Pakistan Opposition
Will Have to Change Its Self-Consuming Strategy
By
Imtiaz Alam
PAKISTAN PM Zafarullah Khan Jamali has shown his dissatisfaction
with the performance of the Parliament in the last one year while
blaming the opposition for maintaining an unruly impasse.
Given
its untested capacity to use extra-parliamentary tools to stir
street agitation, the opposition, on the other hand, wants to
retrieve the sovereignty of the Parliament by paralyzing its proceedings.
The irony of the situation is that both the treasury and the opposition
benches are eroding a platform that could have helped shift some
power to the civilian auxiliary. What is the dilemma of the treasury
and opposition benches?
The dilemma of Prime Minister Jamali is too obvious: If he takes
strength from the opposition, he risks his ‘job-by-proxy’-
maybe his own vote as well; and if he remains as a lame-duck,
as he should not like to be, to keep his boss happy, he remains
a chief executive not even worth its name.
On the other hand, the dilemma of opposition is even worse: If
it accepts the premise of Legal Framework Order (LFO), it compromises
its fundamental principled position on the supremacy of the Constitution
and the Parliament; and if it continues to keep the Parliament
in a state of perpetual paralysis, it unwittingly weakens the
legislature that can otherwise, to a degree, help assert the will
of the people.
Given
the hapless positions of both civilian sides, COAS-President General
Pervez Musharraf seems to be in a win-win situation of: Heads
you lose, tails I win. But that may not be the outcome, in the
end, as some pundits predict, and even if he remains unchallenged,
at least, for a couple of years.
So far both the sides have shown greater stamina for sticking
to their respective positions. In the absence of creativity and
flexibility, the tactics have also remained the same. While the
opposition continues to beat about the same bush and the prime
minister remains contended with the wages of a non-functional
office, the power remains where it was before the October elections.
LFO effectively remains the ‘supreme law’, without
the sanctification of the Parliament, and COAS-President presides
over a system that keeps the hold of GHQ while show-casing the
so-called representative system.
If the Parliament is not functioning- so what—whose loss
is this? Certainly, not of General Musharraf’s! A noisy
opposition is, after all, one of the signs of democracy, even
though short tempers of the powerful help betray the farce of
freedom by mismanaging the ignorable, as can be seen by Javed
Hashmi’s arrest on sedition charges. More than the opposition,
the ‘message’ has shown the limit and has worked against
the architects of ‘real democracy’.
In the given co-relationship of forces, General Musharraf has
no problem in living with a Parliament consummated by its own
noise that rubber-stamps the legislation by availing the opportunity
thankfully provided by the opposition’s boycott. No doubt
the opposition has made history by continuing with a year-long
boycott of an institution whose sovereignty it seeks.
More than creating a record for Guinness Book of World Records,
as sarcastically remarked by Information Minister Sheikh Rashid
Ahmed to scoff at the opposition, the protesters have in fact
exhausted the limits of using the platform of the assemblies while
showing their incapacity to mobilize the people outside the Parliament.
The
opposition, leaderless as it seems at the moment by virtue of
the cooption of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) and an acting-leadership-by-proxy,
will have to review its tactics to become more effective and strengthen
the Parliament.
As opposed to the opposition that has not still fully learnt its
lessons, an all-powerful establishment, not willing to transfer
power to even to the pseudo elected representatives, has in fact
‘perfected’ the art of dis-enfranchising the people
and in monopolizing power.
Improving
upon its authoritarian model, it has drawn some conclusions that
progressively narrow the room for the civilian actors to maneuver.
Learning from Ayub Khan’s difficulty with presidential election,
the mode of referendum to by-pass politicos has proved to be a
safe bet, even though it remains controversial. General Zia learnt
from him not to shed uniform and not to hold party-based free
elections—the folly Gen. Yahya Khan committed. Benefiting
from all the past experimentation, General Musharraf ‘improved’
upon the model by outlawing the main leadership to allow party-based
elections while calibrating a hung parliament and preempting the
re-emergence of a Junejo.
Unlike Zia, he also absolved himself from indemnification by making
his LFO a fait accompli. Although he has fine-tuned the model
with least recourse to repression, he still faces the dilemma
of seeking legalization and shedding uniform.
The institutional crisis that is being managed by keeping the
legislature and judiciary in a state of inertia is deepening internal
structural conflicts with serious repercussions. In legalistic
and procedural terms the prime minister has to be the chief executive,
but he remains non-functional causing paralysis of yet anther
institution—the executive branch.
The
parliamentary majority has been managed in such a way that the
prime minister doesn’t have any room to maneuver. Nor has
he any control over his own party. Consequently, he is left with
the ceremonial job of performing protocol duties. The failure
of the opposition in tilting the scales in the parliament lies
in the weakness of the treasury benches and defections and divisions
in its own ranks.
MMA
is now half an opposition and more of a party in power interested
in maintaining and increasing its share. On the other hand, the
loyalty of the treasury benches has so effectively been maintained
that there are still no signs of a rebellion among the back-benchers.
The real power-play in the Parliament was meticulously preempted
by not letting the two sides of the houses converge on what could
be in their best self-enlightened interest. The future of the
king’s parties is so bleak that no one finds the courage
to make a joint cause with the opposition.
The deadlock over the LFO has in fact preempted the typical dynamic
of power play from getting into motion. Had there been a compromise
on the LFO, the Parliament and the parliamentary forces would
have come into full gear. In the given alignment and balance of
forces, the opposition is bound to lose in a no-win situation.
By making a compromise, it could have won more space to fight
back at an opportune time. Even if General Musharraf is not ready
to accept a deadline for leaving his COAS office, the opposition
could have won more space for the Parliament to assert, especially
at a time when it was not in a position to force him to opt for
a civilian job.
Although General Musharraf holds all power and controls whatever
he wants to, the system he has brought has turned out to be a
non-starter. The addition he has done by bringing assemblies into
existence is just not working since they don’t have any
function except shifting the burden on those who do not have any
share in power.
The present crisis in political terms is the crisis of keeping
proxies- be they in government or in opposition. That is why the
political scene is so meaningless and lifeless that it will not
produce any change but status quo and this is what suits General
Musharraf most. However, the inherent conflict within the system,
paralysis of all civilian institutions and continuing political
uncertainty will, consequently, ripen the conditions for its downfall.
One year of this Parliament has shown its worth exactly as it
was designed. It is even worse than the 1985-88 party-less parliament
that in fact benefited from the pressure from outside (MRD’s)
to assert a measure of sovereignty. Despite the numerical strength
of the opposition in this Parliament, it remains an empty vessel
without a struggle outside.
The
defiance of one or two leaders won’t work, nor will thumping
of desks change the balance of forces. Proxies can’t beget
proxies.
And there are no real forces and a dynamic leadership who could
bell the cat. A compromise was a better option that could have
brought the dynamic of change into play and thrown up a new political
leadership.
But
emergence of a new leadership neither suits General Musharraf,
nor Ms Benazir Bhutto or Mian Nawaz Sharif. Hence, the mock show
of pygmies and proxies will continue for some time till history
refuses to be tamed by our good General and wait for the leaders
in self-exile.
Ultimately, this Parliament may become a handicap that will sooner
or later be saved from the pain of misconceived labor.
The writer is a seasoned journalist and an India-Pakistan
peace activist
