27 May 2003
The Dawn

The following is the edited text of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Dr Farooq Sattar:

Question: The Muttahida Qaumi Movement has been against military rule and against the establishment, but now you are part of the chessboard laid out by a military ruler. This represents a deviation from the past.

Answer: From the time when Pervez Musharraf took over in 1999 and till the October 2002 elections, the MQM was the only political party that took a stand against the government on basic principles and also organized agitations on the water issue and other questions. Our protest was historical and while other political parties talked of restoration of democracy, they did not stage an active protest. Local body elections were held, and you know we boycotted them because we believed that it was not the right of the centre to encroach upon the domain of the provinces and take over their functions. We also believed that the local body law (LGO 2001) was making a mess of the system which then existed. It was not heading towards real devolution and decentralization, because devolution means autonomy of financial power and authority, and access to collection of taxes of a local nature. Devolution should not only include devolution to the lowest tier but also from the centre to the provinces and then onwards to the local government. We thought that they were obliterating or undoing the existence of the provinces, and our protest is on record.

About the perception that we are hand in glove with the establishment, let me say that the LFO was promulgated before the holding of the general elections and it very clearly laid down the points on which some parties are now agitating. We also have a point of view on the LFO. We had very candidly opposed it when it was announced, on two principles. One was that an individual does not have the right to amend the Constitution and that a non- elected government cannot do it. We are on record on this.

Now, irrespective of whether the LFO has become part of the constitution or not, we also look at it in another context. The LFO and the Eighth amendment or no LFO and no Eighth amendment, in both situations, the quality of life and the standard of living of 98 per cent of the people of Pakistan remains unaffected. In the chequered political history of Pakistan, on four occasions military chiefs directly took over the reins of power and dismissed elected governments, and on four other occasions, elected presidents dismissed elected governments. So you have had to choose between direct military rule or a quasi-democratic orpseudo-parliamentary rule.

Now the MQM being comparatively quiet on this issue is probably giving an impression as if it is supporting the dominance of Musharraf over parliament. Actually, we believe that this whole tussle for power between the president, prime minister and the COAS is a tussle between power brokers representing the elite, and we have seen prime ministers or civilian rulers becoming dictators. Z.A. Bhutto was one case. Nawaz Sharif also faced similar allegations. He was heading towards one-man rule through the 15th amendment. There is no guarantee that if the LFO goes away, there will be stable democracy.

So what we say is talk about the LFO, but go beyond that. If you want to challenge the LFO, then we need a package of reforms. Provisions need to be introduced in the constitution whereby the provinces should have maximum autonomy, there is decentralization of power, with the centre retaining only currency and foreign affairs, communications and defence, or, at the initial stage, some portions of income tax. There are MMA components or PPP Parliamentarians who supported Nawaz Sharif's 13th Amendment and who are now opposing the LFO. We have seen that when the Eighth Amendment was done away with through the 13th Amendment, we didn't see any guarantee that democracy would endure and there would be continuity of the political process. We only see the present crisis as a tussle between the main pillars of power. It is not more than that.

Actually, there is something wrong with the body politics of Pakistan. There are three issues owing to which democracy, governance and national integrity, development - everything has been held hostage. These are feudalism, over-centralization coupled with a rigid system of governance, and Kashmir. We have offered to the opposition that we will support it on the LFO, but we want them not to stop there but to go beyond it.

Q: You may be right in theoretical terms, but what is practical politics? Would you not like parliament to be supreme? Even if reforms have to be effected, then it has to be through parliament.

A: In the past also political parties had to fight for this and on many occasions they succeeded in their struggle. Doing away with LFO will not ensure real democracy ... Supremacy of parliament is not the end of it unless we have a decentralized democracy. Revival of an over-centralized democracy and revival of the supremacy of parliament while maintaining an over- centralized system has led Pakistan nowhere. So that is why we have been registering our concern. Even those who opposed the LFO, they contested elections and accepted all the provisions of the LFO such as women's seats and sent their mothers and sisters to parliament...

Q: But you also contested elections under the same rules.

A: Pakistan was passing through a crossroads, so there were two choices: either straight away go for real and genuine democracy and acceptance of complete supremacy of parliament or you go for an acceptable government. We saw that without an elected and civilian government, democracy did not have the remotest chance of beginning a journey. Elections and formation of a government would give an impetus to the democratic process. If we didn't allow a government to be formed after contesting the elections, how were we to go forward at all?

So we wanted that the process should continue because a civilian government is a prerequisite to some kind of democracy. In the past also we have seen that political parties have joined hands against LFO-type amendments, but once that was achieved, they would not want the process to go to its logical conclusion, that is, a decentralized democracy. What we have is an electoral and over-centralized democracy.

Q: But the principle involved in the controversy over the LFO is about institutionalising one-man rule because all the amendments have been introduced by one person who wants his rule to continue.

A: I am not for the Eighth Amendment or for the LFO. This should be kept in mind. We also consider this against the supremacy of parliament, but since we have a vision, we foresee that if the LFO is not accepted, then the PM will become the fountainhead of all power. The opposition has not advanced the argument that if the president drops his uniform, the National Security Council is done away with, and 58(2)b is amended in a manner that the president only has the power to dismiss the cabinet and the government and not the assembly, all power will not be vested in the prime minister. So we want assurances that the process will continue and reach its logical conclusion within a timeframe.

Q: But in Sindh you have been and are in a position to deliver what you consider genuine democracy. By boycotting the local body elections, you have placed yourself in a situation of confrontation with those who are now heading local governments.

A: By boycotting the local body elections, we had expressed our no confidence in the devolution exercise which was a half- baked system. But we are not for conflict or tension. But if the local system had been genuinely drafted, you would have seen that there would not have been a minister for local government in the provinces. We believe that there should not be any local government ministry. This duplication is causing overlapping. There is an inherent flaw in the Local Government Ordinance - that district and city governments cannot frame their own laws. I cannot conceive of a government that does not have the power to legislate. When the city and district governments have to carry out the policies of the provincial governments, have to work under the overall guidance and policies, that is the flaw, the lacuna, in the LGO which has provided for this overlapping and duplication which is being perceived by the people as a conflict or confrontation.

If there is true devolution, then you need to distribute the work of certain ministries within the domain of the provincial government. Primary and secondary education could be given to the city and district governments, colleges and higher education should be with the provincial government.

Similarly in the health sector also, responsibilities can be distributed. The LGO did not provide a solution to the existence of a system of multiple- agency control in the cities and districts. The cantonment boards have not been done away with. This means that the system itself, notwithstanding the intentions of Musharraf or the NRB, has taken the people nowhere. We believe that all local taxes, such as building control, motor tax, property taxes, should also be devolved. Sales tax should also be devolved. Out of the 15 per cent, seven per cent should be given to the district and city governments and the remaining eight per cent should be retained by the provincial government.

We are striving for maximum provincial autonomy, to ensure a just and equitable distribution of water resources, protecting Sindh's right in that regard. To start with, we can set the ball rolling by going through the 1991 water accord and move towards rationalization of the NFC award of 1997.

Q: On the one hand you are part of the government and on the other you claim that you don't have powers. Then what is the point in being part of the government?

A: We have two choices. Either leave the government or wait and gain real power.

Q: Do you feel helpless?

A: I will not put it that way. The system is not responsive, the system is rigid. There are people who want to maintain the status quo. The task is very challenging. I think that by being present in government, we have a feeling that we may be in a position to change the complexion of the system in accordance with our manifesto.

We are working in three ways. We are trying to make laws more realistic and do away with the ministry of local government. We intend to participate in the next local elections in 2004, may be early next year. We are also trying to evolve a better working relationship and consultation process with the nazims and the elected set up at the local tier. We also realize that the city or the district shouldn't suffer owing to the status quo. Legally, we are trying to develop parliamentary boards comprising MNAs and MPAs who should be given advisory consultative roles in schemes such as Khushal Pakistan. This will be a short-term amendment in the LGO.

Q: It is a big question mark as to why a party which has a mass following in the urban areas of Sindh hasn't done much to change the face of the city and the province when there are people who would do everything on Mr Altaf Hussain's call. Instead, your party has faced allegations of forcible collection of money, etc.

A: The MQM has never supported violence as a policy. But every party runs into unexpected difficulties. Good people don't come forward to join or leave after joining due to various compulsions. You should not forget that the 1992 extra-judicial killings created an atmosphere of fear that forced MQM workers to go into hiding. People were not willing to join the party for various reasons and the party's structures were shattered. Splinter groups emerge in such situations, and they may have operated on their own. Unscrupulous elements begin to take shelter behind a political party, and angularities develop. The factor of constant state repression of the MQM must always be kept in mind. The power of the state has to be conferred in the same manner as the mandate of a party.

Q: Owing to tension between the MQM and the Haqiqi, both of which claim to represent the same community, not only the peace of Karachi but also its development is affected. Is it possible that the two of you should bury the hatchet so that the community and the city benefit instead of all the time remaining in a siege-like situation owing to the so-called no-go areas?

A: During the last 10 years since June 1992, on many occasions efforts were made for a reconciliation. I can also say that whatever was agreed in that process, we kept our promise. I cannot divulge details of such contacts. I can only say that such attempts have been made in the past but there have been no direct meetings. The first test of the worth of the breakaway faction came in the 1993 elections, and they saw their worth. Then again in 1997. In 2002 also, everyone knows how they got their seat. We can only say that in the larger interest of the people and the province, owing to the intervention of some well-wishers, we fulfilled our responsibility, but they did not.

There is no doubt that the Haqiqi was the ISI's creation. Our approach at the moment as a coalition partner is that the writ of the state and the government has to be established. Freedom of political expression should be protected. Crime should be kept in check and efforts should be made for making the environment conducive for economic development, foreign investment, etc.

That is why when Musharraf's statement came on the no-go areas, we said that the issue is between the law-enforcers and the law's violators. The law-enforcement agencies should decide whether there should be supremacy of law-violators or of law- abiding citizens.

Q: Are the agencies under government control?

A: I will leave it to the agencies to prove that. It is high time they proved that. My concerns and apprehensions are there, but that they are not able to settle and resolve this issue, this is either because of inability or unwillingness on their part. But very soon this will become irrelevant or immaterial because in both cases the policy is very clear and the policy needs to be implemented.

Q: Recently there were clashes between the Islami Jamiat-i- Talaba and the APMSO. Because of this gun culture, Rangers have been posted on the Karachi University campus. Though in the past, the problem was created by the IJT, your student wing has also been responsible for the gun culture on campus, hasn't it?

A: At the outset I want to say that law enforcement agencies need to be de-politicized. There is a standing policy that any officer who is trespassing his limits has to be removed from service. He has to be taken to task, if he has some vested interest. We have taken the campus situation very seriously. We opened regular contacts with the parent body of the IJT, the Jamaat-i-Islami, we sent delegations to their headquarters, they came to our offices, and I think that through dedicated and sincere joint efforts we have overcome the problem. And I can on my party's behalf assure you that peace in educational institutions must be maintained, and the APMSO will not become a factor in disturbing the atmosphere in educational institutions.

Q: There is a contradiction in your stand because on the one hand you have demanded that the Constitution should be rewritten on the basis of the 1940 Resolution, which is a confederal demand, and on the other you are part of the government which is pushing for a highly centralized form of government as envisioned in the LFO which also aims at legalising the military's role in governance.

A: The army has always remained the most important political player. The country's foreign policy, defence policies, financial policy, even internal policies cannot be framed without the backing of this institution. Although we don't subscribe to this in principle, we are not giving it that importance. We are also in disagreement on the LFO, but we are not attaching much significance to it because even without it, the military enjoys all the powers. What we say is this ping-pong must come to an end. There is a facade of democracy but influence in decision- making is commanded by two per cent of the elite in which there is a nexus between the feudals, the military and the civilian bureaucracy. We are striving for taking away the powers from all these three and empower the people. That is why we are emphasizing on the opposition to provide an alternative paradigm. Again and again we are revisiting the Ghulam Mohammad era. The MQM's concern is - what next?

Q: While you say that the elite class is calling the shots, don't you think the MQM too has changed its middle-class character and has become part of them because now its representatives are also moving around in Pajeros?

A: Any ideological movement participates as a political party and takes part in elections. Then it is faced with many problems and it has to confront so many threats to its ideology. In that process, unwittingly many things become part of your style. Even then I am convinced that the MQM has largely maintained its character.

I would not mind admitting that when owing to economic compulsions and career and state terrorism, good people leave the party then those who are left in the party, they are also targeted by unscrupulous elements. Any political party which is targeted by state repression, subjugation, state terrorism, confronts such problems naturally. So you cannot wholly blame that party.

Q: This (state repression) also is the stand of the PPP Parliamentarians.

A: In a way they are right, and we endorse it. We are fully supportive. But the problem with them is that when they are in government, they don't follow what they say..... The PPP's concept of democracy is also not clear to us. We had told them this time that if they would come along with us on provincial autonomy and complete devolution, then we would be prepared to leave aside all other matters. We discussed these things in talks with Amin Fahim. Our past experience with them is also not very satisfactory as there were more extra-judicial killings (in their time). Incidentally, during Musharraf's time, there have been no mass arrests or extra-judicial killings. This has perhaps been intentionally done to take the MQM along. But why couldn't a similar policy be followed by the PPP or the PML(N)?

Q: Has there been any contact between Mr Altaf Hussain and Benazir Bhutto during the recent constitutional crisis.

A: No, but I think that as both parties have their base in Sindh, which is an important province of Pakistan, it is necessary that they should maintain contact and remain on talking terms. This is my personal view, but I believe this is also the view of my party. We meet them (PPP legislators) in the assemblies.

Q: What are the factors preventing a contact between Mr Altaf Hussain and Ms Bhutto?

A: It's a dilemma as both the leaders hail from Sindh and yet their last meeting was held in 1989. Neither side has taken the initiative (in this).

Q: Yours is the only political party which effectively operates from abroad and maintains a functional secretariat. What is the reason and justification for this? Why can't they come and do politics from here?

A: Our policies are made in Pakistan. Decisions are taken here, they are only ratified and approved by the founder, Mr Altaf Hussain. We get support from our London secretariat in operational and routine matters.

Q: Rightly or wrongly, leaders of the three largest parties are abroad. Don't you think it is time for them to realize they cannot come back for some years, that they should withdraw and devolve powers on others?

A: I will not say that our party is operating in very ideal conditions. For us Altaf Hussain does not belong to the traditional class and family. I believe that Altaf Hussain is a born leader and is a symbol of our unity and integration. We have extensive devolution in our party.

Q: In the beginning you aspired to protect the rights of the Mohajirs and their acceptance as a fifth nationality. But not any more. In a way you have drifted away from your founding principles.

A: In an evolutionary process, a party responds to challenges. So we have not compromised on the problems and issues confronting the Mohajirs, but we say that if there is cultural pluralism in Pakistan, then it will strengthen the concept of nationhood, and if there is cultural particularism, then it will not be conducive for nationhood and national integration. So we are working towards that nationhood so that everybody has an identity despite having different problems.

The Dawn panel consisted of Sabihuddin Ghausi, Habib Khan Ghori, Bahzad Alam Khan and Shamim-ur-Rahman.