Published September 8, 2024
DAWN
IT is no longer surprising that parliament does not engage in meaningful debates on critical national challenges. It has become a platform for voicing concerns and hastily concluded discussions, as with the Balochistan crisis. This crisis, which led to the resignation of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, the head of his faction of the Balochistan National Party, and prompted the opposition to hold a multiparty meeting outside parliament, is a stark reminder of how urgent the need is for immediate and effective parliamentary discourse.
Civilian institutions have increasingly become mere post boxes, content with issuing simple statements on major crises to fulfil their moral obligations. Following the recent wave of violence in Balochistan, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif chaired an apex committee meeting in Quetta, seemingly with the same intent of fulfilling a moral duty. The exact proceedings of the meeting remain unclear, as media reports mention only that “important decisions” were made without providing any details on what those decisions were.
A few official media outlets added brief details in their reporting of the high-level meeting, mentioning plans to enhance the capacity of the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD), police, levies, and related departments. The reports raised concerns regarding why a critical task like eradicating insurgency was being assigned to a police-led CTD, which operates under a limited mandate and lacks public trust due to allegations of extrajudicial actions. There were also concerns about how the CTD will act and respond. However, it is now understood that the CTD will not operate in isolation and work closely with other law-enforcement agencies (LEAs).
The ruling party either underestimates the crisis in Balochistan, or it does not have the courage to make decisions of national importance on its own. During his maiden visit to Balochistan after taking oath as prime minister in April 2022, PM Shehbaz had made a statement about raising the issue of missing persons “with powerful quarters”. One wonders what became of it. Likewise, the office of the president is a symbol of federal unity. Yet it has kept mum on the issue, even though the PPP had initiated a unique reconciliation initiative in Balochistan during its government from 2008 to 2013, called the ‘Aghaz-i-Haqooq-i-Balochistan package’. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy, establishment and government had together made sure that the initiative flopped. The PPP is ruling Balochistan again, but it remains silent as it watches the situation unfold.
Political parties can facilitate the process of inclusion by initiating dialogue.
It has been a general impression that civilian governments and mainstream political parties intentionally do not interfere in security-related affairs to avoid the establishment’s anger. They endorse whatever the establishment wants and just add a little note to it to save face in public. One understands that most mainstream political parties derive their strength from the powers that be rather than from the masses, but that does not mean that they must completely outsource all matters of national interest to the security establishment. Doing so does not absolve them of their responsibilities, and they cannot claim they were not involved in decision-making or were forced into compliance. History will judge them not only for their actions, but also for their silence.
Political parties can facilitate the process of inclusion by initiating a dialogue, even if certain powerful forces try to subvert the process and remain unyielding in their approaches and practices, even if those practices do not produce results. The establishment’s limitations cannot serve as an excuse for political parties. If a political party fails to initiate an inclusion process and focuses solely on protecting its narrow interests, modern political science refers to it as a ‘mafia’. Such groups do not qualify as legitimate political actors.
The vacuum left by political parties is eventually filled by highly motivated groups that draw their strength from ideology, identity, sociopolitical grievances and economic deprivation. This is precisely what is happening in strategically important parts of the country, where rights-based movements have grown stronger and now claim to represent the people’s will. The establishment and traditional parties are equally apprehensive about these movements, as they challenge the status quo. They both attempt to paint such movements as a threat to national security and are unwilling to engage with them.
There is no greater weakness than losing the ability to reason with one’s own people. In the absence of an inclusive process, the people have learned to use social media as an effective tool to communicate with the authorities. However, state institutions seem more apprehensive about the power of social media than about listening to the people’s voice.
The newfound ability to mobilise people without the support of political parties is a significant concern for the rulers, but it also signifies a shift in power dynamics.
Balochistan needs a dialogue with the power elites — whoever is part of that elite — and with the intelligentsia, civil society, media, and the people of Punjab. However, our state intuitions, including the ruling political parties and parliament, are reluctant to take this initiative. If the opposition parties plan to organise a multiparty conference on Balochistan, the move should be welcomed and the ruling parties must appreciate it. One can anticipate the conference’s outcome — the opposition parties will not cross a limit and will avoid confrontation with the establishment. However, their involvement will significantly enrich the discourse on Balochistan. Think-tanks and civil society can take up the dialogue thereafter, and the independent media can also add to the discussion.
Where state institutions, political parties and parliament fail to initiate dialogue, rights movements can step in to build consensus around their demands by organising national jirgas and conventions. Although the power elites may not embrace such gatherings, they will gradually become embedded in the community’s collective memory, perpetually challenging the established norms of ‘national interest’.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2024
IT is no longer surprising that parliament does not engage in meaningful debates on critical national challenges. It has become a platform for voicing concerns and hastily concluded discussions, as with the Balochistan crisis. This crisis, which led to the resignation of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, the head of his faction of the Balochistan National Party, and prompted the opposition to hold a multiparty meeting outside parliament, is a stark reminder of how urgent the need is for immediate and effective parliamentary discourse.
Civilian institutions have increasingly become mere post boxes, content with issuing simple statements on major crises to fulfil their moral obligations. Following the recent wave of violence in Balochistan, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif chaired an apex committee meeting in Quetta, seemingly with the same intent of fulfilling a moral duty. The exact proceedings of the meeting remain unclear, as media reports mention only that “important decisions” were made without providing any details on what those decisions were.
A few official media outlets added brief details in their reporting of the high-level meeting, mentioning plans to enhance the capacity of the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD), police, levies, and related departments. The reports raised concerns regarding why a critical task like eradicating insurgency was being assigned to a police-led CTD, which operates under a limited mandate and lacks public trust due to allegations of extrajudicial actions. There were also concerns about how the CTD will act and respond. However, it is now understood that the CTD will not operate in isolation and work closely with other law-enforcement agencies (LEAs).
The ruling party either underestimates the crisis in Balochistan, or it does not have the courage to make decisions of national importance on its own. During his maiden visit to Balochistan after taking oath as prime minister in April 2022, PM Shehbaz had made a statement about raising the issue of missing persons “with powerful quarters”. One wonders what became of it. Likewise, the office of the president is a symbol of federal unity. Yet it has kept mum on the issue, even though the PPP had initiated a unique reconciliation initiative in Balochistan during its government from 2008 to 2013, called the ‘Aghaz-i-Haqooq-i-Balochistan package’. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy, establishment and government had together made sure that the initiative flopped. The PPP is ruling Balochistan again, but it remains silent as it watches the situation unfold.
Political parties can facilitate the process of inclusion by initiating dialogue.
It has been a general impression that civilian governments and mainstream political parties intentionally do not interfere in security-related affairs to avoid the establishment’s anger. They endorse whatever the establishment wants and just add a little note to it to save face in public. One understands that most mainstream political parties derive their strength from the powers that be rather than from the masses, but that does not mean that they must completely outsource all matters of national interest to the security establishment. Doing so does not absolve them of their responsibilities, and they cannot claim they were not involved in decision-making or were forced into compliance. History will judge them not only for their actions, but also for their silence.
Political parties can facilitate the process of inclusion by initiating a dialogue, even if certain powerful forces try to subvert the process and remain unyielding in their approaches and practices, even if those practices do not produce results. The establishment’s limitations cannot serve as an excuse for political parties. If a political party fails to initiate an inclusion process and focuses solely on protecting its narrow interests, modern political science refers to it as a ‘mafia’. Such groups do not qualify as legitimate political actors.
The vacuum left by political parties is eventually filled by highly motivated groups that draw their strength from ideology, identity, sociopolitical grievances and economic deprivation. This is precisely what is happening in strategically important parts of the country, where rights-based movements have grown stronger and now claim to represent the people’s will. The establishment and traditional parties are equally apprehensive about these movements, as they challenge the status quo. They both attempt to paint such movements as a threat to national security and are unwilling to engage with them.
There is no greater weakness than losing the ability to reason with one’s own people. In the absence of an inclusive process, the people have learned to use social media as an effective tool to communicate with the authorities. However, state institutions seem more apprehensive about the power of social media than about listening to the people’s voice.
The newfound ability to mobilise people without the support of political parties is a significant concern for the rulers, but it also signifies a shift in power dynamics.
Balochistan needs a dialogue with the power elites — whoever is part of that elite — and with the intelligentsia, civil society, media, and the people of Punjab. However, our state intuitions, including the ruling political parties and parliament, are reluctant to take this initiative. If the opposition parties plan to organise a multiparty conference on Balochistan, the move should be welcomed and the ruling parties must appreciate it. One can anticipate the conference’s outcome — the opposition parties will not cross a limit and will avoid confrontation with the establishment. However, their involvement will significantly enrich the discourse on Balochistan. Think-tanks and civil society can take up the dialogue thereafter, and the independent media can also add to the discussion.
Where state institutions, political parties and parliament fail to initiate dialogue, rights movements can step in to build consensus around their demands by organising national jirgas and conventions. Although the power elites may not embrace such gatherings, they will gradually become embedded in the community’s collective memory, perpetually challenging the established norms of ‘national interest’.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment