As a document of intent the Charter of Democracy signed by Pakistan’s two main opposition leaders, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, is significant.
By signing the charter, Bhutto and Sharif, both former prime ministers, have in effect made it the yardstick with which their politics will be measured.
The charter details exactly what is needed to re-establish authentic parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. One of the things that have caused Pakistani democracy to derail in the past has been the mainstream political parties’ support for military intervention. The fact that at least now these two archrivals have committed themselves to never repeating such a mistake is a positive development.
On a broader note, the timing of the charter may give it added significance in relation to the specific political problems that have emerged between the government and various groups in Balochistan and Waziristan. It may well be that the opposition may be able to potentially emerge as a counterpoint on these issues.
The question, however, is: How will the Charter of Democracy influence Pakistan’s 2007 elections? The charter is crucial for three reasons. First, if the charter will bring the healing touch that Pakistan so desperately needs to bring an end to the political polarization in the country. The charter may break the deadlock between opposition parties.
Secondly, Pakistan’s main crisis today is that a broader crisis of legitimacy persists which is eroding the country’s stability and harmony. Relations between the government and the opposition and the major challenges of Balochistan and Waziristan are testimony to this.
Thirdly, will the election be fought with a “level playing field” for all? Unless an arrangement is made with the two opposition leaders for an electoral understanding and a post-electoral arrangement, the elections will not be held in a level playing field.
Making parties fight without their political leadership is a huge disadvantage for any political party. Equally relevant is the advantageous position that the ruling party enjoys. To some extent the ruling allies including the MQM and the breakaway PPP faction will also benefit from the establishment’s patronage. Hence the opposition parties will work at a disadvantage. In the absence of an arrangement with the establishment, they will be contesting more than the political parties. In fact they will be contesting the establishment. The onus to alter this is really on the establishment.
The 2007 elections will determine more than just who forms the government. In fact it will determine the direction the state of Pakistan intends to take on the broader questions relating to the efficiency and the legitimacy of the state and the extent to which the establishment views democratic process as indispensable to Pakistan’s future as a strong, prosperous and secure country.
For example, given the deepening divides between the state and sections of Balochistan and Waziristan, where there is an almost insurgency-like situation, one missing factor appears to be popular politics. No policy without a political strategy will resolve either of these crisis.
Nevertheless a political strategy without genuine politicians will never work. Popular politicians and the establishment must work together to resolve these extremely complex challenges. The establishment’s “go-it-alone” policy will not be successful; all that is needed is that the system itself enjoys legitimacy and credibility. Pakistan’s experience of a hotchpotch of quasi-military, quasi-democratic and establishment-run systems may mean the country’s problems will never be resolved. We are doomed to circular motions with no movement toward tackling problems.
Then there is the effort to reform and “clean” political parties. Perhaps the most discussed issue is why new leaders are not emerging and why the public does not abandon the “corrupt” old guard. The answer is simple. In a hybrid and contrived political system there will be no new, no fresh political yield. We will only circle around the old.
The other problem is that political expediency has devoured our state institutions. The pattern repeats itself endlessly when those in power battle the opponents through patronage and privilege-distribution and by bending laws.
To alter this trend and to genuinely reform law enforcing institutions, genuine democracy is absolutely indispensable.
So the key question now is how credible will the elections be. The answer will flow from what the establishment believes are the strengths and limits of its old ways of “constructing” political landscape.
