Shahbaz Sharif: Not So Savvy After All

It had to happen. The dirt was almost willfully being swallowed whole by the likes of Rana Sanaullah and a few other gnomes, while the Chief Minister, our very own builder of roads and opener of clogged gutters, came out relatively clean every time. At one point, everyone (at least in Punjab) must have thought, ‘man this guy is a good administrator, its a shame he’s surrounded by such incompetent people’. Well, thankfully, that myth has been laid to rest after Little Brother’s open ended plea to the Taliban, asking for some respite for the people of Punjab (not Pakistan btw). The logic, however, was amazingly convoluted. Observe:

We got rid of Musharraf
You Hate Musharraf
Hence me and you are technically on the same side
So you dont need to attack us

Amazingly, in that (previously bald) little head of his, the Taliban are simply reduced to a bunch of avid Musharraf haters, who should actually be happy with the PML (N) because they were responsible for his resignation. So by his logic, the Taliban should then be attacking Karachi, because its filled with those ‘MQM’ sort who were BFF’s with the Musharraf regime.

Actually this anti- Shahbaz rant was written right before i read this excellent piece on cafe pyala which reveals the entire context of Shahbaz’s statement at Jamia Naeemia. Hamid Mir, apparently, was somehow involved in providing the premise on which the CM built his statement. Oh well, serves him right for listening to a twit like Mir in the first place. The liberal segment (i wonder if you can actually call 3 and a half people a segment?!?!?), of the press finally got their chance at the jugular of the PML (N) government, considering how they’ve previously basically been chasing shadows or aforementioned gnomes. Nadeem Farooq Paracha wasted little time in coming up with a piece on Sharifs statement, a slightly refined version of his usual tirade – something that we all very thankful for.

Now to more important things. The statement of chotay mian sahab, has been linked with the previous ‘moves’ of Head Gnome Rana Sanaullah in pandering to some members of the banned SSP over the Jhang elections. The media has been quick to point out that since the PML (N) has shown signs of appeasing extremist elements in a place like Jhang, they appear to be more amicable towards the Taliban and other overtly religious elements in the country. A lot of this is built upon a prevailing conception of how the Muslim League is definitively more Islamic in its agenda than the PPP (or the ANP/MQM for that matter).

Two things interest me more than any label-sticking at this particular point.

1) If we assume that the PML (N) is decidedly more religious in its political orientation, what does this imply and if its true then why is this the case?

2) Are other parties, like the PPP-ANP-MQM, more secular along the same yardstick of ‘religiosity’ that was used to measure up the PML (N)?

A few general standards can be used to measure how religious a mainstream Pakistani political party really is. Firstly, a review of legislative actions can show us a fairly clear picture of where does each party fall on the liberal-illiberal spectrum. Historically, the PML has been supportive of ‘moral’ or ‘morally inspired’ legislation. Things like banning cell phone service packages during the night is justified in the name of religion and its decrees regarding contact between unmarried males and females. The PML (Q) itself was not in favor of a complete repeal of the Hudood Ordinance, choosing only to take it ‘one step at a time’ (the next steps after the partial amendment never came). The PML never touched the Hudood Ordinance when it had a supermajority between 1996-1999, and if the claims are true, the proposed Ameer-ul-Momineen amendment is enough to prove that the PML harbors more than just a personalistic affiliation with Islam. Second standard of measurement, and very relevant to the on going discussion on Head Gnome’s behind-the-bushes affair with the SSP, is how willing political parties are in forging alliances with overtly religious groups like the JUI, JI, SSP, JUP etc. Well, on that standard, the PML has a strong showing as well. In 2002, the PML (N) entered into seat adjustment with the Jamaat-i-Islami, and if JI’s Hafiz Salman Butt is to be believed (big if), then the PML (N) Lahore committee literally came over to his house and begged him to stand up against Mian Amer in the District Nazim election with their full backing. In 1990, the PML was in alliance with the JI and the JUI in the shape of the IJI (Islami Jamhoori Ittehad). So safe to say, the PML has maintained cordial ties with the overtly religious right. There are other things that can be considered as well, such as the use of Islamic symbolism in political rhetoric, something that Shahbaz Sharif has never shied away from. I remember his speech in Azad Kashmir prior to the 2008 general elections and it was filled with metaphorical comparisons between the Kashmir ‘Jihad’ and Ghazwa-i-Badar, and how ultimately Kashmir will one day become part of Pakistan.

With these two standards out of the way, we need to delve a little deeper into trying to understand why exactly does the PML (and i use the term collectively) have such a soft spot for those that lie further down on the right. Simplistic explanations such as ‘oh they’re supported by the merchant classes hence they are more religiously inclined’ might be true, but they do not reveal the extent of this relationship and nor are very helpful in trying to understand the dynamics of this particular brand of politics. I personally have a few justifications of my own which i’ll lay down:

1) Personal affiliations of the leadership: As a constructed (as opposed to organic) party they’re just a collection of believers who feel rather strongly about religion in the political domain. Add a few former IJT activists like Javed Hashmi and a couple of ex-Jamaatiyas like Hanif Abbasi, into the mix and you’ll eventually end up with a closer association between this set of believers and the more overt ones.

2) The Politics of Numbers: The region used by the League as its performative stage, Punjab, is more religious. Meaning the role of the mosque, the madrassah and the mullah is greater in determining the way people vote. This also ties in with the oft-used justification that members of the petty bourgeoise, and other service sector based professions, are more religiously inclined and since they form the major base of support for the League in urban areas, the League is colored along their lines. A further implication to this argument is that people in this region see the state as a moral as well as a political authority, which hence leaves the League with the obvious choice of organizing alongside the agents of political Islam. This is basically an essentialist/identity based explanation, which if anything leads us to question why are people (or specifically people in the middle classes) religious in Punjab or anywhere else for that matter, and why do they imagine the state in moral terms rather than just political terms.

3) After all they are called the ‘Muslim’ League

4) There is no fourth bullet. I added this because 4 points are better than 3.

So where do the other parties fall in on the spectrum of religiosity?

For starters, the PPP is also ideologically inclined but more so on the basis of socio-economic and material lines. Yes, the party manipulates its vote banks by showing them the proverbial ‘roti kapra makaan’ flag and its true that a large part of their vote bank comes straight from the pockets of landlords scattered across the country, but should we down play the role of ideology just because it doesnt translate into policy? For the disillusioned voter, a vote for the PPP is simply a reaffirmation of some faith in that if he currently stands on 10 on the material scale in life, a PPP government in his province will see him move up to 11 or maybe 12 (this scale was an arbitrary invention on my part). Hence the ideological point does go well for the PPP. Similarly the MQM and the ANP have both socio-economics and ethnicity as cheerleaders for their parties. For the MQM it was the disillusioned and unemployed lower-middle class Muhajirs, for the ANP it was the Pakhtoon peasantry and the urban proletariat in NWFP (they also controlled the landlords which is again like what the PPP does).

So clearly the ideology of electoral contestation for these three parties doesnt have religion figured in as much as the Muslim League. How about legislation? Well, the PPP never repealed the Hudood Ordinances whenever they came into power so thats no different from the League. They gave us the 1973 constitution, which declared Ahmadiis as non-Muslims so thats another point of moral legislation. What is more revealing is the politics of making alliances. The PPP has had, at various times over the last 20 or so years, various Islamic parties as junior partners. If things are to be believed, they got the support of the SSP in Bahawalnagar, they backed Butt in NA-123, Militant deobandis like the JUI-F (of whom btw the Lashkar e jhangvi and the SSP are direct offshoots from) are currently sitting with them in the cabinet. They have a certain man called Israr-ullah-Zehri in their cabinet who at one time tried to justify the live burial of women in the name of culture. And my personal favorite fact, in 1995, the Sardar Arif Nakai PPP-PML(F, J) coalition government in Punjab enlisted two SSP members into its cabinet to keep the PML (N) on the opposition benches. Everything said and done, the MQM is perhaps the only party to have stayed visibly clear of alliances with the religious right, yet they’re just too illiberal on a bunch of other accounts (ethnic exclusivity being the most obvious one) to be taken seriously or in good spirit.

By this stage, one would very well ask, whats the point of this increasingly drawn out elaboration. Well, the larger point here is that there is no definitive secular ideology in mainstream politics. There are non-religious ideologies, but they do not translate into secular action as far as alliance formation or legislation is concerned. Which brings us back to the Nusrat Javed statement, ‘asool kee siyaasat khatam ho chukee hay’ or simply put, local politics in Pakistan has a logic that transcends debates over religion and secularity. This transcendental politics wraps around very localized issues, issues that could be sectarian, ethnic or socio-economic in nature. The PML (N) might be more religiously inclined legislatively than the PPP, but both are equally likely to forge links with Islamic groups if such linkages will translate into the capture of political power.

p.s. The ‘asool’ vs ‘zaroorat’ politics post will be the next time i write something. Which might be a while because i have one paper to finish and then i’m heading over to Lahore for Easter break.