Battling extremism

Editorial by the writer, published in The News, Oct 13, 2006

Battling extremism

Yet again, President Musharraf has said all the right things about the dangers of extremism to this country’s existence and wellbeing. In a wide-ranging press conference in Islamabad during an iftar that he hosted for the press, the president spoke at some length on this most pressing issue saying that liberals and progressives needed to come together to stem the tide of rising extremism and intolerance in the country. In a somewhat frank admission of where he stood in all of this, the president said that "we’ll have to work together to make sure [that] the moderates emerge victorious" because if they didn’t then the "Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan will be no more". In other words, the president couldn’t have said it more bluntly that extremism poses such a danger to the country’s social fabric and to its existence. Well-intentioned and noble as these words may sound, the more sceptical among us will probably ask the president what he and his government have to show for steering the nation towards a more progressive and liberal course/agenda.

No one doubts the fact that as far as his person is concerned the general is mostly what one would label as a liberal or a progressive individual. However, that is obviously not good enough because the fact is that the president’s sense of progressiveness does not seem to have rubbed off too well on his government, hence the policies that run counter to the president’s avowed liberalism. By its own actions and acts of omission and commission, the government has ended up sidelining progressive political and civil forces and groups in the country. The ruling PML-Q -- or at least its main leadership –-- seems ideologically closer to the conservative MMA than the other mainstream parties. A good example of this flawed approach was shown when the government recently tried to amend the infamous Hudood ordinances by trying (and failing) to pass the Women’s Protection Bill in parliament. Despite having a comfortable majority the government made all the wrong choices by ignoring the liberal PPP (which had made a rare public promise of parliamentary support on the bill’s passage) and angering its own coalition partner, the anti-mullah MQM, by aligning itself with the MMA. This exposed the ruling party’s real ideological character and worldview since it chose to do business with an opposition alliance that is known for intense opposition to any changes in the Hudood ordinances.

This is not the only instance of where the president’s intention of wishing to steer the country away from extremism runs counter to the actions and policies of his government. For instance, the recent deal in Waziristan, which many now acknowledge as being the only way forward, makes undue concessions to local militants and Taliban and by most reports will only strengthen the rule of extremists in parts of FATA. Not only that, settled districts of NWFP adjoining the tribal areas and close to Waziristan have in recent months been experiencing an increase in Talibanisation. This all stems from the many concessions that the government keeps on making to the local militant and for its failure to crack down on Taliban elements and their sympathisers. Then, consider the case of curriculum reform and registration of the madressahs. Here too, there has hardly been any progress and if anything it’s a case of one step forward (if at all) and two steps back.

The country owes much to General Zia’s time for its current trend towards extremism and intolerance. What is troubling is that General Musharraf has been in power for seven years now and there doesn’t seem to be any effort by him or his government to reverse some of the bad laws that Gen Zia brought upon Pakistani society. One well remembers the U-turn the president made after he expressed in public the need to at least amend the blasphemy law so that the procedure for filing an FIR against an alleged blasphemer could change. There’s also an increasing trend towards religiosity and overt piety in society and this seems to be accompanied by a view among those who consider themselves more devout that liberals and progressives are somehow anti-religion. In fact, the word secular is usually equated to mean someone who is against religion whereas in the Pakistani context it simply means someone who believes that the state should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion and that government policies should not favour those of a particular faith over others who may subscribe to different faiths. Seven years is indeed a long time but the president could make a start by seriously considering giving progressive political forces such as the PPP more space in the months to come.