JI/PTI: Will the fundamentals be compromised over tactical politics?

Recent wave of Arab spring and success of Justice and Development Party in Turkey have given many lessons to Islamic movements and political parties around the world.

These revolutions and political successes came as a result of patient and hard laboured struggles without compromising on fundamental issues.

Here in Pakistan, after wasting a decade in an un-wanted foreign war, there was a chance of smaller but ideologically focused parties to join hands against the so called war on terror.

The other fundamental issues which got spot light during that time were issues like independent judiciary,corruption, missing persons and breaking the status-quo in Pakistani politics.

Two political forces, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf led by Imran Khan and Jamat e Islami led by Munawwar Hassan, can be expected to bring people together on fundamental issues related to the survival of our country. On one hand eyebrows are being raised over the inclusion of former PML-Q members in PTI and their alleged soft corner for MQM which Imran Khan has rejected.

PTI’s poltical leadership has been denying the impression that they are forming any alliance with forces of status-quo, MQM with its politics of violence or any corrupt leadership. Their point of view on the inclusion of new leadership as expressed by Imran Khan recently is that these people are joining PTI after agreeing with PTI’s agenda and knowing that their assets and credibility will be scruitinized before giving them any party tickets.

Time will tell if PTI sticks to what it claims. Now in another turn of events Jamat e Islami is getting closer with PML-N, a force well-known for being an important part of status-quo along with two other pillars including PPP and establishment.

This development is interesting as according to the news reports, Farid Paracha of Jamat e Islami said,“All the PML-Q has been renamed as PTI. If we have to work with these corrupt people, there is no need to get closer to the PTI.”

This line of argument is interesting from Jamat e Islami’s senior leader. JI is criticizing PTI for including those who are joining the party after accepting PTI’s agenda on USA war on terror, corruption,judiciary etc. Also these people are joining PTI after knowing the fact that their assets and credibility will be scruitinized before giving them party tickets.

On the other hand JI prefers to be partners with a party which is itself an important part of status-quo and has a good history of corrupt power politics (JI’s past statements are also there on this). It was evident from the JI’s recent social media campaign that the people in JI who support PML-N and JUI-F are not happy with PTI’s growing popularity and a possible conflict of interest in the form of some common vote bank or supporter base especially anti-war on terror votebank.

If we talk about fundamentals, PML-N supported operations in Sawat and tribal areas, and played its double role in judiciary movement. Also the possibility of them having a clear stance on corruption is very limited, if we look at their past tenures in federal government.

But still they are eligible for being a partner in the eyes of JI’s senior leader despite former accusations by JI on PML-N for playing the role of a friendly opposition.

So far there are no clear statements on the recent developments between PTI and JI relationship by their top most leaderships. According to news reports, they are expected to meet soon to discuss recent developments in Pakistani politics and way forward with each other.

I hope they will keep fundamental issues like war on terror, corrution, indepndent judiciary, missing persons and independent foreign policy in mind before taking any major decision. This is a make or break time for Pakistani politics as new developments are taking place in neighbouring Afghanistan and a new wave of change in Pakistan is knocking our doors.

Will PTI and JI compromise their fundamental stances over some tactical politics? Their answer may determine the future course of our country and its politics.

Advertisements

Democratic Centralization vs Rule of Law based Decentralization

Our political dynamics are changing drastically with new players emerging and old players losing their positions. We are also seeing a power struggle between so called Rightists vs Leftists or Seculars vs Theocrats and somewhere there are parties which place themselves in-between. People are even talking about Judicial Martial Law.

But over all out look shows that the focus is on putting together a centralized system with some aspects of democracy. Our feudal culture, history of martial laws and domination of state institutions have restricted our minds to run things from centre with iron fist or authoritarian ways.

What is lacking in this approach is the realization of our diversity in the society. We are a country with diversified ethnic, sectarian and other social classes. Many of us cite China as an example and consider their Democratic Centralization as an ideal concept for Pakistan. We need to know that China has a dominant socialist ideology and their culture is pretty much same throughout China. They have a civilization which can be called as a Chinese Civilization. On the other hand Pakistan doesn’t have a single Pakistani Civilization. Pakistan is on the meeting point of several civilizations on both sides of Indus and which show different cultural and demographic colors if we move from Karachi to K2.

We cannot have a same system for Karachi and FATA or Islamabad and Dera Bugti. Attempts were made by Military dictators like Zia, Musharraf and Ayub who tried to implement their personal ideologies on the whole country and ending up creating a mess. Similarly civilian feudal-corporatists also tried to implement their vision on the whole country and again added to the mess. Even those who talk about liberalism have their own sectarian, ethnic and social class prejudices backing their ideals.

We need a decentralized system where federal government has minimum authority to run defense, dispute resolution and few other things. Even with them a concept of voluntary involvement and local considerations need to be taken into account. We need a system where decision making is brought to the local level which will also ensure merit among different localities selecting their leaders. It is unfair for those who don’t elect a corrupt government but they also have to face the bad consequences of its actions. To keep things in tact we can have a constitutional setup where rules of engagements should be mentioned between different constituents of the country. In short we need a “Rule of Law based Decentralization”.

This decentralization should be in Governance, Legislation and Economics. This is not something impractical; we can see some colors of it in countries like United States or Australia. Obviously for that we need to consider the ideology which dominated at the time of the creation of the country which is also reflected in the Objective Resolution. If we talk about Islam then “Meesaq e Madina” can show us how Muslims and Jews made an agreement by accepting each other as a reality. Even in a centralized country like China, they had to make adjustments in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Even Russia has different Republics with some autonomy. In Pakistan’s case Quaid e Azam made agreements with our tribes which resulted in the tribes becoming part of Pakistan. These agreements allowed the tribal people to maintain their autonomy and also accept few fundamental laws of Pakistan. We also need a loose central structure to avoid the class clashes.

At the moment power is concentrated to center and everyone wants to control it either through the power of masses or power of gun. We even cannot afford a democratic system where 90% decides to suppress the remaining 10%. It will create the sense of alienation and hopelessness in the parties not in power and so can result in an undesirable retaliation which can be damaging for all.

We need to come out of the copycat mentality and be genuine in our approach as our problems are genuine and bit different from where we are trying to import the solutions.Mutual existence can only prevail through mutual acceptance of each other as a reality.

Note : A bit edited version is also available on http://blogs.thenewstribe.com/blog/66276/decentralization-a-solution/