Reconciliation: an option never to lose

I had just entered college, and in those growing years, I would passionately watch every single speech and press conference of President (later prime minister) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

In one such press conferences, I recall vividly him stating that in politics there is never a point of no return.

I learnt that not merely in the political arena, but in life, generally too, no individual should get carried away to reach a destination of ‘point of no return.’

No doors should be shut on possibility of negotiations. All doors in life must be left ajar. The objective in doing so should be noble. There should be no motive of entrapment. Any purpose to avail undue advantage renders the effort to be devoid of good intentionality.

In any time and space, anyone, who is possessed of the quality of operating with intentions of expedience and duplicity, doesn’t represent the process of ‘reconciliation’. Two equally powerful but opposite parties, each filled with deep-seated sense of egotism, will find it difficult to absorb the process and results of reconciliatory actions.

The purpose of reconciliation is not meant to serve to either the idiosyncrasies or obduracy of an individual or an institution. The objective must relate to obtaining mutual benefit without causing any loss, damage or hurt to either party.

For reconciliation to be meaningful exercise it must necessarily be accompanied by willingness to adapt, change, amend and alter; a pronounced joint responsibility for the outcomes; and the process must have in-built features of creating trust, accountability and transparency.

Reconciliation requires the participants to possess a strong sense of focus to details, and preferably analytical thinking that must serve the need of finance and accountancy.

Reconciliation demands that the opposing individuals/institutions would have the capacity/ability to take a step back on their stated positions. Both have to demonstrate willingness to be malleable in order to be courageous enough to alter from the stance and position taken.

Politicians find the process of reconciliation more difficult because in their political frenzy they hurl at each other abuses and trade in glorifying the fault-lines of the opponent.

To step down from that pronounced position is to lose face; hence even if they begin to reconcile, they claim that there shall be no “compromise” on principles or fundamentals. A smokescreen they create to withdraw from the borders of agitational arguments. Such process of reconciliation is mostly farce; an exercise in futility, especially if the intention is to hoodwink both, each other and the general public.

In the political arena, even when everything seems to be quiet and placid, there is present in the environment simmering reverberations of dissent and discontentment. In our own country, especially during periods of military dispensation (instead of political); apparently these were periods of quietude and stability. The reality was that political discontentment was on the boil. “All is well” was a slogan from Islamabad, but certainly all wasn’t well.

President Ayub’s rule classified as ‘decade of development’ (rightfully so) ended up with the imposition of martial law —— albeit the attempt for reconciliation did happen by the holding of an all-party conference (APC) which even Mujeeb-ur-Rahman, who had then been recently released from captivity when all charges against him in relation to Agratala conspiracy case were dismissed, the APC was a complete failure.

Yahya Khan’s “stability” ended up with the dismemberment of the country. We lost East Pakistan. In July 1977, when the most popular leader of Pakistan was deposed the country was in political turmoil.

The reconciliatory effort between government and Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) was thwarted. Martial law was again imposed. The period between 1977 till 17th August air-crash was hailed as a period of stability when surely it wasn’t. The gathering of storm began with the MRD (Movement for Restoration of Democracy) in 1983. The doors to reconciliation were locked.

PM Junejo’s interregnum of a mockery of democracy lasted only a year and few months. He was unceremoniously removed while being on an official visit to the Far East. Stability restored? Nay.

Generally speaking, hence, any semblance of political stability since the late 50s has been marred by failure of reaching consensus over contentious issues via the process of dialogue. Taking up obstinate and adamant positions hasn’t helped the country or its politicians.

Dialogue is critical to the process of reconciliation. Political leaders for a cause greater than themselves are expected to rise beyond their egos.

The doors for dialogue should always be kept open and importantly with an accompanying open mind too. To arrive at a meeting for purposes of reconciliation with a pre-conceived notion or position or to have set up pre-conditions to talks will obviously lead to its failure.

Without compromising principles, politicians must demonstrate flexibility of mind; they must remain alert towards maintaining the highest principles of democratic values which is keeping open the option of dialogue. We have suffered as a nation for long years due to political instability.

Today, if we find some very good elements to give us confidence of stability let’s not forget that no issue goes away by turning a blind eye to it. The desire to put things under the carpet can be tempting; it may yield positive results in the short term but not so in the long term. These issues come back as a ferocious boomerang.

Issues no matter how much contentious they are must be addressed. In our political theatre Pakistan People’s Party, true to its traditions since its formation has remained a federal party and is possibly the only one in true character. It is not domiciled in a single province.

Given the historical posturing, initiated by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, it behoves well when President Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto keep on reminding about the need for political reconciliation across the board. Both know that the way forward for the country has to be housed within the concept of “live and let live”. Democratic parties must be given due space.

Any attempt to thwart democratic aspirations of the people will only lead to the creation of a ticking bomb, which can blast in our face. Having said so, no individual or party, regardless of stature or popularity, can be given any licence to challenge the integrity and solidarity of the nation. That red line shouldn’t be crossed by any. It is unacceptable for any individual or political party to raise slogans against or mock the national institutions, including the armed forces.

Now, and not later, is the time for all political parties to arrive at a consensus on how the country can be led to economic prosperity.

All countrymen must join without exception in this march of unity of purpose and action. This can happen only if all are willing to evaluate and reposition themselves.

Leadership is not merely about leading from the front but it is more powerful leadership that knows when to take a back seat or walk a step behind. Not everything looks good under spotlight. The efforts achieved in obscurity reflect better in the full glare of the cameras.

President Zardari is an active proponent of reconciliation and so is Bilawal Bhutto. Both have courage to lead towards unifying the diverse political views alongside Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif who again takes no extreme positions; he is malleable to fresh ideas and new vistas of thoughts and action. The trio can make a difference.

While the integrity and solidarity of the country must rank supreme in the list of priorities, it is important to muster and beef up opportunities for an across-the-board participation.

Leaders, who know the art of dialogue and reconciliation, last much longer in history. Nelson Mandela was a paragon and epitome of “policy of reconciliation and tolerance”. For the sake of the country he took no action against any of his adversaries, including the unkind prison staff that watched him in captivity for over 27 years.

Reconciliation is an option we must use. Let the twain meet.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025