Dharna politics
THE latest episode of dharna politics this country has witnessed may or may not have a sting in its tail.
After all, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s ‘Plan B’ which entails JUI-F supporters blocking several major arteries all over the country — a series of ‘mini dharnas’, as it were — continues to be in play, keeping alive the potential for violent confrontation. However, there is a whiff of a face-saving exercise about it all, and the PTI government, despite its current travails, must be enormously relieved.
The optics of tens of thousands of protesters camped out in the centre of Islamabad had clearly given it the jitters, while the dispersed sit-ins currently under way do not, so far, pose a similar challenge. In fact, if they peter out, the maulana’s undoubtedly considerable skill at maintaining his political relevance will be sorely tested. While the loyalties of his party’s traditional constituency, the madressah cohort, would likely not waver, his aspirations of leading a joint opposition movement against the PTI government — despite the JUI-F’s minimal presence in parliament — will certainly go up in smoke. It could prove to be a very costly gamble.
Then there is a broader question: is a dharna ever an advisable course of action to bring down a government that has come to power through the electoral process?
The right to protest is inherent to a democracy; it is a legitimate political tactic in a system based upon the people’s will, howsoever flawed may be the practical translation of that will.
The PTI government has made many a fumble, and at times displayed appalling indecision and political vindictiveness towards the opposition in the little over one year it has been in power. It has also often been an obstructionist and dictatorial government, preferring to rule by fiat rather than by consensus of the other parties in parliament.
Nevertheless, a government that has come in through the power of the vote should not be brought down through street agitation. A boisterous opposition can strengthen the system, but it must know where to draw the line. Not doing so can play into the hands of those that do not respect the will of the people.
On this score, the PPP and PML-N — possibly with the hindsight gained after their own experiences with dharnas by the opposition — have responded with restraint and maturity to the maulana’s call for a mass protest. Of course, it was the PTI itself that attempted to overthrow the PML-N government with its mammoth sit-in that paralysed Islamabad for four months in 2014.
The Supreme Court’s Faizabad dharna judgement rightly declared: “The right of assembly is recognised as a right to preserve the democratic order, but it cannot be used to overthrow a lawful government.” The political parties must take their battle off the streets and into parliament, and bolster this country’s perennially fragile democracy.
Privatisation debate
FOR a political party that did not highlight privatisation as a priority in its detailed election manifesto, and largely opposed all attempts at the same by previous governments, it is somewhat puzzling to see the energy with which the PTI is pursuing the matter now. We have heard the finance adviser talk repeatedly about the importance of privatising the LNG-based power plants; the prime minister himself has underscored the importance of accelerating the privatisation of the steel mill; and now the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation has given directions for the privatisation of the SME Bank and PIA Investments. The urgency is such that the government is willing to disrupt the entire LNG supply chain just so that it can rip the two large power plants they wish to privatise out of their power purchase commitments. Moreover, the government has not only readily written privatisation into the IMF plan, but also programmed the funds to be received from it as ‘revenue’ rather than as a financing item, which would be the proper treatment to give to proceeds from privatisation.
All this runs against the grain of what the PTI has always argued, and, indeed, embarked upon once it came to power. All last year, we constantly heard about a holding company under which all state-owned enterprises would be placed, and how the government would ensure that they would be shielded from political influence. The idea was to turn these units around, but retain them as government-owned entities. Suddenly, all that is gone, and the speed and urgency with which privatisation is being advanced today is striking. The little accounting gimmick that allows the proceeds of privatisation to be counted as revenue rather than financing might provide a clue. The government has steep targets to meet for the collection of foreign exchange reserves as well as federal revenue by the end of this fiscal year. Without proceeds from privatisation, it is unlikely it will be able to do this. It is increasingly becoming clear that the only priority driving the privatisation agenda in the country is money, and if they are treated as a financing item, as required by the law, and not as revenue, then the proceeds will do little to help meet the targets. There is a greater need to debate the merits of privatisation in the case of the entities that are on the list.
Gaza violence
IN the Palestinian territory of Gaza — as indeed in other parts of the occupied Arab land — Israel is free to shed innocent blood at will, with the world doing little other than expressing concern and often looking the other way. In the latest outbreak of violence, over 30 people were reported dead in Gaza, nearly half of them civilians, before a fragile truce took hold. The violence was sparked after Tel Aviv killed an alleged Islamic Jihad fighter and his wife; the armed resistance group responded with rocket fire targeting Israel, which triggered more air strikes by the Zionist state. In one particularly gruesome incident, a family of eight, including at least five children, were massacred by Israel in a midnight raid. Tel Aviv said it had targeted an “Islamic Jihad leader”. Though there was little by way of remorse, an Israeli army spokesman said they were “investigating the harm caused to civilians”.
Despite the Israeli statement, will those responsible for this cold-blooded murder of innocents be held accountable? If past precedent is anything to go by, Israel’s friends in high places — particularly in the US and Europe — will continue to protect their ally and defend its barbaric behaviour. It is argued that Israel has a right to defend itself from Palestinian rockets. While civilians should not be deliberately targeted anywhere, Palestinian rocket fire is a sign of frustration of the 6m people living in Gaza, often referred to as the world’s largest open-air prison. As the UN has described it, the Israeli blockade of Gaza “is a denial of basic human rights in contravention of international law and amounts to collective punishment”. Palestinian armed resistance is a reaction to Israel’s suffocating siege, as the Arabs are not free to work, farm and travel in the land of their fathers. And when hostilities do break out, children are mercilessly slaughtered as Israel trumpets its right of ‘self-defence’. Unless there is justice for the Palestinian people, this cycle of violence — especially Tel Aviv’s impunity — will continue.