Share this story!            

Editorial: APC’s anti-climactic ‘roadmap’

Unfortunately, the all-parties opposition conference in London has not delivered on the money spent on it by Pakistan’s politicians. The “joint declaration” issued on Sunday had to be longwinded on the statement of already known political “emotion” of the opposition politicians because it could not produce a terse “action plan” on how to get President General Pervez Musharraf out of the driving seat in Pakistan and start the democratic system again.

The APC declaration repeats the contents of the ARD Charter of Democracy with condemnatory frills attached to make up for the lack of a consensual chronology of joint “action”. After the acceptance of the Charter of Democracy by the opposition parties, it was anticipated that the anti-Musharraf emotion would be translated into a movement with clear “milestones” pointing to the ouster of the declared enemy. But the idea of the movement itself was left vague to allow for a variety of interpretations by the participating leaders.

The one “either-or” challenge thrown by the host Mr Nawaz Sharif — either resign or become an electoral alliance — was pushed off the table in short order. Predictably, the PPP and the JUI refused to be drawn into a precise phrasing of “the time to act”, forcing a formulation that leaves the decision and timing to each party as it thinks fit. On the return of the 1973 Constitution to its 1999 shape — without the 17th Amendment — the PPP presented an aggressive stance although its leader Makhdoom Amin Fahim was wrong in sticking out his hand enthusiastically in approbation when Mr Sharif presented the proposition at the outset. Seeing that their leader had swallowed the bait, the other PPP participants spoke up and gutted the proposed clause.

Why did Mr Fahim act like that when it was posited that the Constitution will go back to its 8th Amendment shape — separate electorates and no reservations for women and minorities? One can only put it to lack of mental vigilance and too much focus on appearance of solidarity within the APC. Later, of course, he made his party’s position clear and consequently the formulation in the Declaration ran like this: “Struggle for the restoration of the 1973 Constitution as on October 1999 will continue within and outside the Parliament”. If there was any suggestion of collective commitment, the PPP removed it in the post-session comments made by its leaders.

Were the “radicalisers” upset over the return to separate electorates? The Tehreek Insaf’s Mr Imran Khan, whose party manifesto seeks the establishment of joint electorates, remained unfazed. In fact he was so upset by the general tameness of the Declaration that he came away saying that the APC was a waste of time. Others like ANP’s Asfandyar Wali and PKMAP’s Mahmud Khan Achakzai were more interested in inserting the “biting” clauses than in quarrelling over what the opposition would do to the Constitution. The clauses on Balochistan and the NWFP seem to have satisfied them.

The Declaration’s appeal for a review of the provincial autonomy clauses of the 1973 Constitution actually marks no advance on the Senate Report under the PML government which will shortly contribute to the discussion on the subject in the National Assembly. On Balochistan, while it reflected the general feeling in Pakistan against the “operation” that killed Nawab Akbar Bugti, the concession made on the question of “levies” might trouble the future rulers of Pakistan: it bans the setting up of cantonments and favours the ouster of the frontier corps and the police from the province. It ignored the nature of the “levies” drawn on the basis of a “parchi system” commanded by the feudal class. This was already agreed by the PML government in its Senate Committee report in 2005 and therefore was nothing new.

The proposed clause on Waziristan contained condemnation of both the Musharraf government and the “foreigners responsible for killing the tribal elders” but was taken out when the JUI’s Maulana Fazlur Rehman insisted that it either be removed or a new formulation in the clause on Balochistan include condemnation of the damage to life and property caused by the insurgents in the province. This also laid bare the contradiction between the JUI and the parties representing Baloch nationalism. One Ahle Hadith cleric whose party is a member of the ARD attacked the JUI saying that the “MMA was included in the killers of Nawab Akbar Bugti”, revealing the serious clerical cleavage that exists despite the grand religious alliance.

While the APC resolved “to write a joint memorandum to the government of UK for initiating necessary legal proceedings against Altaf Hussain for his alleged role in incidents of terrorism in Pakistan”, it kept quiet on the question of Salman Rushdie’s knighthood. It similarly avoided ruffling American feathers by putting into the Declaration what its leaders keep saying all the time in Pakistan. The clergy raised no objection to this omission because of the “visa problem” they might face when going abroad to save their flocks from Western decadence.

The APC was scuttled by two parties whose interests clashed with the other participants. Both parties — the PPP and the JUI — command vote-banks not enjoyed by others, one in the opposition with prospects of winning the next general election and the other with incumbency in two provinces and prospects of returning handsomely on the basis of political control. But the two clashed at the APC because of their diametrically opposed visions of the future of the country. This was highlighted when the PPP leader Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Maulana Fazlur Rehman clashed over who was more opposed to the Musharraf regime.

The APC produced no “roadmap” for the movement to remove President Musharraf simply because it kept the most crucial parts of the action “optional”. The parties that did not agree to “resignations” and the 8th Amendment Constitution came away satisfied that they had given away nothing and will be able to choose their line of action separately in the light of their party interest.

Thus the APC was finally more an emotional experience than a political one. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!