Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: Fazlur Rehman’s deft political moves

Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Leader of the Opposition and chief of the biggest component of Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, is a suave politician, much more so than other opposition leaders — for instance the PPP leadership — and definitely a cut above the Jama’at-e Islami amir, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who has emerged as the real hard-liner in the MMA. Consider Mr Rehman’s press conference on June 19.

Mr Rehman told the press that the slain Deobandi cleric from Banuri Town mosque, Mufti Shamzai, was killed because he had agreed to mediate between the government and the renegade Wazir tribesmen led by Nek Mohammad. Mr Rehman’s argument becomes clear from what he had to say about the Wana operation in general. According to him, the Americans scuttled the deal between Islamabad and the tribesmen. Read in conjunction, this implies that the Americans first bumped off Shamzai and then took out Nek. This is in line with the rightwing thesis on not just acts of terrorism but also sectarian violence. At the extreme end of this reasoning lies the argument that Osama bin Laden is a mythical figure and the September 11 attacks were the doing of the Israeli Mossad. Is Mr Rehman then a chip of the old fundo block or is he different from others, including Qazi Hussain Ahmed? To understand that, look at his position on two other issues.

Mr Rehman, says a fly on the wall, has been co-opted by the British to mediate with the ‘moderate’ Taliban. This British initiative, backed evidently by the Americans, also has Kabul and Islamabad on board. And Mr Rehman is smack in the middle of it. Which, incidentally, is why he is Leader of the Opposition. Smart gent, Mr Rehman, we say. But there is more.

On the India-Pakistan peace process, Mr Rehman is clear that it is important for the process to continue and move forward. Last year when Mr Rehman went to India with a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam delegation, his statements took the Indians by surprise. He was logical, rational, mild, eloquent and very convincing. He won hands down. It was no surprise that he had been briefed before he went to India; neither was it surprising that one could hear the JI gnashing its teeth and its leaders telling people privately that they did not agree with Mr Rehman’s approach on the issue.

Mr Rehman, of course, has much to lose if this dispensation is packed off. His party is in power in the NWFP and is part of the coalition in Balochistan. And he has perfected the art of compartmentalising issues and taking each on its merit. On the Wana issue, he has to keep an eye on his Pashtun vote-bank in the NWFP and therefore will fulminate against the operation while doing nothing to stop it (the NWFP government says South Waziristan is federally administered tribal area and therefore outside its jurisdiction!). However, that does not stop him from trying to get the moderate Taliban to support Kabul. This is why his rival JUI leader, Sami-ul Haq is so peeved with him and thinks the MMA government in the NWFP has sold the Taliban down the river and done nothing to stop the federal government from cleaning up South Waziristan.

As for the peace process, it helps Mr Rehman keep his linkages with Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, the parent Deobandi organisation of JUI. It also helps him retain the necessary link with the GHQ. Mr Rehman is a good strategist and it is important to see what he does, not just what he says. Maybe, Mr Ahmed also needs to draw a few lessons from Mr Rehman. *

EDITORIAL #2: Mr Jamali’s fate revisited

Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali has sought to quell ‘rumours’ that the Presidency is hatching conspiracies against him and he might be given his marching orders. In this regard he has reiterated that he enjoys the confidence of President Pervez Musharraf, which shows clearly where the power lies and what can happen to a prime minister if he loses the support of the president. This also shows up the frailty of our ‘true democracy’.

But quite apart from this, we find the prospect of Mr Jamali being buffeted around rather galling. What can one say about the nature of a dispensation that reduces the prime ministerial post to an absolute farce? Mr Jamali has been dealt a bad hand not only by the presidency but also by his own party. This is hardly surprising because this party comprises weathervanes of the worst kind and would happily wield the knife whenever their master tells them to do so. A similar, though lesser act in this regard, has just been played out in Sindh where the former chief minister Ali Mohammad Maher suddenly found himself standing alone.

Mr Jamali may think that the worst is over and that by pledging obedience to the president and giving an acceptable statement on the uniform issue has got him a lease on life. But we don’t think he is perched on the fence any less precariously than before. As a matter of fact, no one in the prime ministerial chair can ever be safe and independent. The next aspirant should be very clear on this. The reason for this is simple: General Pervez Musharraf’s system cannot tolerate any rival. This flaw is built into it.

That of course leaves us with the question of why have a prime minister in the first place? Would it be better if General Musharraf could do away with the charade and also position himself as prime minister? Or do we need to take Mr Jamali at face value and believe that General Musharraf has no intention of taking the low road and getting rid of him? It is our position that General Musharraf would be making a big mistake by undermining his own prime minister. By so doing, he would be undermining his own political system and eroding his own credibility. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!