electoral seat adjustment between the two, the PTI might not be the party of change many wish for it to be.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu