The Rebel Road…

Greetings Mr. Aseem.

I would have loved to help you out in your debate, however, I disagree with the proposition. A dictatorship is not just an abstract phenomenon. It has depth and details that are not apparent at first glance.

The most pertinent question to ask is: Which class-interests does the dictatorship uphold and safeguard? Are these the class-interests of the Majority? Or the minority?

I do not mean to say that a dictatorship is good if the dictator is benevolent. In the case of a dictator who safeguards and upholds minority interests – it is a given that such a dictatorship will be absolutist and will, necessarily, impinge on the human rights of the citizens.

It is a necessity because without such measures the dictator cannot hope to stay in power.

What is the result of such a dictatorship?

The result is a general disenfranchising of citizens from all spheres of national and political life. Such a dictatorial regime will stifle freedom of thought and action – it will create social anomie. However, it will also sow the seeds of its own, ultimate, demise.

Such a regime also hurts the progressive ’spirit’ of the working class and, in doing so, results in lower production etc. This makes such minority-oriented dictatorships highly reactionary as well.

The example of such dictatorial regimes can be found all over the globe. Let us look at Pakistan’s current situation.

For the first 4-5 years of Musharraf’s regime the citizens of Pakistan were systematically dis empowered both politically and socially. However, the seeds of dissent were also sown in this era – seeds which came to bear fruit in recent protests linked to the Chief justice issue etc.

Furthermore, if we were to analyze history we would find that Cuba underwent a similar condition with the dictatorship of General Batista. It is interesting to note that both Musharraf and Batista relied upon Imperialist backing (US- backing) to prolong their regimes.

However with the introduction of a majority-oriented leadership i.e with the introduction of leadership with upholds the class-interests of the majority of society Batista’s regime was ousted. Comrade Fidel Castro and the Communist party of Cuba led a successful revolution and ousted General Batista and brought his bloody rule to an end.

The next question we must answer is: What constitutes a relevant majority?

The answer is very simple. We must look at society and analyze society’s primary function.

Society’s primary function is to sustain its members and grow. This is referred to as ‘Progress’. Hence to formalize, society’s function is to progress.

Any majority that is directly linked to furthering that cause i.e any majority that is PROGRESSIVE is RELEVANT.

In today’s Capitalist society only the Proletariat (a.k.a Working class comprising of Urban and Rural proletariat) is the most progressive majority. According to conservative estimates the Proletariat constitutes nearly 85-90 percent of Pakistani Society.

THIS is the class whose interests must be safeguarded and upheld.

Only a democracy geared towards these interests can be ‘functional’ – other systems of governance being poor or reactionary substitutes at best.

It is my assertion that only a Communist party i.e the Revolutionary vanguard of the Working class can bring about a truly functional and progressive change in society today.

I hope this clarifies my stance on the matter. Please do not hesitate to post any further inquiries you may have on this question.

In Solidarity,
Mobeen Chughtai.

Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Riaz Ahmed Khan made a correct observation when he said that the relationship between the US and Pakistan has been a ‘long-term’ one. The foreign policy of Pakistan has always displayed a tendency of resolute support for any and all directives issued by the White House – whether these directives are in the best interests of Pakistan or not has usually been a matter of ‘secondary’ consideration. This has been especially true in the last few years with the rise of the al Qaeda ‘menace’ and the resulting war on terror.

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte’s visit to Pakistan gains a new dimension in the light of the rising religious militancy in Pakistan and the rising confrontation between local Taliban and the Pakistan military. Negroponte’s statements on the occasion of the second round of the Pak-US strategic dialogue give important indicators regarding US perspectives on Pakistan’s role as its ally. Building an elaborate façade of pursuing long-term strategic relationships with Pakistan, the US is merely acting on a ‘carrot and stick policy’ that has come to define Pak-US foreign relations. As opposed to his previous visit, Negroponte praised Pakistan’s support in the war on terror this time. Negroponte also acknowledged the sacrifices of the 1,000 soldiers killed in the war on terror. It was not clear, however, whether Negroponte took into account the hundreds of military and paramilitary personnel that have refused to fight the Jihadis and have been captured by Taliban rebels as a result. Pakistan has been promised financial assistance of $ 750 million for the development of FATA. However, the viability of this package is questionable, given the fact that no planning has gone into how this aid will be utilised to bring fruitful results. The views expressed by Negroponte in relation to the Nawaz ‘affair’ are extremely telling as far as Washington’s commitment to the democratisation of Pakistan is concerned. It is ironic that the US usually has an opinion regarding even the minutest of political activity taking place in Pakistan but when it comes to anything that goes against the interests of the regime they support, they tend to casually avert their collective gaze. Perhaps this too points towards the vested interest of Washington in bringing about a Bhutto-Musharraf nexus. One wonders if the manhandling of Mian Nawaz Sharif, an ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, and his forced exile constitutes the ‘amicable and peaceful’ solution that Negroponte hoped for.

The government must realise that the war against religious fundamentalism isn’t just a war in the sole interest of the US. There is a great threat of Talibanisation all along the north-western regions of Pakistan. The random manner in which rogue suicide attacks are launched against civilians by the extremists is not just against recognised human rights but also against the very tenets of Islam. Therefore, this rapid process of Talibanisation becomes more than simply a process of religious extremism – it becomes a well thought out, organised and malicious attempt at stifling the voice of rationality. The government must take a solid stance against such extremism and establish its writ in an effective manner. Furthermore, all concerned and interested parties should be allowed to return to Pakistan and free and fair democratic elections should be scheduled and held without any preconditions, as per the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan – elections that express the real will of the masses for a change.