The uncertainty principle in Pakistani politics

Daily Times - May 03, 2006
COMMENT: The uncertainty principle in Pakistani politics — William B Milam

In Pakistani politics these days, it seems impossible to determine the positions of political leaders at the same time as the direction they are heading. It is a stretch, I admit. But in most of my conversations, any one of a number of scenarios of the future seemed equally likely to my friends, and most appeared to lead back to where we started seven years ago

I have been absent from the pages of Daily Times for some months, but I have not been entirely absent from Pakistan — nor it from my thoughts. I recently spent some delightful and instructive days in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. I saw many dear friends and enjoyed many intellectually rich and stimulating conversations (and many equally rich meals). It was as if I had never left.

Politics dominated most of these discussions. But I found the tone and content of the discussions somewhat different than I remembered from the past. One word seemed to characterise the feelings of my interlocutors about Pakistani politics and their political future: “uncertain”. The election year of 2007 appears to have taken on a spectral image, a veritable “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, as Churchill once said.

Questions abound, answers do not. Will President Pervez Musharraf dump his current political support, the PML, heretofore known as the PML-Q? Which parties would he choose to join with, and why? Which parties would choose to join with him and his military government? There were so many variables, and so many possible outcomes, that good friends who once would give authoritative answers at the drop of a naïve question now only list the many possible scenarios and shrug their shoulders to the inevitable query of which is best and/or more likely.

As this sunk in, I couldn’t help thinking of Werner Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle”, particularly since I have been perusing a biography of this great German physicist. One conclusion, among many others, is that Pakistani politics may be almost as complex and arcane as quantum mechanics. They certainly seem that complicated to outsiders, and clearly these days, to some in the Pakistani political class.

I hope my physicist friends in Pakistan, as well as physicists everywhere, will forgive my mental flight of fancy that relates Heisenberg’s celebrated principle to anything as unscientific as politics — especially Pakistani politics. What Heisenberg proved was that it is impossible to determine the position of an atomic particle and its velocity at the same time. (The simple-minded definition is the best I can do.) In Pakistani politics these days, it seems impossible to determine the positions of political leaders at the same time as the direction they are heading.

It is a stretch, I admit. But in most of my conversations, any one of a number of scenarios of the future seemed equally likely to my friends, and most appeared to lead back to where we started seven years ago. Political leaders who now oppose Musharraf may be with him next year. Those who are now with him may be in opposition next year. When one has a fix on their positions, the direction and the velocity of their changing intentions cannot be determined. This, at least, was the impression I came away with.

There were rumours — wafting maybe on waves of hope — of attempts to link up of the so-called liberal political parties with President Musharraf and his military government in an alliance of the like-minded. By like-minded, I mean those political parties with an ideology (to the extent they have an ideology) consistent with “enlightened moderation”. This includes the PPP, ANP, a small faction of the PML-Q, and perhaps the MQM. This would actually be quite a departure from Pakistani political tradition, as it would be an alliance based on a shared ideology and would possibly lead to an election fought over issues. “Enlightened moderation” versus the alternative (call it what you want) might be the central issue of such an election.

Of all the elements missing in Pakistani politics and elections, issues are the most noticeable. Parties remain not only undemocratic but also oriented around patron-client relationships or identities (biradari, or regional, or ethnic, or linguistic, or religious, etc). Until political parties and elections are issue-based, Pakistan’s deep-seated, open questions of national identity, regional and ethnic tensions, and building representative government are not going to be resolved.

While many talk of this like-minded alliance, an un-likeminded, anti-Musharraf alliance seems to be the one coming together, according to many press reports. This would be quite different in most respects, and it would have a simple, one-point agenda: Musharraf and his government must go. Could this be the issue in an election overseen by a military government?

This un-likeminded alliance involves the “liberal” parties mentioned above, the PML-N, and Musharraf’s now deadly enemy, the MMA. Of course, as described in detail in the Daily Times editorial of April 18, the MMA will insist on a joint platform that basically rejects “enlightened moderation” and the connection with the US against terrorism. If the “liberal” parties agree to this, they will, again, be giving up their ideology for political expediency. Another Faustian Bargain in the making.

I wonder, however, whether any of the scenarios can promise effective and/or stable government? Any alliance that brings together the army and un-likeminded political allies in a marriage of convenience is, to my mind, inherently ineffective. Neither side trusts the other. Both are constantly watching their backs. There is no consensus on the issues and no way to get one. And what if the anti-Musharraf alliance were to win a free and fair election? Can such disparate partners actually work together, let alone set the country on a course of institutional improvement? How would the army react? And how much do you want to bet on a free and fair election in this scenario?

But it occurs to me that the first scenario, the liberal alliance with Musharraf, has at least the faint hope that ideologically like-minded allies have a better chance to work out a modus vivendi to tackle the immense social, political, and economic problems that Pakistan faces, as well as those questions of national identity and regional fissiparousness that plague the country.

It could be an issue-oriented government, setting targets on the basis of a consensus on the issues. That would be a startling breakthrough for Pakistan. Perhaps, over a few years, such an alliance would develop enough mutual trust that the traditional military dogma that civilians are not fit to run the country would finally dissipate. This may be a pipedream, but that is better than the nightmares other scenarios bring.

William Milam is a former US ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh. He is currently at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC