Syed Khursheed Shah is a Pakistani politician who has demonstrated behavior that might prove conducive for sustaining parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. He is a Member of the National Assembly from the People's Party representing Sukkur. He had served in the federal government and been the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. Thus, he has a vast experience in how parliamentary democracy works.
Some time ago, I saw a video clip on a news channel where he was asked how the PPP was ready to sit with parties like the JUI and Muslim League, which had played a role in the hanging of the founder of his party, Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto.
His answer to this question provides the basis of social and political behavior that could earnestly serve as a foundation on which parliamentary democracy could sustain itself, “these parties and their leaders, we don’t consider them enemies, we consider them as our opponents” Khursheed Shah said in response to the question.
This statement was a pleasant surprise coming from a leader of the party whose leaders and cadre had in the past suffered violence at the hands of the state machinery, as well as militant groups. And here we have a political leader who has internalized the basic philosophy of parliamentary democracy. The tussles, tensions, confrontations, brawls and parliamentary scuffles are all temporary in nature. Even majorities and minorities in the parliament are temporary. Slogans should change in each electoral season. Permanent strife is more suited to a tribal environment.
In parliamentary democracy, parties are just like water - they change shape and form with the requirements and needs of the situation. In parliaments across the world, women from rival parties form caucuses to facilitate legislation on women issues. Rival members of parliament belonging to the same geographical regions also form caucuses. Parliamentary groups, all over the world, change form. Parliamentary majorities assert themselves, but the majorities of today convert into the minorities of tomorrow, or maybe merge into another minority to form another majority. The aim is to facilitate policy making and law making. It is certainly not one-upmanship.
The fact that Khursheed Shah is a rare politician, and the forbearance he displayed is even more rare is certainly at the roots of the disease that afflicts the body-politic of our country. We are displaying attitudes and behavior which is more suited to parochial tribal warfare.
In parliamentary democracy, you routinely make compromises, engage with, and enter into give and take arrangements with your opponents. In tribal warfare, the goal is to eliminate your foe.
These two opposing attitudes and trajectories spawn two different kinds of political climate—engaging your opponent in parliamentary democracy could result in smooth functioning of the government on the basis of mutual toleration.
When you try to eliminate your opponent like Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto was eliminated through manipulation of the judicial process, you hammer a nail in the coffin of your political system. Ironically, our political history is littered with events which have, in the past, transformed our political environment from the one which was conducive for parliamentary democracy to the one in which only tribal animosity could work.
The elder Bhutto’s hanging was one such event. Most of the time the violence which, in the past, had reverted Pakistani politics back to the environment of tribal warfare originated from the state. You subject an individual to third degree torture - this will compel the individual to think in terms of seeking revenge. You use the state machinery’s capability for violence to eliminate a group or its members; this will revert the politics back to tribal culture. We have cases in which the state's military force was used against lightly armed civilians. We have cases in which military force was used against civilians holed up in a mosque. We have cases in which the state’s machinery was used against unarmed protestors. All this is a recipe for introducing the tribal style of politics in society. Then there is the incidence of ethnic violence in cities like Karachi, which has the potential to convert warring factions into groupings as rigid as tribes and clans. Sectarian violence also does the same.
Consequently, what we describe as politics in our society, is not smooth and calm functioning of parliamentary institutions, traditions and norms. We don’t see opposing political groups engaging in policy debates or engaging in a give and take process to arrive at a compromise. There are no serious attempts at consensus building to run the governance process. What we see a continuous strife and struggle, in an effort on the part of political groups, to eliminate and undermine each other. Parliamentary norms like acceptance of your opponents and their interests as legitimate is simply missing from our political culture.
Take the example of rival political groups in present-day Pakistan: while Imran Khan is hellbent upon destroying and eliminating the PML-N leadership from the political scene by dubbing them as the most corrupt in the history of the country, the PML-N is equally adamant in eliminating Imran Khan by describing him as someone who is hellbent on introducing anarchy, chaos and fascism into society. The point is not whether either of them is correct in adopting an intransigent position towards the other, the point is that their intransigence has the potential to destroy the already ailing system of parliamentary democracy that was only restored 14 years ago. I believe all politicians all need to consult Khursheed Shah on this matter, and listen carefully to what he has to say.
Democracy is a system where the first thing you need to do is to accept the legitimacy of your opponents’ existence and their interests. We have adopted parliamentary democracy as a legal and constitutional reality in our society and yet have never bothered to wholeheartedly embrace the norms and values of that system.
Eliminating your opponent or conspiring to eliminate your opponent from the political scene is not democracy. I think we as society paid heavily for Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto’s forceful removal from the political scene. Our political system is still reeling from the aftermath of that tragedy.
I think we will pay heavily for eliminating popular leaders like Nawaz Sharif from the political scene. His disqualification will haunt this system for years to come.
We are in a headlong rush towards another vastly consequential disqualification - that of Imran Khan. This problem will not be resolved unless these shortsighted politicians stop treating each other as tribal adversaries. The solution lies in treating each other as parliamentary opponents - as exemplified by the example of Khursheed Shah.
Some time ago, I saw a video clip on a news channel where he was asked how the PPP was ready to sit with parties like the JUI and Muslim League, which had played a role in the hanging of the founder of his party, Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto.
His answer to this question provides the basis of social and political behavior that could earnestly serve as a foundation on which parliamentary democracy could sustain itself, “these parties and their leaders, we don’t consider them enemies, we consider them as our opponents” Khursheed Shah said in response to the question.
Our politics displays attitudes and behavior which are more suited to parochial tribal warfare.
This statement was a pleasant surprise coming from a leader of the party whose leaders and cadre had in the past suffered violence at the hands of the state machinery, as well as militant groups. And here we have a political leader who has internalized the basic philosophy of parliamentary democracy. The tussles, tensions, confrontations, brawls and parliamentary scuffles are all temporary in nature. Even majorities and minorities in the parliament are temporary. Slogans should change in each electoral season. Permanent strife is more suited to a tribal environment.
In parliamentary democracy, parties are just like water - they change shape and form with the requirements and needs of the situation. In parliaments across the world, women from rival parties form caucuses to facilitate legislation on women issues. Rival members of parliament belonging to the same geographical regions also form caucuses. Parliamentary groups, all over the world, change form. Parliamentary majorities assert themselves, but the majorities of today convert into the minorities of tomorrow, or maybe merge into another minority to form another majority. The aim is to facilitate policy making and law making. It is certainly not one-upmanship.
The fact that Khursheed Shah is a rare politician, and the forbearance he displayed is even more rare is certainly at the roots of the disease that afflicts the body-politic of our country. We are displaying attitudes and behavior which is more suited to parochial tribal warfare.
There are no serious attempts at consensus building to run the governance process. What we see a continuous strife and struggle, in an effort on part of political groups, to eliminate and undermine each other.
In parliamentary democracy, you routinely make compromises, engage with, and enter into give and take arrangements with your opponents. In tribal warfare, the goal is to eliminate your foe.
These two opposing attitudes and trajectories spawn two different kinds of political climate—engaging your opponent in parliamentary democracy could result in smooth functioning of the government on the basis of mutual toleration.
When you try to eliminate your opponent like Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto was eliminated through manipulation of the judicial process, you hammer a nail in the coffin of your political system. Ironically, our political history is littered with events which have, in the past, transformed our political environment from the one which was conducive for parliamentary democracy to the one in which only tribal animosity could work.
The elder Bhutto’s hanging was one such event. Most of the time the violence which, in the past, had reverted Pakistani politics back to the environment of tribal warfare originated from the state. You subject an individual to third degree torture - this will compel the individual to think in terms of seeking revenge. You use the state machinery’s capability for violence to eliminate a group or its members; this will revert the politics back to tribal culture. We have cases in which the state's military force was used against lightly armed civilians. We have cases in which military force was used against civilians holed up in a mosque. We have cases in which the state’s machinery was used against unarmed protestors. All this is a recipe for introducing the tribal style of politics in society. Then there is the incidence of ethnic violence in cities like Karachi, which has the potential to convert warring factions into groupings as rigid as tribes and clans. Sectarian violence also does the same.
We have adopted parliamentary democracy as a legal and constitutional reality in our society and yet have never bothered to wholeheartedly embrace the norms and values of that system.
Consequently, what we describe as politics in our society, is not smooth and calm functioning of parliamentary institutions, traditions and norms. We don’t see opposing political groups engaging in policy debates or engaging in a give and take process to arrive at a compromise. There are no serious attempts at consensus building to run the governance process. What we see a continuous strife and struggle, in an effort on the part of political groups, to eliminate and undermine each other. Parliamentary norms like acceptance of your opponents and their interests as legitimate is simply missing from our political culture.
Take the example of rival political groups in present-day Pakistan: while Imran Khan is hellbent upon destroying and eliminating the PML-N leadership from the political scene by dubbing them as the most corrupt in the history of the country, the PML-N is equally adamant in eliminating Imran Khan by describing him as someone who is hellbent on introducing anarchy, chaos and fascism into society. The point is not whether either of them is correct in adopting an intransigent position towards the other, the point is that their intransigence has the potential to destroy the already ailing system of parliamentary democracy that was only restored 14 years ago. I believe all politicians all need to consult Khursheed Shah on this matter, and listen carefully to what he has to say.
Democracy is a system where the first thing you need to do is to accept the legitimacy of your opponents’ existence and their interests. We have adopted parliamentary democracy as a legal and constitutional reality in our society and yet have never bothered to wholeheartedly embrace the norms and values of that system.
Eliminating your opponent or conspiring to eliminate your opponent from the political scene is not democracy. I think we as society paid heavily for Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto’s forceful removal from the political scene. Our political system is still reeling from the aftermath of that tragedy.
I think we will pay heavily for eliminating popular leaders like Nawaz Sharif from the political scene. His disqualification will haunt this system for years to come.
We are in a headlong rush towards another vastly consequential disqualification - that of Imran Khan. This problem will not be resolved unless these shortsighted politicians stop treating each other as tribal adversaries. The solution lies in treating each other as parliamentary opponents - as exemplified by the example of Khursheed Shah.