A machiavellian move?
Yes political parties make alliances. Why then what was so strange about this move? This sudden development astounded many because only yesterday PPP was blaming PML(Q) for Benazir’s assassination by calling it “Qatil League”, Benazir had written a note in her life naming leader of PML(Q) that she felt a threat to her life from them, and PML(Q) was saying uncomplimentary things about PPP.
Why this about turn ? Babar Awan has justified it by claiming that there is no final word in politics, and every thing is possible in politics , that politics is the most permissible profession, in it anything goes! This definition of politics maintains that politics has nothing to do with morality. On the contrary, majority of political parties in the world believes that in politics morality and principles are not sacrificed. Even the masses differentiate between a good politics and cheap politic, the latter is the concept of politics sale and purchase of conscience and souls. That is where man of values and principles are differentiated from floating chips in all politics and lotas. Some men of principles the icon of principled politics in our own history have been the Quaid, and his lieutenants like Liaquat and, Nishtar.. Of course Machiavelli would agree with the proposition that any thing goes in politics. This incidentally is the fault line between post League of Nations’ public and post World War II international morality and Machiavellian Era. Any student of modern history will recall that this is the fault line the modern civilized societies now respects. It will be a sad day if and when Pakistan continued tol live in the age of moral-less Middle Ages. Incidentally in Urdu two words are used to describe this “every thing goes in politics” attitude – one is rakabi mazhab and the other ibnul waqti both these words are quite old in Urdu vocabulary. Any student of political science and history would agree that those parties who consider their politics unfettered by principles and morality did not do well in the long run.
What made PPP so desperate to seek PML(Q) support? The reasons for PPP Government’s worry are many, Its coalition government is shaky firstly, it has lost its appeal as a populist party although PPP does not worry much about the unrest in the masses because by and large they are listless, and no revolution is possible in wadera controlled country side; secondly, Urban Sindh’s powerful MQM is considering to part ways with PPP Government being dissatisfied with PPP’s apathy over Karachi target killings, thirdly; although Nawaz Sharif has been a friendly opposition still PPP fears that he might change his posture after his ten years pledge to the Saudis to stay out of politics is over;. In this situation PPP has started searching for a new partner and the only party available in the market is PML(Q).
It seems that this move might weaken both PPP and PML(Q) This alliance of two incongruous parties might be damaging to the PPP and disastrous to ML(Q). A number of PML(Q) ‘s stalwarts want unification of various Leaguers. They may not be so averse to the leadership of Nawaz Sharif’s leadership. Only Choudhry brothers , Shujaat and Pervaiz Elahi are strongly against Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif.
Since Nawaz Sharif is considered as a likely successor to head the new political alliance, politicians from PML(Q) and those other die hard Leaguers are not likely to go over to Pervaiz Ilahi camp. Thus except for a few political adventurers most of the Leaguers might stick to the League. On the other hand, PML(Q) is most likely to be divided across the lines of loyalty to the League or otherwise. In all likelihood, more PML(Q) leaders might abandon Shujat-Pervaiz bandwagon.
It is well known that PPP is already divided between the old PPP loyalist and Zardari-ites .The former have quite strong views on the slow investigation of Benazir’s murder and have not forgotten the warning she left in writing that if she is assassinated thenamong whom her murderers should be searched. . Moreover old PPP loyalists have reservations on the policies of the current PPP leadership, even though they do not voice these reservations outside the party But shaking hand with what they consider possible Benazir’s murderers might bring out to the schism in the open and could affect the solidarity of the Party.
As for the MQM, its natural ally is Muslim League. They should see who stands for the original Pakistani vision The Indian Muslims supported Pakistan Movement knowing full well that Pakistan will not be made on their ancestral lands . They were made to run from their ancestral homes because they supported the Pakistan demand. But for that the Indian Muslims, the so-called Muhajirs, would not have come to this land. No one made greater sacrifices in the history for any cause than the Indian Muslims. All other claims of sacrifices pale into insignificance compared to their sacrifices- none equals their’s. Even their historic family identities, etc , were lost We have therefore a historic affinity with the Muslim League. Other Parties have ethnic local vision and stress on it since they made practically little sacrifices. Their greatest role in the history was to rehabilitate these destitutes, in a manner which is unmatched in history of mankind. This need be said when Karachi is bleeding and has become a killing ground of the Indian immigrants,
I am calling this approach ‘ Any thing is possible in politics’ as Machiavellian because the father of the doctrine that politics is the game of power and in that game every thing goes is Niccolo Machiavelli the Italian diplomat of 16th Century.. I translated Machiavelli’sa Prince in Urdu and saw how cleverly he disassociated Politics from morality on the pattern of his contemporary rulers, the Borgias. Politics is power game devoid of any morality he preached a principle our politician plead now and then. This is contrary to Al Ghazzali ‘s Al Hukmu Amana or Authority to rule is a ( Divine) trust (given to a ruler) ,which would also be a corollary of German thinker, Immanuel Kant’s ‘ Categorical Imperative’ One may not go that far but politics is circumscribed by morality. It cannot cross the limits of morality.