The tool and the target

AT PENPOINT

The Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI) is not really a revolutionary party, but it is in danger of carrying out one of the most consistent characteristics of revolutionary parties, destroying its own. This is shown by the cases of Jehangir Tareen and Bashir Memon. Do Tareen’s constant appeals for fair treatment indicate an insider’s knowledge of the real mindset of PTI chief Imran Khan, or are they the simple pleas of a citizen who knows how unfair the state can be when it comes down to rooting out and destroying opponents of the government. It is worth noting that Memon was not asked to target Tareen, according to what he himself said. The PTI may not really be a revolutionary party, because it does not have an external ideology which it wishes to promote. However, it does have certain characteristics of a fascist party, as it came to power through an election, not a revolution, but there again, it would be inclined to a process of consuming its own.

Pakistan’s own experience was with the PPP, which saw the elimination of party ideologue J.A. Rahim, and of leftist leader Meraj Muhammad Khan, in the early years of the Bhutto government. It should be remembered that Bhutto ignored the multiple crises he faced, like the peace negotiations with India, constitution-making, the oil shock and the consequent economic crisis, and took on that, created by purging the party.

Imran Khan has shown a willingness to throw followers under the bus if he develops a dislike, and this has grown to look like what has happened soon after a Revolution succeeds. The template is the French Revolution. Those who carried out the Revolution were themselves destroyed in the Great Terror. One of the most prominent victims was Georges Danton, who was a member of a ruling triumvirate with Maximilien Robespierre. Robespirre engineered that execution, but was later himself executed.

It is worth noting that Robespierre prided himself on his honesty, accusing Danton of illegal accumulation of wealth. Tareen is not accused of corruption, but he is accused of economic crimes. They have begun to come unraveled, as the FIA is deciding he is not guilty.

Jahangir Tareen showed that he had friends within the party, that it was not simply a platform for Imran. Also, previous examples are of leaders who are not beholden to anyone. If someone who owes any institution his position, anyone with independent links will be in danger.

It is not easy to see Imran as Robespierre, nor Tarin as Danton, who was by all accounts an ugly man, though blessed with a loud voice.

The next stage was that of military rule, through the coup of 18 Brumaire by Napoleon Boanparte, hence the word ‘Bonapartism’.

Throughout the 19th century, especially under the influence of Karl Marx, the French Revolution was taken as the exemplar. The Revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1870 were regarded as incomplete, and it is not until the Russian revolution of 1917 that there is another example. The Bolsheviks attained power under Lenin, and after he died in 1924, the party General Secretary, Stalin, assumed more and more power, ultimately ousting Leon Trotsky, who had defended the Revolution from the reactionaries and restorationists (this was called the Thermidorian Reaction, in a tip of the hat to the French Revolution) as the Defence Commissar.

Again, Tareen does not really fit into the role of Trotsky, and Imran does not really look the part of a Stalin.

Even fascists got into the act. Hitler came to power in 1933 after winning the election. It was not until July 1934 that the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ took place, in which Hitler suppressed the SA, and had its head, Ernst Röhm, killed. Röhm had two problems; first, Hitler suspected him of harbouring the desire to replace him, and second, the Army didn’t like him. Hitler at that point had not got control of the Army, but was working very hard to get it. He had many sympathizers within the German armed forces, but he always insisted on being in charge.

Tareen is not an Army man, but he has generally got on well with the military. Before going into the PTI, he was in the PML(Q), and a minister in the Jamali and Shaukat Aziz cabinets. Imran might have quoted Hitler as an example of a leader who became great because of his U-turns, but he hardly resembles him. If Bashir Memon’s allegations are correct, then Imran may well have some of that Hitlerian intolerance of criticism that converted him from an elected Chancellor to a dictatorial Fuehrer. Perhaps more worrying is the quality of political leadership that has gathered around him. Law Minister Farogh Nasim and PM’s Adviser Shehzad Akbar seem less like democratic leaders than like Dieter Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler as they pumped Hitler against Röhm.

Memon may have resisted, but he is now retired. Imran is likely to find police officers who will be more compliant, as Masood Mehmood was for Z.A. Bhutto. A nearer example both in time and place is that of Abolhassan Banisadr, the first President of Iran, who clashed with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in yet another example of a Revolution consuming itself.

Others of this kind, though, are associated with the Chinese Revolution. It should not be forgotten that the Kuomintang had originally been a member of the Comintern, the Communist International founded by the USSR to replace the Second International. The Comintern stood for bringing world revolution, and the Kuomintang joined, not so much because it was Marxist as anti-imperialist. It had to leave after the founding of the Communist Party of China, and fought a civil war with it; that ended with the October Revolution, the CPC’s victory and the Kuomintang fleeing to Taiwan.

The revolutions before the French, that in America less than two decades earlier, and that in the UK a century before that, provide some instructive examples: while till none of the makers of the American Revolution were hounded, it should be noted that not only did Oliver Cromwell remove all possible rivals, but in 1653 imposed what is known as the Rule of the Major Generals, with Great Britain divided into 11 districts, each under a major general. This experience of military put the British off it till today. The American Revolution immediately began a process of elections that continued till now. Founding Fathers were eliminated by the electorate, not one another. And certainly, while George Washington proved the adage that ‘all the world loves a soldier’, he submitted to an electoral process to win over his opponents, not takeover.

It is difficult see Imran as George Washington, or Tarin as Chiang Kaishek, but it should not be forgotten that Imran probably does not have as much control over the levers over the state as is needed to carry out a thorough purge. The saving grace of this reform is its lack of ideology. There is an abiding belief that there need be an end to corruption, but that comes in conflict with the freedoms of the citizen.

In all the examples mentioned above, control over the military was essential. No one used the military as an instrument, but its quiescence was first assured. Not only did Stalin get rid of Trotsky, but he also smashed the Soviet high command in the Great Purge of 1936-38.

The fundamental problem is that the leader cannot be seen as beholden to anyone, let alone a charismatic leader. Being a rival is dangerous, but even being owed anything is too. A political leader also needs the assurance of being superior. Apart from everything else, Stalin disliked Trotsky because he was bright. Stalin had been at pains to prove his own pretensions.

Jahangir Tarin showed that he had friends within the party, that it was not simply a platform for Imran. Also, previous examples are of leaders who are not beholden to anyone. If someone who owes any institution his position, anyone with independent links will be in danger.

The problem is finding the right instruments. As Bashir Memon showed, they can refuse. But as Masood Mufti showed so many years ago, they can be found.