Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 16, 2023

Imran Khan and the Political Scene in Pakistan

 When Imran Khan's government was ousted in a vote of non confidence in April 2022 one thing was clear that a multitude of political and vested interests aligned to thwart any political comeback. While the non confidence vote in itself was by the book there was little doubt that there was a good deal of 'nudging' by various interest sections to ensure the outcome was his ouster. To say what followed was to be a test of Imran Khan's political acumen is an understatement. Now a year an half later the highly popular Khan is incarcerated in prison under a 3 year jail term, his party has been ploughed through leaving a shell which he cannot really rebuild while inside. Yet Imran's political journey is a repeat of Pakistan's sad political journey where every elected Prime Minister since 1970 has been jailed at least once. 

In a country where opposition to the government is immediately equated with being a traitor to the country it is not surprising that patriots in the true sense are hard to recognise and much less appreciate. There is also little denying that every leading political figure has, at some time or the other, had the benevolent hand of the establishment guiding their destiny. This was true to Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and even Imran Khan, while one may argue as to the extent of the support and guidance that each may have received. 

There was a significant difference in the emergence of Imran Khan as a political leader because it was achieved on the back of massive political following amongst the youth of the country. While his three plus years in office were not spectacular they were not a failure either. It would seem that while his PTI government was planning for a long stay at the wicket and planning accordingly the reality was that with a coalition government the innings could not be guaranteed to be a long one. Imran's style of leadership, largely focused around his own office and persona, did not create the infrastructure of a true political party. This is much like his rival PMLN and PPP which remain movements collected around a couple of individuals. Both rival parties have never had qualms about making special deals to either remain in power or to regain power. Khan and his PTI not only lack the wheeling and dealing experience of the other two but also didn't use its time in office to galvanise the small political pressure groups into their mantra. 

Imran and his PTI forged a message of a 'Naya (New) Pakistan' where by definition they were going to change the way things happen in Pakistan. Even proclaiming such a noble objective is likely to rile up vested interests in the country who have created, nourished and benefited from the set up that has been shaped over 75 years since Independence. In hindsight Imran chose a platform where he created more enemies that he could handle and prudence may have suggested a step by step approach to remedy the system. But given his age and the lack of political depth in his party Imran Khan was in a hurry to change things, and being in a hurry one is likely to make mistakes. 

Having been removed from office Imran Khan seemed to feel he can, single handedly, rewrite the political narrative in the country and 'force' a perfect storm where the government of the PDM (an alliance of 13 parties) would be forced to call elections. While in Jan 2022 the PTI government's popularity was waning on the back of inflation and weakening currency, his ouster surged his popularity to an unprecedented level. Ironically this surge in public following was perhaps the single most deciding factor for Imran's opponents to attempt to derail his political journey.

The events of the past 18 months are not a good reflection on Imran Khan's political acumen. In similar measure it has also be a unique insight into how the 'state' can treat its political opponents. Human rights violations, disappearance of journalists, and a crack down on political dissent is the order of the day. Nearly 200 criminal cases have been filed against Imran Khan, all of which cannot be substantive, with the aim of bogging him and his supporter down into a legal quick sand long enough to dismember his political party. 

One is often asked if Imran Khan could have handled things differently. Without the benefit of being in the driving seat one can only make suppositions, and they may well be off the mark in such an analysis. After losing the majority in the parliament Imran chose to boycott the National Assembly, perhaps a move that back fired as his opponents mustered a sham opposition group and continued about their business. In cricketing terms Imran Khan forgot that you cannot win a match by sitting in the stadium. Even when the umpires are not neutral, and the pitch is doctored against you, your team still has to play the game. (After all he did that against India in the series there). 

Thereafter the strategy seemed to be to appeal to the public and political rallies, and long marches became the order of the day. The show of force was at times impressive but it created two issues. The lack of immediate gains from these rallies, and the possibility of steam running out of the political fervour all suggested this was not going to be a quick resolution on the back of street power. The government of the 13 did what they do best, locked down on the media blanking out coverage of Khan and his political message. Imran felt that the peoples support was his biggest weapon, and to a large extent he is not wrong. However he did not use this support to capitalise in any negotiations he could have had with his opponents and the establishment. On the contrary there were no substantive negotiations and till this day each side blames the other for the absence of a dialogue. 

While national media was ordered to blank out Imran Khan the one thing they could not control was the social media. Undoubtedly the passionate support for Khan in the social media grew and continues till today. It perhaps remains the single most focused voice that emerges in favour of Imran Khan. However, as much as social media is an amazing tool it is also something that is not entirely understood and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to control. So much so that PTI position holders also got carried away in their messaging as an aggressive and at times vile campaign emerged against anyone or any section of society that did not embrace the PTI narrative. After the first short period of arrest of Imran Khan on  May 9 2023, it was no surprise that the intended peaceful protests turned violent. It is unlikely that such violence, which the nation had seen many times before in its history, was personally directed by Imran Khan, but clearly this is one of the many cases he will have to face. 

It is evident that there is a concerted effort to not only discredit Imran Khan but also to disfranchise him from politics altogether. Notwithstanding the legal challenges that he faces, Khan's role in a political sense will not simply fade away. His political survival will not only depend upon the powers that be but also on how he plays his cards in the coming months. If elections are held between November and February next year then as things stand Imran may well not be in the race for office. However PTI, if organised fast enough, could fight the election on the back of Khan's popularity and have a suitable enough showing in a high turn out election to make them a factor in the future of Pakistan politics. On the other hand a low turn out election which are prone to riggings, may result in PTI being marginalised. 

Some may argue that Imran Khan has no need to reinvent himself in a political sense, and this may well be true. However, he will need to assess not only his tactics and strategy but also focus again on the organisation of his party. Empowered by the support of the younger generation he must focus on his next generation of party leadership and build the party from the bottom up. The test will be whether he will need 'electables' who are assured election victory due to caste, creed or local politics. If the traction he has gained in the past 18 months amongst the populous can be maintained then his direct or indirect presence on the political scene cannot be set aside. Unlike the Sharif family where inspite of Nawaz Sharif being disqualified and sentenced to jail there is a plethora of family members to continue their political presence, Imran does not have the same situation. This implies that Imran has to gravitate to the young wing of his party who had not abandoned him irrespective of the pressure on them to do so. 

Imran Khan will have, nevertheless, rethink his approach in a political comeback he is likely to make. The steps he would have to consider would broadly encompass the following:

  • Rebuild the party at the grass root level.
  • Bring in a new empowered leadership.
  • Create a non partisan 'think tank' to plan key economic, political, legal and social reforms.
  • Reset his relationship with the military establishment.
  •  Recognise that in Pakistan large scale change can only be done in phases.
  • Build a core of highly professional individuals who would be the essence of their governance should they win the election.
  • Decentralise power from himself and empower a new cadre of leadership.
Perhaps the list can be a mile long but it is essential for Pakistan that the current polarisation is not conducive to the country. Each segment, including Imran Khan, has to play their part in bringing sanity to the system. One thing is clear that things cannot continue in the manner they have been conducted over the past seven decades. Clearly the one thing that Khan's presence has done, rightly or wrongly, given a voice to the youth who were unheard in the past. His party should not see them as a tool for electoral victory but empower them to be a positive influence in the country. 

On the flip side it would be naive to think that popular political leaders can be simply dissolved into the heap of history. One may argue that some of Khan's image may well be tarnished. While Imran's popularity is perhaps his best insurance to prevent the worst, it is also the biggest threat he poses to his opponents. Imran's maturity is what is on test as to how these assets are used to not only tone down the political conflict but to project that politics in Pakistan does not need to be a zero sum game. 

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Istanbul Airport: Some thoughts.


Back in 1980's a vicious circle of sectarian violence gripped Karachi, where people were shot in mosques, homes were bombed and people kidnapped and executed by miscreants who from both the Shia and the Sunni sects. The Taliban had not been invented, 9/11 was way over the horizon, the US war on terror was not coined and Gitmo did not exist. I then wrote a piece in which I called this the "Kalashnikov Culture": a deeply disturbing sense of right embedded in the dogma of misguided self styled "religious" figures and in effect stated that this had nothing to do with Islam but merely terrorists hijacking Islam.

A few weeks after the article I bumped into one of the self styled leaders of this sect at the karachi airport and he proudly told me his mission was to cleanse Pakistan. I narrated to him my view that he did not understand Islam and his beard and turban were ideal replacements for the ski mask that bank robbers in the US don during their raids. He was offended and called me an infidel amongst other colourful names.

Three decades on we have seen a lot of senseless killings have taken place around the world, and with it not only has the violence been politicised it has also been steeped into religious labels. The vernacular of the terrorist has become more pronounced and the acts of violence become more senseless. While the self styled leader thirty years back did not have the labels of Jihadist, Taliban or ISIS, his actions were simply violent based on his own self beliefs.

The attack on Istanbul airport highlight the blind nature of these attacks; killing innocent people and while no one has so far claimed responsibility yet seems to be motivated by the same misguided nonsense of the ISIS, and the Taliban. Before my American friends jump on this let it be said emphatically that more Muslims have been killed by these so called "Islamist" radicals than any people of any other faith. These attacks are not on the US, these attacks are against EVERYONE and most of all against the Muslims themselves.

However, we are making the problem worse by styling it as "Islamic Terrorism" and buying into the hysteria of Islamophobia because these attackers are not Muslims. If they follow the Quran and the teaching of Prophet Muhammed then their violent actions are contrary to the principles and teaching of Islam. We have to come up with a new word a new vernacular for these people and this should not be a religious one. If all the people who committed the school shootings were to say they did it because they were Christians we would be wrong to say that Christianity was at fault.

Here are my reasons to say that these attackers are not Muslims:

1. The act of taking the life of a person, and an innocent person at that, is essentially 'murder'. Assume that we buy into the argument of the ISIS that they are at war with the West and hence killing 'western infidels' is fine; here is the problem, even in those conditions the killing of a person who is not an instrument of war, nor a combatant is considered the killing of an innocent person and thus murder. 
Terrorism is above all murder. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).  verse 5:53 states , “… who so kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wrecking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” (reference to murder in 5.53 and to corruption, which is spreading terror in the land, means that for such crimes the person committing the crime can be put to death by the 'state'.)

These verses were never abrogated or superseded and form the basic injunctions to Muslims to consider all life 'sacred'. These attackers therefore are violating the injunction of the Quran itself.

2. One common 'logic', much like the man in Karachi, of such terrorists is that they are either 'cleansing' the land of infidels or they are imposing the 'will of Islam' on the people. In Islam it is forbidden to attempt to impose it upon people through force.  The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). This important verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD, at the very advent of Islam and it the foundation for tolerance and the lack of coercion in religious matters. So to paint the acts of terror as a religious act is contrary to the teaching is Islam.


3. Even in a state of declared warfare, (which has to be declared by the established head of an Islamic state) the Quran is very explicit in extolling Muslims to seek peace. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran in the Surah, “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”


How can Islam extoll aggressive behaviour when even in warfare it is asking Muslims to seek peace? 

4. There are many other examples of traditions from the life of Prophet Muhammed where aggression and violence were not the norm, so much so that he frowned upon surprise attacks even when war was declared and in one instance warned the adversary four months before an attack. In the conduct of war specific rules were made for his forces which included not harming women and children and non combatants and not destroying the land and trees and crops. 

Indeed in Arabia there was the tradition of 'Ghazu', which were raids on caravans and other tribes to acquire livestock and food, but these 'acquisition raids' had rules that insisted that no one must be killed in these raids. This was a tradition before the advent of Islam and during the Prophet's lifetime such raids were carried out. But the raids were not about aggression to kill the other party but merely to acquire goods and livestock. Western commentators often refer to these raids as a testimony to the violent nature of Islam; in the first place Ghazu was a pre Islamic tradition, and second, very rarely did they result in the taking of a life. 

The events in Istanbul highlight all my arguments that the people who sanction such attacks and carry them out are not Muslims. This was also the very point the Turkish Prime Minister made, all the more when we see that all the people killed in the raid were non combatants and innocent people. The insistence by these terror groups that they are killing infidels is completely wrong because in the first place they kill more Muslims than any other people, and then I must emphasise that Christians and Jews are people of the Book and are not considered infidels by Islam. Jesus and Mary are both highly revered in the Quran, so much so there is a whole chapter on Mary and extolls her virtues and role.

On a broader front two things, both very disturbing are going on in the world; on the one hand politicians like Donald Trump are playing the Islamophobia card with virtually no understanding of the religion or the issues, and on the other hand Muslims themselves lack the understanding to realise that Islam is being hijacked by these terror groups who claim and evangelical purity of their cause. It is time people on both sides of the fence realise that is a battle for the minds of the young people and tolerance, understanding and a common stance to assert that these terrorists are NOT Muslims and we should not label them as such. In such labels lie the damage of labelling all Muslims (ala Trump style) as terrorists.  

In my eyes all that this is an extension of the Kalashnikov Culture of the 1980's  and all that has happened is that these violent people have adopted for themselves a religious label; a label that everyone else has bought into and hence the word 'radical Islam'. My argument is simply that if one is a true Muslim there cannot be a radical Islam it can only be a tolerant and understanding Islam. 



Friday, June 24, 2016

Brexit and its impact.

In a close vote the Britons have spoken; they want out of the EU, want to take charge of their own country and its destiny and in the process have created a scenario where the possibilities are endless and the outcomes less than certain. The outcome of leaving the European Union while now inevitable has shown that Britain is a very divided country, surprising many who knew it would be a close vote but the outcome was not entirely expected. So what happens next.

Britain has two years to negotiate an exit deal from the EU, and if there is extension granted to this process then leaving without a deal would spell its own set of problems. This is much like a possible lengthy divorce proceeding, trade agreements to be unwound, new agreements to be made with partners like the US and Japan without the EU umbrella and the key aspects of preparing the financial disengagement costs between Britain and the rest of the EU. Most likely two years is not enough to hammer out the divorce agreement after a 43 year marriage and some EU members might well simply say that you elected to leave the marriage then do so without a favourable exit deal or an extension.

The effect of Brexit is wide ranging, one the one hand there is a strong possibility of a Nexit (Netherlands seeking an exit), and the right wing in France will push for a similar referendum with other members testing the mood for their electorate. In a sense politically the EU will feel stronger as a partner who was not entirely on board with the long term vision of the EU is now out. The flip side is that Germany may remain the only strong EU member wanting a stronger united Europe, while France, Netherlands and Denmark leading the charge for a looser Union arrangement. In essence the main problem for Britain was immigration law and they had wished a more Australia type point system on immigration rather than the current policy. EU leaderships stubborn stance on revising the policy then opened the pandoras box to a plethora of other issues resulting in Brexit.

The key question is will Britain benefit from this decision. There cannot be a serious sensible answer to this because a great deal will depend on the moving parts of the business environment. Yes emotionally the idea of 'winning back the country' has its own charm; but does this put bread on the table and create a strong economy? Personally, I believe till the exit deal is not worked out and new partnership agreements worked out over the next two years the British economy will remain depressed and the economic environment uncertain. A strong British economy will fundamentally rest upon two things:

1. Will the private sector in Britain take advantage of the lesser legislation (from EU) to invest heavily into the economy?

2. How successful will Britain be in negotiating new agreements with the US, Japan and the EU that cover trade, taxes and investments.

The best bet for Britain is that private sector investment will offset the effect of big business moving out of Britain as Brexit takes away the advantage for these manufacturers, like Nissan, to produce cars in Britain. Job losses from these closures will not be the only negative as such measures will effect the secondary and tertiary manufacturing sectors that support the factors supply chain. Can the private sector be strong enough to negate some of this effect is still questionable.

The question of negotiating new trade deals and investment and tax agreements is a more tricky matter. Britain, while the worlds fifth largest economy, now will negotiate from a weaker platform. These agreements are tedious and in some cases require multi level approvals, like in the US, and therefore a three to five year period is not unreasonable before this is sorted out. Britain might want to have a loose partnership agreement with the EU so as to not upset the existing relationship with EU too much, but I suspect that the European leadership may not be that accommodating on accepting such a partnership on terms too favourable to Britain.

If and only if, Britain can over come these two challenges that I have mentioned than perhaps in a period of five years from now Britain may well emerge from the this decision more stable and perhaps stronger. However, one must speculate that stronger does not mean stronger than the EU, but stronger from the position the country has been thrown into now.

In the interim what this means for business and the common man in Britain is that there will be a period of three to five years of uncertainty, higher consumer prices, more unemployment, lower investment into new businesses and the financial markets being in turmoil. While Britain will over haul their own immigration law and perhaps reduce the impact on the large number of EU citizens currently working in UK, there will be shrinking of the financial sector with job losses, manufacturing industry slow down. Yes a weaker pound will mean competitive exports but will this be substantial remains to be seen.

To me at a very personal level it is surprising that the issue of introducing a point system immigration system has been blown up to the extent that Brexit became a reality. In a sense this is a failure of intellect to emotion, a stubborn EU leaderships success over the voice of reason and this lack of flexibility will be the test for the EU in how it handle discontent in its own camp.







Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Iran Imploding?

Iranian politics is as much about what the people in the street feel and express, as it is about the bizarre behind the scene politicking and the power play that makes Iran the strange enigma that it is. To simply view the election fraud as limited to what President Ahmadinejad manipulated misses out some key aspects of undercurrent of why such a massive election fraud was done in the first place. It simply could not have been the fear of a Reformist election victory since in 1997 and 2001 Reformists did come to power. The fact that Ayatollah Ali Khameni the Spiritual Leader intervened into the election process and clearly supported Ahmadinejad before the election and was quick to endorse the fraudulent results the day after the election might hold some of the clues as to whether a internal coup is under way in Iran.

Previously Khameni has accepted Reformist governments and in both terms of office of these governments he balanced the reformist impact by appointing ultra conservatives to the Judiciary and the Media ensuring that the reformist governments were reined in and not as effective as they would like to be. At the start of this election campaign a shift started to appear as the important elements of the clergy, especially from Qom were expressing statements that they would not support any of the candidates. For these very conservative clergy from Qom, who have supported every conservative candidate in the past elections, to say they will not support anyone was simply the politically correct way of saying they do not agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.

Keeping in the that the former President being the head of the Assembly of Experts, a power group from the parliament who advise the Guardian Council was supporting the Reformist Mousavi in the election and is known not to have a great relationship with Ali Khameni could well hold the reason why this election was allowed to be rigged and why the Grand Spiritual Leader is taking sides so openly.

Unlike his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeni, Ali Khameni has ambitions of protecting his vast business and political interests within the country. He also wants to ensure that his son Mojtaba, has a role in the political future of Iran and it is strange that for the past year conservative media close to the clergy have been portraying Ali Khameni as 'Ali of the Age', almost giving him a special place in history and perhaps making a subtle reference to Imam Ali, the First Shia Imam who passed on the reins to his son Hassan. Whether or not Mojtaba has the standing or the support to take his fathers place is moot, but one thing is clear that Ali Khameni does wish to protect his business interests and a Reformist government with Rafsanjani heading the Experts Assembly and the clergy in Qom not happy with the way Ali Khameni has blindly endorsed the reign of Ahmadinejad all indicates that this current situation in Iran is as much a battle for the survival of Ahmadinejad as it is of Ayatollah Ali Khameni.

It is thus not surprising at in some of the street demonstrations there have been calls to also reform the Iranian system to ease power, which is absolute, from the Spiritual Leader back to the elected government. Had the Ali Khameni not taken sides the issue would have been easier to resolve by asking for an impartial inquiry and dependent on the results a re-election. Now, ofcourse, the lines are being be drawn harder by the day. The arrests and the nature of the reprisal by Ahmadinejad and his supports to the demonstrators and voices of disagreement shows that the hard liners are fully aware that the stakes are high. Mousavi supporters and his political machinery are being careful not to let the demonstrations spill over into violent clashes giving the State apparatus to impose curfews and a full scale crackdown.

The worlds response has been rather muted, calling it Iran's internal affair. This is a convenient side step if I may say, because events in other countries are not seen as 'internal affairs'. If the world does want to see the rule of the ballot box then Iran's current situation does call for the condemnation of the election fraud, and the end to the repressive measures being used against opponents of Ahmadinejad. There cannot be two ways about it and this is a matter of political and human ethics and not one of diplomatic niceties.

As far as the effect on the Middle East, it is clear that a 're-elected' Ahmadinejad will feel more vindicated, even if in his own eyes, about his past policies and may continue his policies of the past four years. There is a highly unlikely possibility that Ahmadinejad may try and become a reformed man and deal with the Middle East and the West differently to show his political acumen and in a way deflect attention from his crackdown on the reformists opposing him. His bet will be that the West accepts the dictates of political realities and if he can soften his position on some key issues he may find Washington and the West will be happier dealing with a devil they know, and who is trying ti change, rather than see further turmoil within Iran. I am afraid that with time this might well be the outcome of the situation as it seems the current impasse will not be resolved by a recasting of votes, unless ofcourse the powerful Guardian Council has a change of heart and signals that the clergy will not support Ahmadinejad. I would call this the Qom effect, where it has become clear that the Qom clergy, who unfortunately command more spiritual importance than political power, have abandoned Ahmadinejad.


Whether Ali Khanemi can come to realize the precarious situation the country is in with is partisan policies is another matter. Perhaps the pressure from the clergy itself may allow him to save face by leaving matters to the Guardian Council to decide and play more of the spiritual patriarch that he is supposed to be. This will be the only solution to the current problem, unless ofcourse the reformist tire of the demonstrations and the lack of progress and resign themselves to another four years of Ahmadinejad.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Hijab Politics

From my PostGlobal contribution

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/hijab_politics.html

Hijab Politics
I come from a tribal family from Pakistan and was brought up to respect the religious wishes and inclinations of all people. This meant that my mother and sisters never wore the veil, and even when my mother visited the tribal areas for the first time in 1942 and wanted to wear a veil, my father told her she should not wear it if she did not wish to. My uncles and aunts were initially shocked by my mother turning up in a sari and no veil, to which my father replied that religion was a personal matter.

Thus, all the noise in Europe over the issue of the veil seems to me a bit overblown. I personally do not believe that the veil in modern times is necessary, and as societies modernize and educate their people they will realize that the issue of a veil is more to veil one’s intentions rather than a simple cover up. In equal measure, I agree that Muslims in Europe and America can modernize and not necessarily Westernize. Yet when such societies are put under siege, with media pressure to abandon what they think is important, there is a tendency to drag one’s heels and avoid change. The freedom-loving sense within me says that if in a democratic and free system one religion is allowed to practice its beliefs, so must the others.

I feel a personal sense of disappointment that the Turkish parliament has decided to change a secular tradition in Turkey, but that feeling has to be weighed with the fact that this was an act of parliament and not an arbitrary decision by a mullah. Although as secular democrats we may find it as a loss to our ideals of freedom, we must also accept that this seems to be what the Turkish people voted for. In that sense, accepting it is vitally important, as is the hope that if indeed the people did not want it then the rule will be dissolved through the action of future parliaments. What is important is that the veil is not imposed, but is a matter of choice.

The issue of the veil is more contentious within ostensibly Christian countries, where Muslim minorities may wish to wear the veil (as was the case in France) and laws are passed to take away that individual choice. In UAE, where I live, there are Christian churches on land donated by the government and there is a freedom given to the various faiths. I do hope that other Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, will eventually adopt the same attitude. Throughout history there are examples of coexistence that stand out, i.e. Spain under the Muslims. Passing laws that are targeted against religions never works, as we have seen in history, and in the same vein all that the Turkish government has done is granted the freedom of choice to women to either wear the veil or not. I would hope that in the long run, the veil will not be imposed but will continue to be a matter of choice. Choice is, after all, the premise of any democratic system, however we may disagree with it. Thus, to me, forcing women to wear the veil is also wrong.