Politics in the “Dead End” (Mazhar Abbas column Today)

Islamabad (Mazhar Abbas column Today – Jang Newspaper)

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s “Politics and Martyrdom” is the most important chapter in our political history. She also made historic resistance against martial law and then adopted the path of reconciliation.

She even made many unpopular decisions in some matters. But Benazir Bhutto fell victim to the narrow-minded politics that does not accept the rule of a woman in her heart.

Benazir started her politics in a meeting with her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a few hours before his execution in the “call cell” of Adiala Jail on April 3, 1979. Her politics ended with her own martyrdom on December 27, 2007.

The father brought politics out of the closed rooms and into the public and brought his daughter out of the “Dead End”. These two important characters of history were also removed from the path because neither popular leaders nor popular politics are tolerated in this country.

Whoever tried to bring politics out of the “dead end” was thwarted. That is why elections have never been free or fair in our country.

In such a situation, how successful any “political negotiations” can be gauged from the negotiation team formed by the current government and the opposition and the statements of some of their leaders.

It is also a tragedy of our history that whenever politicians start negotiations, some forces become active for their failure. These forces include the leaders of these parties themselves.

If we look at history, it would not be wrong to guess which forces were there in 1971 and 1977 that did not allow the negotiations to succeed. As a result, Pakistani politics could not come out of the “dead end”. The country even became divided or martial law was imposed.

Today, we are doing politics under a “hybrid model.” The government, which consists of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and its allies, has begun talks with the largest opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, not directly, but through Speaker National Assembly Ayaz Sadiq.

At present, we do not have any Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan or Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo. Still, it would have been much better if these talks had included Khawaja Saad Rafique, Qamar Zaman Kaira, Khursheed Shah from the government and Fazlur Rehman, Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Shah Mehmood Qureshi from the opposition, who could have been brought from jail.

There are some serious people in the current negotiating teams. But there are also those who might spoil things if progress is made. No need to name names.

Imagine the people who made up the negotiating teams on both sides in 1977. On one side were the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto himself and the then Law Minister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Maulana Kausar Niazi, while on the other side were political luminaries like Professor Ghafoor, Maulana Mufti Mahmood and Nawabzada Nasrullah.

The government team did not need to consult anyone, while the opposition’s problem was that the Pakistan National Alliance consisted of 9 parties. Despite all this, those negotiations began to succeed, and martial law was imposed in the country.

The excuse was that Bhutto Sahib suddenly went on a foreign tour. Although he had gone to take the old allies of the Arab world into confidence, who had conducted the behind-the-scenes talks.

Today, the situation is that a “B. Team” is conducting these negotiations. Otherwise, at present, the three central characters of our politics are Imran Khan, Mian Nawaz Sharif and President Asif Ali Zardari, and if I may add one more name, it is Maulana Fazlur Rehman.

The negotiations are to get out of a difficult situation as soon as they are held. If Imran and Nawaz Sharif put aside their “political egos” and try to bring the country out of a “hybrid system” and move towards a strong democratic system, perhaps things can become the basis for a new “Charter of Democracy”. But this does not seem possible in the current political tension.

So what can be the basis of the current talks? The ruling coalition, especially the PML-N, seems to be hiding behind May 9. While the PTI is demanding a judicial commission on May 9.

The government says that five law enforcement personnel were martyred as a result of the PTI protest on November 26. PTI claims that 12 of its workers were martyred and here too, they are demanding a judicial commission.

But the real focus of the talks is the February 8, 2024 elections and whether or not to recognize the “mandate”. PTI claims that its mandate has been “stolen” and should be given back to it. That is, the current government has no legal justification. While the PML-N claims that if the talk is to start with the mandate, then it has to start from 2018. That is, both believe that their elections were stolen in their own time. However, the issue of “who did it” is discussed in hushed tones or off the record.

When the talks began in 1977, the strike and protest were stopped. Here too, the PTI should stop the call for “civil disobedience” which would be an extreme measure.

Because they themselves know how much they themselves suffered from the “final call” of November 24. On the other hand, the ruling coalition will also have to show a political attitude. This can start with the release of political activists who are not facing serious charges. I had written earlier that Dr. Yasmin Rashid is suffering from cancer and is at that stage of life where her release will only bring good name to the government and the state. Whereas, God forbid, in the event of any bad news, the government will never be able to erase this stain.

Politics is a game of possibilities. Revolution and emotions are also visible in the politics of Ms. Benazir. From 1979 to 1986, from Sukkur Jail to Karachi Central Jail, from training workers in wall chalking and pamphlet writing to defending left-wing politics before a military court in the Jam Saqi case, they also endured lathicharge and tear gas.

The second period, from 1988 to 2006, mandates were repeatedly stolen. Then they talked to those who stole them and those who had them stolen. After the martyrdom of the lady, politics has once again gone into a “dead end” and now it is becoming more difficult to bring it out because both parties have lost their respective political space and have accepted a “hybrid system”.

Will the enlightened and democratic thinkers of the country be able to bring back the credibility of politics? This will have to start with the two major parties “closing the gap” in their respective parties. Even if the talks do not go much further initially.

The only thing left to talk about is the third force’s entry into politics, and its policies in forming governments, forming and breaking up parties have only made national unity more difficult.