Some unsolicited advice for Bilawal

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.

Why would an ordinary citizen of Pakistan stand up and start offering advice to the head of a national political party? More importantly, why should the head pay heed to any of this unsolicited advice?

One simple reason for the person to offer advice is that he is one of those ordinary but concerned citizens of the country who believe in participation, democracy and supremacy of parliament; who believe in strong and transparent political parties and social movements; who believe in upholding the constitution in its true spirit and make efforts within the constitutional framework for even bringing amendments to the constitution or for any legislative reform. And who believe in what the founder of the nation believed in – rule of law, public service, fundamental rights for all without prejudice and bringing change through political struggle.

There are three reasons for the leader of a national political party, in this case the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), to listen to any advice being offered or criticism being made. First and foremost is that the PPP is at its lowest in its history in terms of effective party organisation and enjoying popular public support among the young and the emerging but not-so-rich middle class. Those who compare the current situation with the apparently dismal performance of the party in 1996 elections miss out on two things.

One, there was a lot of manipulation to keep the PPP out before and during the electoral process, and, two, the wise and charismatic Benazir Bhutto was alive to restore the strength of the party in the face of all odds. Two, the head needs to hear us out because he has the responsibility of running a federal party. Pakistan is a federation and to run the federation smoothly and successfully, we need nation-wide parties. That does not preclude the importance of regional parties and local groups in a federation but to be able to work as a federation, parties are needed who represent interests from across the federating units and other federally administered areas in order to have the agency to negotiate political settlements.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the head of the PPP needs to listen to those who believe in a modern and progressive Pakistan because the pendulum in Pakistan’s popular politics and discourse has moved completely to the right. It oscillates between the right and the ultra-right. The PPP is not a pure left-wing party but certainly was left-of-centre. If the PPP fails to make a major comeback soon, there is no mainstream political force in the country as yet which can popularly champion the cause of the working class and the working people, the marginalised and the dispossessed, women and minorities.

Reintroducing the original ideology of the PPP – which meant striving for a social democratic dispensation – is the only option left for the party to regain its strength and popularity. Those who think that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transformation of the Chinese Communist Party, the divide between the left and the right is over are naïve. If someone in the PPP ranks has begun to think like that, they may join the PTI.

The means of establishing a more just and inclusive social and economic order may never be what they were in the first half of the last century. But the elite-captured states and the dominant classes discriminate systematically against the working class and the working people. This is being exposed internationally and taken up by thinkers and leaders across the world.

It is no simple occurrence that a professed socialist became one of the front-runners in the current race for the American presidential nomination. The US is the epitome of capitalism. In case of Pakistan, where do we find the progress, growth and prosperity for people at large – something that was promised to us in the name of neo-liberal economic policies, market monopolisation, unbridled privatisation and incentivising only the rich in the name of mobilising investments over the last 30 years?

Bilawal may ask Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan to supply him with a copy of an article Ahsan wrote about a tonga wallah for one of the dailies many years ago. There is a need to quickly come up with a solid economic programme that is inclusive and creates equal opportunities for all classes of people. Some of that thinking must be translated into action where the PPP has a government. Sindh cuts a sorry figure at the moment, even if one gives them latitude for ruling the most difficult province in the country given its complex issues and needs.

If the PPP cannot be transparent, rid itself of inefficiencies and corrupt practices, improve its performance in the province by becoming a party of the common people as it claims to be rather than that of contractors and estate developers, it may still get to form a weak provincial government in the next elections but it will not make any gains in any other province.

Another issue to be considered is what purpose is served by criticism of India in political rallies. Criticising India for its hegemonic policies in the region or its inflexible stance towards Pakistan remains an issue. But it doesn’t bring votes from the constituencies. Otherwise Nawaz Sharif wouldn’t have been the prime minister for the third time. The difference between structured state institutions and popular political parties, in case of the latter, is the quick adaptability and change in policy in the light of new circumstances.

The anti-Indian narrative does not sell in Pakistani elections. The people of Pakistan vote to get their issues resolved and quality of life improved. Also, in case of Bilawal, it will not win him any favours from any side – if he has been told to think like that by some advisors. Unlike some other parties and politicians, the PPP will always be continued to be seen as a challenge.

Bilawal may recall that the current defence paradigm of Pakistan was created by none other than ZA Bhutto, who started the nuclear and other military programmes, built a close strategic relationship with China, took a hawkish line against India before the Simla agreement (including support to the ‘Crush India Movement’ in Pakistan just after the 1971 war) and tried to create an Islamic bloc. None of this could save him in local politics.

Bilawal needs to look at a reformed and revived PPP, which stands for the rights of the underprivileged and disadvantaged with an agenda of peace and development in the region. He has to take a clear stance on how to bring stability in our relationship with both Afghanistan and India without comprising our interests. Only the emergence of strong political parties with both solid intellectual and popular bases can bring a balance between the powers of different stakeholders – which are completely lopsided at the moment.

Finally, Bilawal and the PPP need to clarify what ideas they ought to represent in the present day and age in a polarised, fragmented, violent and intolerant Pakistani society. For instance, the speech made by former PPP prime minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf recently at a public rally in the presence of Bilawal is a case in point. Ashraf was openly hitting at one particular religious community and taking credit for faith-based legislation done by the PPP in the past.

In the present times, what Pakistan needs is a pluralistic society and an inclusive polity. Today, if PPP does not stand for that, there will be no major political force to champion this agenda.

Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com