Political settlement on basis of principle: Minto
LAHORE: The following is the edited text of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Mr Abid Hasan Minto.
QUESTION: Ideological politics in Pakistan appears to have vanished as parties of the right and left are working as allies and have identical programmes. The politics of the left seems to have become irrelevant over the years as most of those now involved in politics have rightist inclinations. Do you agree with this assertion?
ANSWER: There is no denying that politics of the left worldwide suffered a severe setback during the late 80s and 90s. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and even before that the steps taken by the then Soviet leadership had created a lot of confusion. Then came the massive propaganda from the West that socialism was no longer a system to be reckoned with, that the philosophy behind socialism had failed and that the only future system to prevail was the free market capitalist system, with its liberal and neo-liberal political structures.
These arguments prevailed even amongst some left-wing political activists. Over a period of time, however, the inherent contradictions in the free market system started to re-emerge and in less than a decade it had become apparent that the problems that the world faces today on economic and socio-political fronts can't be resolved by the capitalist system.
Irreconcilable contradictions have surfaced between the Third World and its burgeoning poverty-stricken population on the one hand, and the West led by the US on the other. In the more advanced capitalist societies the welfare state has been in retreat and subsidies and other social benefits for the disadvantaged sections of the people are being withdrawn.
It is significant that the massive agitation against the policies of the international financial institutions, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, was started by the people of the advanced capitalist countries. Therefore, while there is no denying the setback suffered by the left movement after the fall of the Soviet Union, a new popular upsurge of forces seeking an alternative to capitalist exploitation is taking shape.
As for Pakistan, even after 56 years of independence we are unable to find a way of establishing even basic democratic institutions. Most of the time the so-called mainstream politicians and the establishment have been fighting with each other only to find ways of accommodating each other in the prevalent system. Both are committed to maintaining the social and economic status quo to the detriment of our people and the progress of society. The left in Pakistan, which has never been strong, faces the difficult task of struggling for democratic rule and social change.
Historically also, the left in Pakistan was handicapped. To begin with the left movement was weak even before partition. With the creation of Pakistan, the religious issue was used not only by the mullahs but also by the so-called mainstream politics as well as the establishment.
Then, there was the conflict with India. The Kashmir issue, the role of religion in politics and the conventional foreign relations that we established with the US were all elements which came to present a formidable obstacle to the development of the left. In spite of all that, leftists under their own banners, sometimes as the Communist Party and after a ban on the Communist Party under different names, and sometimes as part of a larger political formation such as the National Awami Party and the PPP remained operative.
Much of the politics of the PPP, to begin with, owes its popularity to the leftist cadre. Similarly, the National Awami Party was a platform which was effectively used by the leftists. The history of class organizations such as trade unions and peasant committees in Pakistan will show that the downtrodden people were organized by the leftists alone. But these organizations were greatly weakened by repeated bouts of military rule. Lastly, there were the historical divisions inside world communist movement in the 70s. The leftists here did not prove to be mature enough to deal with these schisms.
As at present, however, a serious effort is being made by the various left groups first to reorganize themselves and then to see how they can work together for creating a larger political formation which can offer an alternative to the feudal, military and neo-imperialist system. The worldwide upsurge against global capitalism and its hegemonic thrust have lent strength to these efforts.
Q: Who represents the left in Pakistan at present?
A: In this exercise, our own party, the National Workers Party, the Awami Tehrik led by Rasool Bux Palijo, the Mazdoor Kisan Party, the Balochistan National Movement led by Dr Abdul Hayee Baloch, several other Baloch groups and the National Awami Party, Pakistan, headed by Mr Afridi after the exit of Ajmal Khattak are actively pursuing these objectives.
There are also new groups which have not yet emerged as political formations and which are debating the possibilities of organizing a larger political party. One such group in Lahore is functioning under the banner of the People's Democratic Forum. There are similar groups operating at other places.
Q: What's the future of left politics in the country?
A: The prevalent world capitalist system generally and the social and the economic set-up in Pakistan and other Third World countries particularly cannot answer the problems of the people I think the creation of a left alternative will take some time in Pakistan where even conventional democratic politics in not yet clearly established. But on the whole in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the politics of seeking socio-economic alternatives is likely to play a greater role in the coming years. What is happening in the context of the WTO moots and the efforts to create regional economic groupings, bypassing even local conflicts between various countries, is evidence of the fact that an alternative is already on the agenda.
Q: Where does your own party stand in the entire struggle? You have a name in your profession but your party is nowhere to be seen.
A: As far as our own party is concerned, it was created by the amalgamation of three left wing groups. It was in May 1999 that the Pakistan Socialist Party led by Mr C.R Aslam, the Pakistan National Party, established by (late) Mir Ghaus Bux Bizenjo, and the Awami Jamhoori Party, to which I belonged, joined together to establish the National Workers Party. We firmly believe that this is not the end of the progress.
It becomes the duty of the leftists in Pakistan to struggle for a constitutionally established democratic system as opposed to an arbitrary establishment. We are still in this stage. We have to move on to higher political aims - establishing an equitable economic system, abolishing the feudal structures, and setting up a true federation.
Q: Now, let's come to the controversy on the LFO which has gripped the country for the past several months. What in your opinion is the status of the LFO? Is it part of the Constitution?
A: The controversy on the LFO is full of contradictions. There are no two opinions that only the people through their chosen representatives are entitled to make and unmake laws and the Constitution. In Pakistan, however, this has not been the case. Except for the Constitution of 1956 and the original 1973 Constitution, all other dispensations were created by the establishment under the control of the armed forces.
Even the first ever general election in Pakistan which took place in 1970 was the result of a Legal Framework Order. Since, however, the effect of that LFO was to establish a representative body, democratic opinion in Pakistan rightly went along with it.
The principle that one man can't make the law or constitution was not invoked. The consideration was to consider the effect of the law made by one person. There are several other instruments which made several changes in our social and economic life and which were the result of dispensations which were not elected, and some of them were the result of martial law instruments. And yet we did not oppose them.
The 1959 and 1972 land reforms were introduced through martial law regulations. The 1961 Family Laws Ordinance, which slightly advanced the position of women in society, was the result of an ordinance promulgated by a military regime. The principle on which rational democratic opinion in Pakistan accepted these instruments and laws was that these were measures that advanced society and conferred benefits upon under- privileged people. Even retrogressive laws became part of our Constitution although they were introduced firstly as martial law regulations and later were approved through a non-politically elected controversial Majlis-i-Shoora, which was under the threat that unless these measures were approved, martial law would not be lifted.
The Eighth Amendment, which made scores of amendments in the Constitution, some of them vitally affecting the democratic dispensation, became part of the Constitution. It was sanctified by courts and ultimately accepted even by political parties who had initially opposed it. So our history with regard to amendments and introduction of laws is as full of contradictions as is our political history.
Now the LFO was promulgated by a military establishment purportedly on the basis of the authority given by the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah's case. This case and all other cases proceeding on the basis of the Doctrine of Necessity are controversial. And yet that case has become part of our political and judicial system and even the opposition today relies on it for saying that the regime has gone beyond the purview of that judgment. 'Before the LFO was promulgated, there were other instruments established in exercise of the self-assumed authority of the chief executive/president, supported by Zafar Ali Shah's case which made some important changes to the Constitution itself.
One such instrument is the Election Order 2002. By this order extensive changes were brought about in the Constitution as it existed on the date of takeover. The joint electorate was reincorporated in the Constitution after removing the separate electorate introduced by the Eighth Amendment.
Women were allowed 60 seats, which is unprecedented in the constitutional history of Pakistan. The age of an elector was reduced from 21 to 18 years, and the number of seats in the national and provincial assemblies and the Senate was increased. These amendments in the Constitution were made by one man. The elections were held on the basis of these amendments.
The LFO incorporates all these amendments and some other changes in the Constitution and it also states that they have become part of the Constitution. It's a clear contradiction to say that while one man cannot make constitutional changes, an election held on the basis of such changes will be considered valid, legally and politically; and further that the outcome of such an election in the shape of the NA and the Senate will be valid, with competence to consider/reconsider the changes brought about in the Constitution by the same man.
You see, if the principle that one man can't change the Constitution is valid, then the elections of 2002 were invalid. That, however, is not politics. And that doesn't advance the case for a democratic dispensation. It's because of that that the elected members on all sides today believe that the parliament in which they sit is a lawful body, entitled to exercise powers under the Constitution.
In fact, the amendments which have been referred to earlier, on the basis of which the elections were held, were all amendments which advanced society towards a democratic dispensation. And some of them corrected the aberrations brought about in the Constitution during the Zia regime. Their essence is democratic.
The controversial amendments are, however, the ones which relate to the office of the president, the creation of the National Security Council and the authority of the president to dismiss an elected government. These and similar other amendments seriously affect the democratic system and institutionalize the role of the armed forces in the political system of Pakistan. No sane person who will accept these as part of the Constitution.
The issue today is what is democratic and what is not. If we go by the principle as to who made the changes, then we must reject the elections as well. That's not a democratic course to follow nor will it advance the society any further.
Q: How can the controversy be resolved?
A: The LFO controversy should be resolved not as a matter of compromise between the establishment and the political forces, but on the basis of principle. The principle being that all those provisions which advance democratic dispensation should be retained in the Constitution and those which cut down the representative character of parliament, affect the federal system and institutionalize the armed forces as a political factor should be kept out of the Constitution.
Q: The lawyers as a community are not accepting decisions given even by the apex court. Is there any legal remedy if it be assumed that the apex court had given a wrong judgment in some cases?
A: The conflict between the legal community and the bench, which has emerged recently in the wake of the controversy on the LFO, is most unfortunate. I think the campaign focusing on the judiciary has further weakened the judiciary and pushed it further towards the establishment. The question of judicial independence is closely linked with the general political system now prevailing and the balance of forces operating in the political arena.
There's no denying the fact that military regimes have occupied more than half of our life after independence as part of the system. There's also no denying the fact that political forces in the mainstream have been hobnobbing with the establishment and military regimes from time to time.
It is also a historical fact that a strong principled and truly democratic movement of the people has not emerged in Pakistan. Compromises, opportunism and betrayals are not unknown to our political history. You can't have a truly independent judiciary in these circumstances.
Again, the method of appointment of the judges of the superior courts before and after the Judges Case is entirely unsatisfactory. Neither the presidents in their discretion nor the chief justices after the Judges Case have acted in a manner which may be described as being consistent with the spirit of the judgment concerned. So, it's not merely a question of taking on the judiciary on a single issue as a result of the LFO. It's a question of overhauling the system. It's a matter which concerns the creation and advancement of a truly democratic movement in Pakistan.
Q: What are the major problems facing the country and the priorities the government should follow for their solution? Also, what kind of relations Pakistan should have with its neighbours?
A: I am hardly competent to offer solutions of various problems to the government. In fact their claim is that solutions have been found by them and Pakistan is in a take-off position now. I only admire their unfounded confidence.
Pakistan remains a predominantly agrarian country. It has no industrial basis and not even a sound industrial policy. Our agricultural system continues to be based on age-old feudal relations, so much so that even the state acts as a ruthless feudal in relation to tillers of state lands (for example, Okara, Khanewal). Instead of redistributing land amongst tillers of the land owned by the state and feudal houses, corporate farming is sought to be introduced, adding capitalist and foreign exploitation in agriculture.
One of the basic problems, therefore, remains the elimination of feudal relations of all kinds and giving land to the actual tillers. Only new relations on land shall create a viable internal market and help a mass of people who have remained marginalized to date to become freer participants in the socio- economic and political mainstream.
Pakistan's economy continues to be debt-ridden. Our budget allocations for debt servicing, defence and other unproductive areas leave little for development. Pakistan's eastern and western frontiers remain disturbed and difficult, blocking our economic and commercial access on both sides.
These are days of regional economic arrangements or else we shall be consumed by the forces of global capitalism. We are already fast turning into a consumerist society, economically controlled by foreigners in collaboration with the local exploiters, and serviced by a limited but affluent middle class, leaving the mass of the population poor and backward.
It is necessary to actively pursue a policy of real peace in the region and strengthen regional economic relations. For all that, real participatory democracy, in which the people of all nationalities and in particular the vast majority of our population can effectively play a role, must be established.
The interview was conducted by Ashraf Mumtaz
National Workers Party (Pakistan)
Head Office: 5-McLeod Road, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
Tel & Fax: +92 (0)42 7357091
E-mail: office@nwp-pk.org Web: www.nwp-pk.org
