From: think-AT-riseup.net
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: the challenge for liberals


The challenge for liberals
By Dr S. K. Hasanain


Pakistan's recently concluded elections have thrown up a new set of
questions that may further complicate and exacerbate the already existing
contradictions and conflicts within the society in general and the power
structure in particular.
The entry of the religious parties into the parliament in full force, with
their barely hidden contempt for the western model of parliamentary
democracy, and their espousal of fundamentalism does not bode well for the
future of liberal democracy in this country.
Why were they able to sweep the elections in two main provinces of the
country as well as make serious inroads in the major cities of the
country? What were the ideological undercurrents and the power play that
underlay the run up to the elections? If the religious right had an agenda
why wasn't the moderate mainstream able to counter it any better? These
are some of the questions that we seek to address.
It is clear that as far as the parties other than the MMA are concerned,
their campaign was bereft of any powerful economic or social themes or
ideological debate. It contained only one remarkable feature namely the
divide between pro and anti establishment political groups, something not
insignificant in itself. Probably for the first time in our history a
political grouping (PML-N) having its base and roots in Punjab stood up to
the might of the establishment and contested the elections partly on the
platform of rejecting President Musharraf's changes in the Constitution.
The military made no pretense of hiding its desire to have a permanent
share in the future power set-up and declared that it was going to call
the shots as far as all the important issues were concerned. The civilians
who were to be transferred power were to operate within the shackles of
the many constitutional amendments the government had put in place.
The two major mass parties, the PPP and the PML(N) that had at earlier
times accepted a de facto role of the army in the power structure did not
come on board this time round. Equally importantly, most politicians of
all hues and colours rejected the constitutional amendments invoking the
establishment of a National Security Council and the overbearing presence
of the president. The PML (QA) appropriately nicknamed the King's party
was the only exception, a role not uncommon to the gentlemen who are its
leading lights.
In this backdrop the two major parties (PPP and PML-N) contested the
elections with their backs to the wall faced with the formidable power of
the state machinery arrayed against it. Confronted with this adversary,
both these two parties, which can be characterized as politically moderate
or liberal to different degrees, failed to counter the onslaught with any
rallying cry that may have propelled them out of the proverbial corner
into which they had been pushed.
The fragmented parliament and the divided house that these elections have
produced is as much a consequence of the concerted effort of the
establishment to achieve these very results as it is the failure of the
moderate, liberal elite to present an alternative vision; a credible
thesis against poverty, injustice and disempowerment of the masses.
It was simply not adequate as far as the electoral response was concerned
to be a champion of unfettered parliamentary rule if that had failed or
held no promise of a better future for the people. Faced with such a
choice the response of the people has been quite rational. Where the state
sponsored candidates offered them the hope of a respite through their
patrons and by virtue of their proximity to the centres of power, they
have voted for them in the form of the PML(Q) or the other such groups
(Millat Party, NA, SNA).
Where, as in Sindh, the issue of the establishment and its conflict with
the mass aspirations is better internalized, the PPP was able to keep its
hold in a very significant way. However in other places it has been a
different story. That the religious right has won big not only in the
frontier and Balochistan but has also made inroads in Punjab and Sindh
suggests that the issue was not only the anti-US sentiment as a fallout of
the Afghan war but a certain populist appeal emanating from the
egalitarian message of religion.
While the extent of this disillusionment with the liberal agenda is not
too extended, as manifested by the election results, it may well be the
beginning of a more general trend since the same abysmal human condition
prevails in all parts of the country. If the educated middle class of
Islamabad offers its only (urban) seat to the MMA while the same happens
at several seats in Lahore, Karachi and Hyderabad, this is a phenomenon
that clearly transcends the confines of the Afghan war fallout. A
population betrayed again and again by the liberal politicians has sought
an alternative in the religious leaders and their worldview.
There are two main ingredients of this worldview as manifested in these
elections as well. Firstly recourse to the theme that religion offers the
remedy to all the ills faced by society and secondly (maybe a corollary of
the first) an anti-modernity that perceives the cultural attitudes of the
modern world as manifestly alien. The former theme however carries within
it a hope for the deprived, as religion with its egalitarian message
emerges as the "the heart of a heartless world, the sigh of the
oppressed".
Whether it can or cannot deliver on these promises is of course another
matter but the populace, at least a significant part of it, has chosen to
test their leaders on it. It is a trend that should be of concern to the
liberal political opinion and politicians since it is a clear cut
expression of their own failure to present an egalitarian vision of the
future and the path towards it.
Where do the liberals stand on the question of redistribution of wealth
and resources in our societies? Have questions of class and of economics
based on class ceased to be our concern? More importantly what are we
going to do in a practical way to address these concerns if we have them?
Why did we not react more powerfully on the manifestations of social
injustice, as for example on the recent issue of the right of the people
to the land they have tilled for generations as opposed to the right of
the elites, both civil and military, to appropriate these lands and their
produce? Our indifference on such issues has alienated and shall continue
to further alienate even larger sections of people from liberal democracy.
Involved in our NGOism and our myriad poverty studies and workshops we
have failed to respond to the human tragedy that confronts us daily at our
very doorsteps. We and our modernity stand condemned in the hearts and
minds of this class as they wander from door to door in posh
neighbourhoods asking simply to fill their cans with water, plain simple
water, which they have no access to as a matter of right.
Our modernity and its tools posit themselves as the weapons with which we
disempower them since this is what they lack as they toil fruitlessly
generation after generation. Like the mythical Sisyphus they roll this
heavy boulder up the hill only to roll it down back again. However
(borrowing an analogy from Sartre) as they roll it back they shall at some
time ponder at the meaninglessness of this existence and when they do so
we shall stand condemned.
The coming years may most likely see much greater instability and conflict
if the religious right tries to convert its electoral gains into manifest
changes and wrest power from its traditional brokers. As this struggle
intensifies both the privileges and the worldview of the liberal elite
will come under increasing attack.
As a society we may sink into even greater obscurantism and traditionalism
if we don't confront the social and economic crises in our society with a
much greater commitment to the people and their rights. Liberal democracy
as we cherish it will only be able to survive if its message is coupled
with that of social justice.
If we continue the way we have been going, it is well within reason that
the religious right, given time enough, will be able to convince a
sufficient number of people that this system holds no future for them.
They (the religious right) may do so because the fundamental tenets of
liberal democracy run counter to their claim of having all the answers for
all the times.
The people, however, may respond in the affirmative because they will
perceive the system as being irrelevant to the satisfaction of their basic
needs, namely a right to the amenities of life and of livelihood. Unless
of course, the privileged make liberal democracy work to the satisfaction
of those very wants that the disempowered are demanding.




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---