THOSE of us who were hoping that political
parties would take a principled stand and boycott
a sham structure and system which merely
legitimises and endorses President Musharraf’s
political arrangement were called naïve, or
worse, once the main political parties decided to
participate in the 2008 elections.
Questions were raised about issues relating to
individual and public or political morality,
where a number of people argued that while it was
acceptable as individuals to take certain
principled positions privately, in politics the
game is not so much about such individual
dilemmas but about opportunities. The arguments
stated that political actors are in the game to
achieve political power, and their morality or
principles should not be constrained by that
goal. Hence, when they have the opportunity to
acquire power, their principles could be set
aside.In any other language such behaviour would
be called the crassest form of opportunism, but
in the language of politics it is known as
tactics. The argument goes that rather than hold
on to some principled stand and sit on the
sidelines and watch the political process unfold,
political actors are better off if they protest,
yet accept and play by the rules of the game, for
they would otherwise be completely marginalised
in the process which they are hoping to
influence. If the opportunity to influence the
larger political process arises, whether through
collaboration, collusion or compromise, political
actors are required to be political rather than
moralists.
This politics of opportunism based on
collaboration, or these so-called political
tactics, deserves far greater scrutiny in our
public discourse than it has received. If
politics is to be devoid of principles and
determined merely by the possibility of
opportunity, then the political stand of some
actors against military intervention, or in
defence of a persecuted judiciary or a hounded
media, must be quickly dismissed as mere
adventurism. However, even political parties
sitting on the fence waiting for their
collaborative opportunity would have a problem in
dismissing such principled political activism as
naïve, for perhaps the same political parties are
the greatest beneficiaries of such principled
activism.
Let us set aside this complicated problem of the
relationship between individual morality and
political praxis for a moment, and proceed with a
discussion on the difference between the praxis
of politics and the practice of democratic
politics. This might sound like a trivial
difference, but the arguments of morality and the
real-life politics of much of the last twelve
months allow us to make a marked distinction
between the two. Importantly, one must emphasise
the point that while political actors and
democratic actors are two different entities,
which often overlap, they are mutually dependent
on each other, linked and influencing one
another.The military in Pakistan is the most
important political actor in Pakistan, and is
obviously an undemocratic one. No problem
distinguishing between politics and democracy
here. Because of the power of the barrel of many
guns, it has been the most dominant institution
in the country for some decades now, and since
1999 has been judge, jury, arbitrator and
prosecutor in Pakistan’s mainstream political
process. Individuals from the military have
determined and set the rules of all the games
related to politics, and whatever politics that
has been played in Pakistan has taken place under
those rules.
By accepting the political rules of the military,
one can no longer call the process, nor those who
collaborate with the military, democratic.
Political, certainly, but not democratic. Yet,
importantly, one must also add that the
circumstances, even of a praetorian system in
which some representation and participation takes
place, expand both political and democratic
spaces.
Political parties and other actors who claim some
democratic licence, lose that license and their
credibility when they collaborate with a military
regime, whatever justification they conjure up,
even though their collaborationist action
unintentionally creates democratic spaces. In
fact, and ironically, while individual decisions
(morality?) of collaboration lead to the
compromise of their democratic principles, the
unintended consequences do create democratic
spaces.
The support for Chief Executive Musharraf in 1999
by civil society actors is one example when many
champions of democracy, for personal and selfish
reasons, gave up their democratic license to have
perhaps their only opportunity to participate in
a political process, although in this case their
politics did not open the way for democracy.
On the other hand, political decisions, like the
Nov 3 martial law and the earlier clampdown on
the judiciary and continued pressure and
arm-twisting of the media, have created far more
space for democratic politics than could have
been expected, despite the absence of political
actors in this democratic space.
The main argument here is that political parties
and actors are more concerned with access to, and
preferably capturing, power than with the
modalities of getting there. If deals can be
struck and compromises made, one ought to be
clear about the undemocratic nature of that
politics.
One can certainly live with such collaboration,
for this too pushes the political spaces forward
and creates new spaces in which others, perhaps
more inclined towards democratic ideals and hence
not necessarily focused on acquiring power, can
manœuvre. Political spaces do expand democratic
spaces and do feed off each other, but one needs
to be able to distinguish between the two.
And it is the question of morality which perhaps
helps in making that distinction possible. If
individual morality, such as compromise with the
military, leads to more democratic spaces for
everyone, should one condemn the compromise? If,
on the other hand, holding steadfast to
principles causes a political party or other
democratic forces to lose out on the political
process, by boycotting an election for example,
does one celebrate the morality and laugh at
their ’political’ naiveté? The answers are
probably to be found in an understanding of
recent political processes in the country.
In an unequal relationship, the former COAS
determined the rules of all the games played in
the country, as well as who would be allowed to
play by those rules. Those who were allowed to
participate in those political games accepted his
terms. Because the relationship between
representatives of the military and of political
parties was so one-sided, the democratic space
increased only slowly on account of this liaison.
Political representatives were always subservient
to the rules of the game. And in fact democratic
spaces were opened up despite the presence of
political actors.
The vast democratic space that has been opening
up - where on earth does a military general
impose martial law for six weeks, and two weeks
after imposing it inform his adversaries that he
will lift it on a specific date? - has been on
account of those who have been taking individual
and political moral stands, and who haven’t been
playing by the rules. While political action and
processes do lead to democratic spaces, they do
so largely inadvertently. Agency, in expanding
the broader democratic process, on the other hand
comes from principled stands.