Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Anatomy of anti-Musharraf agitation
The Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) tried to make a grand show of strength on Monday. But if the expectation was that it would be an Armageddon after which the government would start quaking with fear and ask for terms from the PPP and the PMLN, this did not happen. One major reason: the PPP and the JUI are playing footsie with the government and are in no mood to rock the boat unduly.
Nonetheless, the parties came out fairly in the major cities of the country and had a degree of popular sentiment with them. Did they aim at getting the people at large to join them and create the impression of a popular upsurge? One is constrained to say that this was not the objective of the parties.
To begin with, there was an obvious ââ¬Åreservationââ¬Â from the PPP that the ARD should put up the show without the clerics of the MMA. But if the reaction from the clergy was lukewarm, this can be attributed to its expectation that the PPP was aiming to put up the big show in which the clergy would be dwarfed by the much larger party. Of course, there is no doubt that the PPP dominated in the cities where its support is strong. The PMLN was there too but its Punjab leader Zulfiqar Khosa was clearly eclipsed by the PPP counterpart Shah Mahmud Qureshi.
Lahore was for a long time the city of Nawaz Sharif. He was strong on the basis of market committees where his people ruled the roost. The PPP had begun to lose in Lahore regularly and was getting used to being the rural party in Punjab, just like the All India Congress has yielded the cities to the BJP in India. But after 1999, the PML was bisected to form PMLQ and the city shopkeepers and traders moved quietly behind the new Punjabi leadership from Gujrat. It is therefore not surprising that the show in Lahore belonged mainly to the PPP after the government had given permission for the rally.
Peshawar, Karachi and Quetta were witness to a decent coalescence of the ARD with the MMA, all calling for the reinstatement of the fired chief justice of the Supreme Court. In Lahore the emphasis was on the resignation of the government, but the parties were reluctant to walk together. The total number was a couple of thousand only, a far cry from the crowds when Ms Bhutto returned from exile to Lahore in 1986. There definitely seemed to be an insistence on party rather than alliance. Even the two parties of the ARD did not walk in lockstep. The clerics walked separately behind the leader of the Jamaat Islami, Liaquat Baloch.
The government did the routine pre-rally arrests to eliminate a clutch of leaders who might have created problems in Lahore and Faisalabad. But the Lahore police didnââ¬â¢t stand in the way of the procession and allowed it to go to Nila Gumbad and the High Court where it was peacefully joined by lawyers. The PPP reservation about the MMA was ignored by the Jamaat which joined the protest. The whole affair was peaceful and was nothing like the 2006 protest against the Danish cartoons when Lahore was put to the torch by youths with clear organisational linkages.
The protest against the dismissal of the chief justice of Pakistan has been the most widespread phenomenon of recent years. All cities big and small have, in their own way, supported the lawyers in their daily protests. In a way, the ARD call, by all accounts insisted upon by Mr Sharif, was supposed to be the climax of the great anti-Musharraf build-up. Mr Sharif thought the ARD should join hands with the MMA and make it a big show. But it didnââ¬â¢t turn out that big and couldnââ¬â¢t tip the critical balance to force the government out of power.
In fact, the Monday protest never looked like a threat to the government. It turned out that Quetta had a bigger showing than Lahore! The PPP didnââ¬â¢t coordinate the slogans to be raised. Its leaders raised different kinds of slogans in different cities. The Quetta leader wanted the 1973 Constitution reinstated but it was not clear whether he wanted the Constitution without Ziaââ¬â¢s 8th Amendment or Musharrafââ¬â¢s 17th Amendment. If one goes back to 1999 ââ¬â which is what the MMA wants to do ââ¬â then we waive the ban on Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif; if we go back to the pre-Zia 1973 Constitution, then we retain our joint electorates.
Is there a law of protest? When does it become an uprising forcing the government out of power? In the old days any kind of confrontation with the people was a signal for the government to seek terms or quit. Today, the ability of the government to take a lot of vandalism and disruption of public life has increased. The only way a mass movement can bring about change is if something from within the government gives way and the change becomes a bridge to a new political process
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\28\story_28-3-2007_pg3_1
Anatomy of anti-Musharraf agitation
The Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) tried to make a grand show of strength on Monday. But if the expectation was that it would be an Armageddon after which the government would start quaking with fear and ask for terms from the PPP and the PMLN, this did not happen. One major reason: the PPP and the JUI are playing footsie with the government and are in no mood to rock the boat unduly.
Nonetheless, the parties came out fairly in the major cities of the country and had a degree of popular sentiment with them. Did they aim at getting the people at large to join them and create the impression of a popular upsurge? One is constrained to say that this was not the objective of the parties.
To begin with, there was an obvious ââ¬Åreservationââ¬Â from the PPP that the ARD should put up the show without the clerics of the MMA. But if the reaction from the clergy was lukewarm, this can be attributed to its expectation that the PPP was aiming to put up the big show in which the clergy would be dwarfed by the much larger party. Of course, there is no doubt that the PPP dominated in the cities where its support is strong. The PMLN was there too but its Punjab leader Zulfiqar Khosa was clearly eclipsed by the PPP counterpart Shah Mahmud Qureshi.
Lahore was for a long time the city of Nawaz Sharif. He was strong on the basis of market committees where his people ruled the roost. The PPP had begun to lose in Lahore regularly and was getting used to being the rural party in Punjab, just like the All India Congress has yielded the cities to the BJP in India. But after 1999, the PML was bisected to form PMLQ and the city shopkeepers and traders moved quietly behind the new Punjabi leadership from Gujrat. It is therefore not surprising that the show in Lahore belonged mainly to the PPP after the government had given permission for the rally.
Peshawar, Karachi and Quetta were witness to a decent coalescence of the ARD with the MMA, all calling for the reinstatement of the fired chief justice of the Supreme Court. In Lahore the emphasis was on the resignation of the government, but the parties were reluctant to walk together. The total number was a couple of thousand only, a far cry from the crowds when Ms Bhutto returned from exile to Lahore in 1986. There definitely seemed to be an insistence on party rather than alliance. Even the two parties of the ARD did not walk in lockstep. The clerics walked separately behind the leader of the Jamaat Islami, Liaquat Baloch.
The government did the routine pre-rally arrests to eliminate a clutch of leaders who might have created problems in Lahore and Faisalabad. But the Lahore police didnââ¬â¢t stand in the way of the procession and allowed it to go to Nila Gumbad and the High Court where it was peacefully joined by lawyers. The PPP reservation about the MMA was ignored by the Jamaat which joined the protest. The whole affair was peaceful and was nothing like the 2006 protest against the Danish cartoons when Lahore was put to the torch by youths with clear organisational linkages.
The protest against the dismissal of the chief justice of Pakistan has been the most widespread phenomenon of recent years. All cities big and small have, in their own way, supported the lawyers in their daily protests. In a way, the ARD call, by all accounts insisted upon by Mr Sharif, was supposed to be the climax of the great anti-Musharraf build-up. Mr Sharif thought the ARD should join hands with the MMA and make it a big show. But it didnââ¬â¢t turn out that big and couldnââ¬â¢t tip the critical balance to force the government out of power.
In fact, the Monday protest never looked like a threat to the government. It turned out that Quetta had a bigger showing than Lahore! The PPP didnââ¬â¢t coordinate the slogans to be raised. Its leaders raised different kinds of slogans in different cities. The Quetta leader wanted the 1973 Constitution reinstated but it was not clear whether he wanted the Constitution without Ziaââ¬â¢s 8th Amendment or Musharrafââ¬â¢s 17th Amendment. If one goes back to 1999 ââ¬â which is what the MMA wants to do ââ¬â then we waive the ban on Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif; if we go back to the pre-Zia 1973 Constitution, then we retain our joint electorates.
Is there a law of protest? When does it become an uprising forcing the government out of power? In the old days any kind of confrontation with the people was a signal for the government to seek terms or quit. Today, the ability of the government to take a lot of vandalism and disruption of public life has increased. The only way a mass movement can bring about change is if something from within the government gives way and the change becomes a bridge to a new political process
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\28\story_28-3-2007_pg3_1
