Pak Tea House » Democracy » From Establishment’s Proxy to Democratic Conservatism
From Establishment’s Proxy to Democratic Conservatism
Raza Habib Raja
The Post Osama Bin Laden political landscape is continuously heating up and is marked by growing chasm between army and the civilians. However, out of prominent political players the party which is blatantly asking the right questions is not a “liberal” party but a conservative party. What makes the whole scenario interesting and even ironic is that the party in question was once the proxy of the establishment. The same party which once needed crutches of the so called “deep state” is now the vanguard of democracy. Yes, right now the questions, which should be asked are not asked by “liberal” parties but a party whose genesis were in the darkest and most shameful period of Zia’s Martial Law. Yes, there will be people who may not agree with me about the democratic credentials of PML (N) and will continue to associate it with Zia’s time. But the life has moved on and times have changed. With the changed times, the political players and their associations have also changed.
PML (N) is still a conservative party. It still and will continue to adhere to the aspirations of the conservative section of the populace. Yes, it is Punjabi in its outlook and also has a history of association with religious parties. However, one thing has become evident that over the period of time, while keeping its realpolitik interests intact, the party has matured and is closer to center right rather than religious right. It is now a democratic party though with conservative orientation. Yes those who identify themselves as “liberals” (by the way do they really exist in Pakistan) will still not vote for it, but at the same time, if they are intellectually honest, will attest that there is a huge difference between PML (N) of 1990s and 2011. PML (N) has come out of age and right now despite being socially and economically conservative, it is a party which rightly understands that ultimately it’s the civilians which should have the power and the armed forces should be accountable to the parliament. State has several pillars and the most important pillar is the parliament.
How has this transition taken place? How come the illegal legacy of the worst dictator has now transformed into an anti thesis of military rule. This article tries to trace its evolution from establishment proxy to democratic conservatism.
It’s strange that a party which has been in the front line of politics since its inception in 1985 has never received that much academic attention the way its rival PPP has received. One of the reasons is that PPP, at least in its formulation reflected the aspirations of those times. It roots were in the desperation felt due to rising inequalities and consequently left wing idealism fuelled its formation. Its formation was in the middle of Pakistan’s first truly socially broad base movement and was in some ways a logical political outcome. Moreover the personality of Bhutto, his ability to create mass frenzy supplemented with brilliant oratory, subsequent flirtation of Pakistan with state oriented socialism and the tragic fate of Bhutto has given PPP a much pronounced academic as well as intellectual appeal
On the other hand PML (N) was not formed out of some political struggle or movement but was rather just a collection of people who got elected in non party based elections. Its leader Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, was just a handpicked individual by General Zia and possessed little political weight at that time. In its formative years, PML(N) was just an establishment party and even for political processions needed administrative support. And yet compared to other various Muslim leagues, this party has survived and in fact thrived. In fact as the 1990s neared to their end, this party was a heavy weight party in its own right and thumped PPP in 1997 elections. An establishment party has not only survived (compared other king parties) but also is now a force to reckon with.
How do we explain the ascendency of a political party which initially did not originate from the people? Partly the answer lies is that although its formation did not materialize out of a proper political process, nevertheless its formation and initial outlook was designed by Zia to cater to segment of anti PPP sentiment prevalent in the society. In a strange way, Bhutto, besides his impact on left wing political landscape, also had significant influence on the formation of conservative opposition in Pakistan. There are two phases in which his influence was enacted. First was during his rule when his policies really started to alienate conservative middle class and allowed their parties to successfully come under the same platform. This is a significant but sometimes overlooked phenomenon. Bhutto once he came into power involuntarily hit urban middle class too much. The brunt of his policies hit the industrialists and the urban middle class which started becoming more conservative and started to unite. At that time there was not any mainstream conservative democratic party like PML (N) today, therefore consequently JUI, Jamat-i-Islami became the torch bearers of Bhutto’s opposition. However, the major problem was that these parties were primarily religious and though had proximity to conservative values did not represent them completely. So second influence was after his death when Zia realized the anti Bhutto sentiment prevalent in middle class and knowing that religious parties did not have potentially that kind of mass appeal which a conservative democratic party would have, created a Muslim League. The party created by Zia, despite not going through evolution like a proper political party was able to tap the support of urban classes and it successfully positioned itself as an electable alternative to PPP at least in Punjab. And ironically its leader Nawaz Sharif’s own rise (though frankly intellectual level of both is way apart!!!!) is quite similar to Bhutto’s and initially he even imitated Bhutto’s style of mass engagement though Mao cap was replaced with a P cap!!!! Nawaz Sharif in those days positioned himself as an alternate to Bhutto’s ideals. In fact I remember in the run up to 1988 elections, an advertisement campaign was launched on print media reminding all the readers of all the “excesses” of Bhutto’s rule in 1970s. During 1988-90, there was a constant rift between the Centre and Punjab, which elevated Nawaz Sharif to a national status due to high publicity. Moreover it positioned him as an electable alternative to PPP’s Benazir Bhutto.
However, PML (N) victory in 1990’s elections were largely due to establishment’s active interference and moreover because even before the elections there was wide spread consensus that PPP won’t be allowed to come to power. This allowed PML (N) to have strong candidates in the rural area where politics is mostly personality driven rather than party driven. And those strong candidates align themselves with a party which is “expected” to win.
However, it was after 1990 that PML (N) began its rise. Once in power Nawaz Sharif started rolling back aggressively the economic steps Bhutto had taken. Privatization became the order of the day and Pakistan started its overtures to attract foreign investment. The steps taken by Nawaz Sharif rallied the urban middle class as well as the industrialists around him. The party had started to have genuine political base largely comprising of middle classes and anti PPP segments of the populace. It was in 1993 that PML (N) had a split with the establishment when Nawaz Sharif was dismissed by Ghulam Ishaq Khan. His dismissal for the first time tested whether the party was in a position to garner street support. After the night of dismissal, the party went defiant and Nawaz Sharif travelled via train to Lahore. The reception he received surprised many as people virtually thronged the railway stations at every major city. Subsequently the court restored Nawaz Sharif only to be removed again in a few months’ time.
The 1993 elections was the first time that PML (N) was fighting without establishment’s active support which chose to stay neutral. PML(N) fighting on its own displayed a surprisingly strong performance and managed to actually gain 73 seats compared to PPP’s 86. It was not a mean achievement as majority of the political pundits at that time were actually writing PML (N) completely off. The elections result finally established PML (N) as a mainstream party capable of winning on its own and representing a definite constituency in the urban areas.
The second tenor of PPP was marked with controversies and disillusioned a lot of its voters which was reflected in 1997 elections when PPP got almost annihilated. Contrary to the popular belief this performance did not actually result in a large shift of voting populace towards PML (N). In reality the PPP voter did not came to vote at all whereas PML (N) retained its vote bank. The results thus gave this illusion of a very heavy mandate whereas a closer look would reveal that voter did not cross turfs.
The second tenor of PML (N) was marked with controversies just like PPP’s tenor and moreover the lack of effective opposition resulted in Nawaz sharif turning on to the other pillars of establishment such as Army (Jehangir Karamat) Judiciary (Chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah) and Presidency (Farooq Leghari). The second tenor of PML (N) also virtually completed its detachment from the establishment and in the way also paved the way for ultimate removal of its government through a military coup.
Once completely out of power, now was ultimately the real test for PML (N). In some ways it found itself in a similar position PPP was in during Zia’s time. It was during this time, that PML (N) in its bid to survive started concentrating closely on its base and that was in the urban areas of Punjab. The Musharraf’s tenor witnessed a crack down on PML (N) and concentrated efforts to break its influence in NWFP and Punjab. The inroads the party had made in Sindh were completely eliminated and party also realized its hurdles and kept its focus more on Punjab. However, the overall effect of Musharraf era was the increase in regionalism and ethnocentric politics in which PPP and PML(N) both realigned themselves to their core On its part PPP also started gravitating more towards Southern Punjab and Interior Sindh. Presently both the main parties, seem to be representing their ethno culturist bases.
Since PML (N) has witnessed at least two sackings by the hands of the “real” power brokers and has also witnessed crackdown in the Musharraf tenure, it has learnt its lessons. It has understood that while sucking up to the whims of the establishment may lead you to power but such a power will always be toothless. Ultimately even power is meaningful only if its real power.
Filed under: Democracy · Tags: party, PML-N, political, Raza Habib Raja
15 Responses to "From Establishment’s Proxy to Democratic Conservatism"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said ,BRHMN IN MAN KILLS THE GENIU IN HIM
,BRHMN IN... - tajender said MR AKB AND REX,BRHMN IN MAN KILLS THE GENIU IN HIM...
- MA
said Once again I would say, that your obsession with P... - MA said Dear Ahem,
I feel sorry for you, as your variou...
- tajender said Ethnically speaking all Subcontinentals are Hindus...
- AKB
said How utterly amazing is someone who flees from some... - AKB said UGLY INDIA!!
.
India’s slide leads to an i...
- JB said Here is the reality and the sooner Pakistanis and...
- AKB said DAMN THESE LIBERAL MULLAHS!!
.
Dharun Ravi Sen...
- AKB said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y...
[...] From Establishment’s Proxy to Democratic Conservatism [...]
Let muslims learn to do 21st century politics and not be tied down by some phantasy-beholden 7th century politics.
Raza, this article seems like a desparate attempt of a drowning man to clutch at a reed to save himself from drowning. PML-N is not the solution to Pakistan’s probem and besides those who do not know Nawaz Sharif, can never understand the venality of the man.
PML-N is not a political party. It is a party of Nawaz Sharif. The problem of political parties in Pakistan is one of a mind-set, which is autocractic and prone to the politics of exclusion.
For the sake of a forgettable memory, Nawaz Sharif removed General Karamat from the the post COAS for saying in his speeck at the Naval War College in Lahore in 1998 that Pakistan does not face a threat from India but from “insecurity driven internal policies”. Nawaz Sharif and his party will only will be a solution to the Pakistan’s problems when Nawaz Sharif, personally, gives up his love for the jihadi organizations in Pubjab and his dreams of being a liberator of Kashmir. Nawaz Sharif dreams of being the new caliph of the Islamic world and Pakistanis, who have no memory older than forty-seven seconds, need to remember that it was Nawaz Sharif who passed and wanted to impose the 15th Amendment in Pakistani consitution and make Pakistan a country governed under sharia law.
If that amendment had been passed, it would have put a stake right through the idea of a secuar, liberal Pakistan. If you still believe in Jinnah’s Pakistan, then you cannot support this man and his ideas.
The only reason the psuedo liberals of Pakistan are supporting Nawaz Sharif is because he is raging against the army and the wet dream of the psuedo liberals of Pakistan, the PPP, has failed to stand up to its own pseudo liberal credentials. The psuedo liberals of Pakistan are in a bind, because they are not supported by the army; they are not supported by the mainstream psuedo-secular parties of Pakistan; they are not supported by the mainstream public opinion in Pakistan and out of a choice of no choices, they have lapped up the empty slogans of the PML-N.
What makes the psuedo liberals of Pakistan believe that Nawaz Sharif is not twisting the knife in the army as a revenge for the humililation the army inflicted upon him in 1999?
The psuedo liberals of Pakistan have the most brilliant record of supporting tryants for political power and the most laughable irony is that these same people, who are now emotionally and intellectually masterbating themselves over the idea of Nawaz Sharif demanding answers from the army and demanding it be brought under civilian control, were the same people who cheered and danced and distributed sweets when Nawaz Sharif was over thrown by the army in 1999!
ciao
@ Raza:
Please do consider Nawaz Sharif’s dependence on Saudia supporting him.
He is just a hypocritical version of the extremist groups burned from the rejection of the Pakistan Army.
@ Feroz Khan
This article dooes not claim that
1) Nawaz Sharid is a liberal
2) it does not claim that he is saviour. yes it does acknowledge that PML N is no longer a proxy to establishment.
It merely tries to trace the evolution of the PML (N) from establishment’s proxy to democratic conservative party.Try to read it from that angel
@ Salman Arshad
The artcle does not try to project PMl (N) as party of integrity. It does not try to inquire whether NS had links with Saudis or not.
The article is maninly trying to trace its evolution and tries to examine as to why Party was able to gain support in Punjab.
As an author my idea was not “support” PML N but to contrast it with early 1990s when it was totally dependent on establishment’s crutuches. The article does not even make claims that PML N never had ties with hard line elements nor it tries to project it as an ultimate saviour of pakistan.
It merely says that right now it is not sucking up to the establsihment. and then merely traces its evolution over the years.
Regards
@ Feroz Khan
Moreoover I have admitted in the beginning that PML N is a cnservative party and had links with religious outfits. But the level of its dependence and for that matter projecting itself as a quasi religious party has reduced.
Kindly re read it. it is mostly trying to evaluate PML (N) as an electoral force which over the time is no longer that dependent on establsihment the way it was.
Where did I claim that it was the last hope????
Raza, when you write an article, the comments cannot be tailored according to what the author had in mind and besides, comments that shed light on other aspects are always welcome because they offer a context to the article’s point and how to best judge the information presented within the article.
On the point of your article, PML-N is incapable of evolving beyond the limited brain cells of Nawaz Sharif.
ciao
Why use the label ”pseudo-liberal”? Go to the heart of the problem which is that at the crux of the matter our political parties are not transparent, and do not practice democracy within their ranks.
The laughing matter is that only Jamaat e Islami conducts intra-party elections….what a shocking state of affairs in Pakistan’s democracy. If anything only the JI party can make some claim of being truly democratic. That is the heart of the matter – democracy, because democracy should come before any purported ideology. The ”liberals” are in a quandary when parties like JI have more democratic practices within their own ranks than the PPP.
The conflict between the PPP and PML-N is not that of ”pseudo-liberalism” (whatever the heck that means) or that of conservativism. Its a family conflict more than anything and it is fought along the lines of provincial, feudal and tribal alliances. That is at least the conflict between party leadership – the conflict between party workers and grass roots activists may be of more ideological substance.
Pakistan’s civilian politics has always been marred by ”identity politics”, rather than a politics of ideology. Of course our dear Army has used this fact to its advantage – thank God for Wikileaks.
Its disingenious and intellectually dishonest for Khan to assume that the civilians are somehow independent of the military. Behind the scenes as this excerpt from the Pakistan Papers presented on Dawn attests to:
”In another cable dated January 22, 2010, Jasmine Zernini, head of the French government’s interagency Afghanistan-Pakistan cell, told American officials that although General Kayani had “learned the lesson of Musharraf” and was staying behind the scenes, she felt he was (according to the cable) “manipulating the government and parliament, including to prevent change on Pakistan’s policy towards…FATA along the Afghan border, and also to stir up controversy regarding the Kerry-Lugar bill.””
There is no ”civilian-military” divide, there is only the military – to suppose a ”civilian-military” divide is to assume that the ”civilians” are locked into an equal relationship with the Army and are part of a relationship based on mutual give and take. That isn’t the case.
There is no ideology at stake in Pakistan’s political conflicts – only the constant expansion and contraction of military authority – and let’s not even talk about the military’s record in respect to conducting free and fair elections.
@ AA Khalid
A few years ago in Lahore, an American friend of mine asked me out to lunch with another American friend of her’s and we met at Gunsmoke and had a nice dicussion. This was just after Musharraf’s fake elections in which the psudeo-liberals aka faux liberals participated and cast votes. I have a good hunch that the man was from Langley by the questions he was asking and I think he was from Langley, because he already knew the answers!
One of the questions he asked me was which political party I thought was the most democratic in Pakistan and my response JI and he responded, “I thought so” but then muttered that JI was not an option. I agree with you! JI is the only democratic party in Pakistan that actually practices democracy in its ranks and others are exactly as you described them: clans of personality founded on codes of tribalism and feudalism.
ciao
@ Raza Raja
http://tribune.com.pk/story/179397/wikileaks-isi-asked-saudis-to-stop-funding-nawazs-campaign/
Dawn’s Wikileaks (Pakistan Papers) shows that Nawaz Sharif’s election campaign in 2008 was funded by Saudi Arabia. I sincerely hope that the Pakistanis realize that Saudi Arabia is the worst enemy of Pakistan and Nawaz Sharif is stooge of the Saudis.
There are no free lunches in this world. The only plausible reason that Saudis might be funding Nazaw Sharif against PPP is that Nawaz would have stopped the military operations in FATA and lessened the pressure off the Saudi funded militant groups.
Saudi Arabia has done more than any enemy of Islam to destroy Islam and it is the worst enemy of Islam and Muslims in the world.
ciao
@ Feroz Khan
Wiki leaks also said that army is more comfortable with PPP rather than nawaz..
Any ways this article IS not whether nawaz Sharif has ties with Saudi Arabia or whether Saudia Arabia is pakisan’s enemy but rather on the evolution of PML (N).
Regards
wesay why you use ciao ( I mean what dooes it stand for)
@ Raza Raja
“Ciao” means good-bye in Italian. As I said before, if you wish to moderate comments to an article, then please put a caveat saying that only comments on the article that are topical will be allowed. All comments should be welcomed to an article and to control who says what and how is not a good omen for a site promoting an exchange of ideas. Raza, once you post and article and the dicussion happens, there is no way of knowing in which direction that dicussion will go and one should just let it meander off as understanding of a topic develops from divergent views on the topic and not a dogma of views on the topic!
ciao
@ Raza Raja
If the army is more comfortable with PPP and the Saudis are more comfortable, with Nawaz and PML-N, what does that tell you of the Saudi role in Pakistani politics? Do you see a conflict? Do you see a reason why the Saudis might be supporting terrorism in Pakistan? Where is your realpolitik analysis? This is about power and what is the political defination of power?
ciao
Islam slandered, humiliated and hated hindus and hindu religions. Thus Pakistan was created. That is the womb in which Pakistan was created. Pakistan’s purpose is to slander, humiliate and bleed hindus.
This womb is still very fertile – in fact more fertile than ever before. This led to Pakistan wanting to become a minion of USA, Saudi Arabia and China. They misuse Pakistan and pakistani rulers blackmail them to get what they (the pakistani elite) want.
The people of Pakistan suffer the most under this and they get angry and turn their wrath not against the rulers but against India. That is exactly what the pakistani rulers want to happen.
@ feroz khan
I never moderate comments and particularly your comments because of the immense value they contribute. Several times your comments are better than the articles!
Its cute this ciao!!!