As long as a Bhutto leads the PPP, millions of Pakistanis will vote for it blindly. Equally, millions will not vote for the PPP, come hell or high water. There are historic reasons for this divide which evoke strong reactions from supporters and detractors alike, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the PPP’s policies.
For many self-serving pen-pushers, however, the Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto is a convenient whipping boy with nothing to its credit. It is either denigrated as a party of “exploitative feudals” or “unwashed riffraff”. When the PPP is propelled towards long marches, street protests, boycotts or resignations, it is painted as “irresponsible” and “undemocratic” for not playing by “the rules of the game”. But when it strays towards the mainstream, it is accused of betraying “principles” and acting “opportunistically”. It has been a no-win situation thus far.
When, as a matter of principle, the PPP opposed Zia ul Haq for ten long years, it was accused of not playing by the rules of the game, legitimised by no less than the high and mighty Supreme Court of Pakistan. When it cried itself hoarse about Zia’s divisive policies at home and reckless adventures abroad, it was painted as being “anti-Islam” and “anti-Jehad”. When it accused the MQM of terrorism, it was attacked for fanning ethnic strife. When it wanted to do business with the United States and India, it was battered for being “anti-national” and “unpatriotic”. When it was dismissed from power in 1990, the 8th amendment, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and the Supreme Court were all lauded for breaking the deadlock.
This hypocrisy is no longer tenable. Overnight, the beloved “establishment” has become a four letter word. The 8th amendment has miraculously lost favour and President Ishaq Khan is no longer the great saviour he once appeared to be. The “child of the establishment” — Mr Nawaz Sharif — has become a martyr to the great cause of “democracy”. And the Supreme Court is going through unbelievable convolutions to somehow deliver a historic verdict which will purge it of its “uncharitable” judgements in the past. Under these circumstances, what should the PPP do?
Much, of course, depends on the Supreme Court’s verdict. But whatever its judgement, the PPP’s essential strategy should be based only on considerations of realpolitik. For too long, the PPP has been a victim either of its own propaganda about itself (“the only mass-based, national, principled democratic party in Pakistan”) or the jaundiced views of its enemies (“anti-Islam, anti-national, anti-establishment”). There can be no greater disservice to the cause of its supporters than sticking to unrealistic “principles”.
If the Supreme Court upholds the President’s dissolution order in its entirety, the PPP should pull out all the stops to try and win the July elections. That the army has agreed to conduct them should remove all fears of rigging. Even if this should imply having to build “unholy alliances” or indeed break some more bread with President Ishaq for the time being, then so be it. As Ms Bhutto is learning, politics is the art of the possible.
If the Supreme Court restores the assembly without restoring the Nawaz Sharif government, the PPP should lend its shoulder to electing a “consensus” Prime Minister like Mir Balakh Sher Mazari with whom it can do business, with a view to holding free and fair elections later in the year or early next year. Proximity to power is the next best thing to being in power. And the PPP should seek to exploit the differences in the Muslim League to its advantage.
If, however, the Supreme Court restores the status quo ante and Nawaz Sharif becomes PM once again, the PPP should help Mr Sharif get rid of the 8th amendment in its totality, and not just the sections which relate to power-sharing between the PM and the President. That’s not all. Just as there are some good points in the PPP’s “new social contract”, Mr Sharif’s “new political order” may be worth a good second look. Combining the essence of both may be a good idea.
Despite the doom and gloom of recent times, therefore, there may be scope for guarded optimism. Mr Sharif’s recent trials should lead him to appreciate the role of the opposition. Perhaps he will not be as overbearing as he was before. And could it be that we might be lucky enough to witness the development of a two party system in which Mr Sharif and Ms Bhutto learn to live and let live?
There are other good omens too. All parties are agreed on the necessity of overhauling the political system. No one is accusing anyone of selling out on the country’s national interests and security. No one is parading around as the sole “thekedaar” of Islam. No one is seriously opposed to privatisation and deregulation. Everyone realises that economic growth and stability must take precedence over petty political quarrels. And everyone senses that that the days of the “establishment” are drawing to a close. It is up to Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif to extract what they can of the decision of the Supreme Court.