Pakistanis caught between poverty and politics

Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule has left Pakistanis uneasy - but many are more worried whe

For ordinary Pakistanis it's been business as usual this week, despite the declaration of a state of emergency - virtual martial law - by the military government of President General Pervez Musharraf.

While pockets of civil unrest across the country and looming uncertainty about the future have contributed to an overall sense of unease, that is something the people of Pakistan have grown used to.

There is a strong police presence on the streets of Karachi with teams in armoured cars stationed at traditional rallying points like the Karachi Press Club to suppress any protests.

But most people remain unaffected by Musharraf's latest moves to consolidate power and underwhelmed by the political maneuverings of rival players such as the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and the cricketer turned politician Imran Khan.

Most people had grown apathetic to the country's political problems, some residents said. One Karachi-based journalist said Pakistan was cursed with bad fortune.

The country has experienced so many failed political leaders in the past many doubt whether any shift in power will lead to positive change.

M. Naim-ur-Rahman, a Karachi based lawyer, echoed this perspective, saying it was unrealistic to expect people to participate in the political process when so many of them don't know where their next meal would come from. He added that democracy wasn't necessarily a perfect fit for Pakistan right now.

"Democracy only works in developed countries because that's the only place where the [average] citizen can demand accountability [from leaders]," Rahman said, adding that he supported Musharraf in spirit, praising infrastructural developments in Karachi, a city largely ignored by previous leaders.

But Rahman also criticized the leader's actions, saying that even though he was a patriot whose "heart is in the right place, he is not advised properly to fully understand his decisions."

Musharraf announced a three-pronged solution to stabilize what he saw as a country on the brink of chaos, suppressing the judiciary, media and violent extremists.

So far, the full force of emergency powers given to military and police personnel have only come down on lawyers and journalists.

Some Karachi residents are predicting a possible incursion by military forces into Balochistan and the tribal regions of the North West Frontier Province. Others say Pakistani soldiers are tired of attacking fellow Muslims and no longer have the will to fight. Many of those arrested have been released, according to reports.

"The one thing that is certain is that Pakistan is living on a prayer," said one Karachi cab driver. He added that all the forces that were pulling the country in different directions would have torn it apart by now, but for the grace of god.

But there is a growing fear among Pakistanis that the country is headed for a split and could very well be divided along provincial lines. And while many believe "Musharraf is sincere for Pakistan" and the right man to hold the country together, they are also unwilling to excuse his suppression of fundamental human rights.

In Karachi, public sentiment is shifting away from Musharraf as people begin to feel stifled by the government clamp down.

"This clamp down… you're hitting a small mouse with a tank," said Akbar Zaidi, a Karachi-based independent economist.

Zaidi said that the government had gone too far in its measures to suppress what in reality had amounted to mild dissent - and that protests had not been as substantial as opposition parties had been hoping for.

"This is a totally out of proportion response," he added. "[The government] messed it up."

When the emergency was declared, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority made the isolating move of blocking private news television channels indefinitely. Karachi residents turned to satellite television for the news and reports say there was a dramatic spike in the sales of satellite dishes and decoders over a three-day period.

This led to a police crackdown on dealers at the city's largest electronics market on Thursday. Some international channels have been unblocked since.

People are also concerned about the economic impact of continued instability with the price of sundry goods rising almost exponentially and after a rumor that Musharraf had been overthrown and placed under house arrest brought the stock market to it's knees. With poverty still a major problem in Pakistan and most pronounced in urban areas like Karachi, for many Pakistanis, the political turmoil in the country is background noise to rumbling stomachs.

"Those who are with money are always fine," said one city resident.
"Those who are without money are as good as dead."

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times