The failure to ensure fundamental rights of
survival, protection and security to its citizens
is a clear violation of the social contract
between the state and its citizens. The main
factors responsible for this collapse of
governance in Pakistan include the consistent
interference of the military in politics and the
domination of feudals, sardars and the moneyed
classes in the mainstream politics of the
country. Both the military and civilian ruling
classes have systematically weakened the state
institutions in order to protect their own vested
interests. In the presence of a strong and
independent judiciary, media and parliament, it
becomes difficult for the ruling clique to
exploit public resources and violate people’s
rights.

Therefore, none of the military or civilian
regimes over the last sixty years have ever made
any substantive effort to establish the
independence of state institutions. While the
military and civilian ruling elite are in
agreement to maintain the status quo, people are
desperate for a change in governance structures.
That is why they are not taking any interest in
the power-sharing tussle, currently going on
between the political civil and military forces.
They are least interested in the forthcoming
elections. Their main concern is how to restore
the pre-November 3 judiciary which showed some
independence and has become the only hope for the
people of Pakistan.

The decision of major political parties to
contest elections without resolving the issue of
the restoration of the judiciary has come as a
big disappointment to the general public. This
has created a huge gulf between the people and
the political parties. People refuse to be
engaged in an election process which cannot be
anything but a farce. In the absence of an
independent judiciary, it is impossible to hold
free and fair elections. Instead of engaging in
election campaigns, people are articulating their
resentment and resolve to restore the ousted
judiciary by holding protests and demonstrations
all over the country. This protest movement is
spearheaded by civil society organizations that
include the legal fraternity, journalists, human
rights activists, non-governmental organizations
and students. Political parties remain the
missing element in this movement so far.

The inability of political parties to take a
collective stand on the issue of boycotting the
election until the pre-November 3 judiciary is
restored has split political parties into two
blocks. While all the major political parties
have decided to contest elections, all
progressive, nationalist, left-wing parties with
the exception of Jamaat-e-Islami and
Tehreek-e-Insaf decided to boycott the elections.
Among those who are advocating boycott of
elections, almost all of them with the exception
of the Jamaat-e-Islami are known for their
progressive, secular and anti-establishment
credentials and had a history of fighting against
the status-quo. Whereas Jamat-e-Islami is known
as a fundamentalist Islamist party that has used
Islam and covertly supported the military
dictators to gain political power over the last
sixty years. Tehreek-e-Insaf’s ideological
position is not very clear as it keeps on
vacillating from the Centre to the Right. The
alliance of these ideologically opposing forces
in the All Parties Democratic Alliance (APDM) is
unnatural and extremely damaging for the secular
and democratic politics of the country.

It must be understood that the present political
movement launched by civil society groups and
intelligentsia is not about election boycott
alone. It is about establishing a democratic
secular state where the judiciary, media,
parliament and executive are independent. This is
about ensuring substantive democracy where the
rights of all citizens irrespective of their
creed, caste, class and gender are ensured and
protected. The Jamaat-e-Islami does not believe
in the secular principle of democratic state.
Therefore, it does not make any sense for the
liberal, democratic secular parties to make an
alliance with the JI to launch an election
boycott campaign while they fundamentally differ
on the outcomes to be achieved through launching
such a political movement.

It would have been much better that instead of
making an alliance with the most retrogressive
party i.e. the JI, the progressive and leftist
forces should have formed their own alliance to
launch a movement against the regime. This was a
great opportunity for them to establish their own
progressive and secular identity. The united
front of democratic and secular parties could
have really filled the political vacuum that has
been created due to the decision of major
political parties to participate in the election.

However, their decision to sit with the JI in the
APDM has once again shown the short-sightedness
of our nationalist and progressive parties. By
walking on the same path with the most
retrogressive and anti-women party, the
nationalist and democrats have given a new life
and legitimacy to the JI. The role of the Jamaat
during the last seven years of the Musharraf
regime is highly dubious. The MMA played an
instrumental role in the passage of the 17^th
amendment and yet remained the leader of the
opposition as well. The lukewarm response and the
low participation of the JI during the movement
to restore the chief justice and against the
emergency now show the lack of seriousness on its
part. Moreover, the recent statement of Qazi
Hussain that the MMA will continue to work as a
religious alliance despite some of its component
parties’ decision to contest elections makes him
a real suspect. Instead of working with such
unworthy political allies, the secular parties
should have used this opportune moment to isolate
the JI from politics.

The leadership of our nationalist/secular parties
argues in defence of their decision to enter into
the alliance with the JI and Tehreek-e-Insaf,
that they have the leadership of the APDM and not
the JI. In my view it is fairly naïve to think
that these secular parties with a low vote bank,
an inability to make electoral victories and weak
party organization will reap the benefit of
popular movement. The Jamaat is the only party in
the APDM which has the most sophisticated party
structure and also the political clout.
Presently, the Jamaat’s silence is the most
strategic and its willingness to offer leadership
of the APDM to nationalist is also not without
deep political thinking.

The decision of liberal and centralist parties to
contest elections that will be held under the
supervision of the PCO judges and the alliance of
secular forces with the JI in the APDM does not
leave much choice for the citizens. Also this
situation creates a dilemma for the civil society
groups who are at the forefront of the protest
movement. They know the movement cannot succeed
until the political parties join forces with
them. Nevertheless, they are reluctant to join
hands with the APDM due to the above-mentioned
analysis. This makes the current political
situation highly complicated and has serious
repercussions for the current political movement.

The only way out of the present dilemma is that
all democratic and secular forces must walk on a
separate track. They must not blur their identity
by mingling with retrogressive religious parties
of the APDM. They should make their own alliance
and should be ready to lead this secular
movement. Therefore, it is critically important
for the democratic/secular forces in the country
to unite and lead the movement under its own
banner and with its own identity.