The formation of the Awami Workers’ Party has been cautiously welcomed by social movements and progressive sections of Pakistani society. After its relegation to the fringes of Pakistani society over three decades ago, the Left further isolated itself by small sectarian groups engaged in fighting “ideological” battles with each other, instead of analyzing or intervening in any meaningful way in changing the socio-political landscape of Pakistan. This merger is seen by many as a possibility of moving beyond nihilistic politics (including that of the Left) of the past three decades by formulating a coherent Left alternative. The merger process is also linked to the particular unfolding of History in our times, as the shattering of the neo-liberal consensus (following the financial crisis), paves the way for a new round of struggles against the prevalent order, what Alain Badiou has recently called the ‘Rebirth of History.’ This opens up new avenues for radical politics around the world that the Left is trying to grapple with, albeit with varying degrees of success, and the Pakistani Left’s decision to unite is part of this process of seriously engaging with the opportunities and challenges posed by this new global political conjecture.

Another reason for the enthusiasm, debate, discussion and criticisms of this merger, despite the numerically weak position of the AWP vis-a-vis mainstream parties, is because it claims to represent an idea that has moved millions, particularly in the 20^th century. At an abstract level, it is the idea of equality, an idea powerful enough to make peasants in Vietnam stand up to the might of the US war-machine, and one that allowed millions of activists to bear the brunt of lonely isolation during periods of incarceration, only because the cause was worthy enough of such a sacrifice. Despite the relative numerical weakness of the Left, this idea remains etched in the political unconscious of this country, and certainly in that of the ruling class, who often go to any extent in suppressing any possibility of dissent that threatens their privilege.

Despite this optimism, one has to take seriously the concerns raised by those who are ideologically committed to the Left, but have doubts over the sustainability of the AWP, or its potential of turning into a mass force. While defending the AWP against what I believe are ulta-Left positions by certain sectarian Marxists, I want to point to some real hurdles that the party will have to overcome as it tries to become a relevant force in Pakistani politics.

 Ultra-Leftism or Simply Conservative?

Both during the merger process, as well as on the commentary after the formation of the AWP, there were certain ‘Marxist’ tendencies that continued to oppose the merger on a theoretical and ideological basis. The usual criticism goes like this: the AWP is a ‘reformist’ party that does not stand for a ‘revolutionary’ transformation of society. By revolutionary transformation these sects often mean terms like “government of workers’ councils” or the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, etc. Second, they argue that the AWP is not a homogeneous ideological group (somehow diversity is still a swear word for sections of the Pakistani Left) and that such ‘fragmented’ groupings can never present a ‘clear’ alternative. Such criticisms are often reproduced by different sects as a deviation from “Stalinist”, “Trotskyist”, “Maoists”, Hoxhaist principles, depending on what the ideological leaning of the particular group or individual is.

I do not wish to engage in discussing the vague meanings attached to some of these conceptions, nor I am wholly opposed to all such ideas. Nor do I want to prove the ‘revolutionary’ credentials of the AWP against such attacks, especially when the party’s manifesto explicitly states that the AWP aims to fight for the construction of a socialist society. The more fundamental problem that I want to highlight is the absolute misreading by such Leftists of the historical conjecture in which we find ourselves. There has been much rhetoric by small Leftist sects around the world arguing that we are in living in ‘revolutionary’ times, by which they mean a radical rupture with capitalism is imminent, and the working class is ready for this decisive fight and will quickly gravitate towards their group because of its correct line. I find such an analysis, at least in Pakistan’s case, to be preposterous. It is difficult to argue that we are living in a revolutionary conjecture when over 300 workers die in a factory fire and there is next to no mobilization by the trade unions or Leftist groups in the country. Nor have working class organizations played any major role in some of the most tumultuous events that have occurred in the past 20 years in Pakistan, including the war between imperialism and religious fundamentalism within our borders.

This is not to suggest that a revolutionary insurrection is impossible in Pakistan. Instead, the primary task of radical forces today is to precisely work toward the production of the revolutionary conjecture that can change the terms of hegemonic discourses in the country. For example, it means fighting the coercive and ideological onslaught of neo-liberalism by re-introducing the word ‘class’ into mainstream politics. It also means launching radical and sustained critiques of neo-liberal policies that have weakened the bargaining power of labour and arguing for an alternative system to capitalism that is more just and humane. It is to categorically state that the hegemonic choice presented to us today between imperialism and religious fundamentalism, which is often a choice between liberalism and fundamentalism in Pakistan, is a false choice and that one can build a progressive critique of both of these reactionary tendencies. That uneven distribution of land in the Pakistani countryside is unjust and that it is absolutely reasonable to insist on radical land reforms.

The list can go on, but the larger point is that it is irrelevant whether a group of 10 people meet once a week for a cup of tea and agree that we should do away with state boundaries. The real task is to actually strategize on how our interventions can produce a radically different situation and, hence, produce novel possibilities for political praxis. Marxists who are only interested in verbal hyperbole are essentially taking a conservative position, since beneath their gung-ho posturing, there is a desire to evade the concrete tasks at hand for revolutionaries in contemporary Pakistan, i.e. that of building a mass-based Left alternative in the country.

In this respect, if the AWP’s goal of attracting broad sections of the popular classes, is a step in the direction of creating a large anti-capitalist, anti-feudal, anti-imperialist and socially progressive alternative in Pakistan, then this merger should definitely be welcomed. This is exactly the kind of polarization that the Latin American Left and SYRIZA in Greece have been successful in achieving. It is in such a situation that the question of revolutionary transformation takes on a real political meaning, since such discussions are being carried out in these countries in the midst of unprecedented labor upsurges and the emergence of labor friendly governments, partly as a result of extremely innovative positions taken by broad-based parties of the Left. Creating such a radical pole in Pakistani politics should be the main aim of radical parties, and if the AWP succeeds in doing so, it will fundamentally alter the political landscape of the country.

 Challenges for the Party

There are some very genuine concerns, however, on the ability of the AWP to turn into a mass party in the country. I will highlight two major causes for concern. First of course, is the threat of disintegration, or what is termed in Leftist circles as a ‘split.’ There are often two main reasons for such recurrent splits in the Pakistani Left. First is the belief in absolute purity of a political organization, coupled with the belief that two people can constitute a revolutionary ‘organization.’ As stated earlier, the lack of homogeinity within the AWP is seen by some Leftists as its weakness, rather than its strength. One hopes that such juvenile, apolitical and anti-pluralist views have already been superseded as the three parties decided to merge into one large political party with admittedly different ideological trends.

The second major reason for such splits is a lack of internal democracy through the suppression of dissenting views. This poses a greater challenge for the unity of the AWP since the leadership and the workers of the party will have to set new political traditions by debating and engaging with different ideas without accusing the others of being ‘traitors’ for simply airing their opinion. If the AWP is able to create an atmosphere for open and frank internal discussions, it will also create the possibility of introducing innovative ideas in Left politics in the country. For example, in the past five decades, groundbreaking work on Marxist philosophy, state theory and economics has been carried out in Western Europe as well as in countries like Greece, India, and Bolivia. It is absolutely crucial for a party like the AWP to engage with these debates, if it is ever to move beyond futile debates such the Stalin/Trotsky controversy which has needlessly taken up so much of the Left’s energy.

The second fundamental task for the AWP is to develop with organizational strategies to introduce an alternative in Pakistan’s politics. This is an incredibly difficult task. Large parts of the country are in the grips of violence, the numerical strength of the organized working class has decreased significantly, the trade union movement in the country is in a dire condition, the women’s rights movement has been tamed through NGO-funding, and most popular politics revolves around patronage. In such circumstances, how does the new party envision a rupture with politics as usual? What are the new forms of analysis and strategies that are required to formulate an adequate response to such historical circumstances? There are no easy answers to such questions, but such issues must be confronted if the party wants to truly move beyond the coordinates of contemporary politics in Pakistan.

 Rebirth of the Political Subject, or Why you should join the AWP

Since the rise of neo-liberal governmentality, the figure of a ‘detached intellectual’ is praised as the ideal political commentator. It means that the intellectual gains her/his legitimacy by not taking sides in a conflict and staying ‘neutral’, since being attached to a political organization reduces her chances of being ‘objective.’ Moreover, and this is crucial, it means that an intellectual’s role is simply to formulate criticisms from the outside, to give correctives to movements and parties, but not be associated with them.

To the extent that such self-reflexivity emerges from a critique of dogmatic Leftist practices throughout the 20^th Century, it should be welcomed. There is, however, something incredibly disempowering about the idea that the only site to analyze a political process is from outside of it. For example, for a dispassionate observer, the use of violence in the Russian revolution, or the anti-colonial struggles in India or Algeria might simply seem examples of ‘needless violence.’ However, one is lent an incredibly different insight into these events if one reads Lenin on the Russian Revolution or Bhaghat Singh and Frantz Fanon to understand the subjective nature of this violence. It is through the fidelity of such intellectuals to the struggle, and the clear and unambiguous choices they made, that they were truly able to bring forth the historical conjecture in which the question of violence vs. non-violence begins to make sense.

It is now time to re-engage with politics through precisely such subjective interventions, by choosing sides and following through with the consequences of those choices. One can remain critical of the project one engages with, and one only needs to read the writings of quintessential revolutionaries such as Bhaghat Singh and Fanon to understand this point, yet maintain fidelity to the cause. The AWP is not simply an organization that we need to analyze and comment upon. It is something that we must engage with and play an active role in, especially since it is pregnant with so many possibilities. Left activists, particularly the youth, can play a vital role in shaping the political trajectory of the New Left in the country through their passionate engagement with it.

The spectacular failure of capitalism around the world has shattered the liberal consensus on the capacity of this order to perpetuate itself eternally. The breakdown of this consensus has provided an opportunity for the international Left to propose an alternative to the current crisis. But it is also giving rise to nationalist/fascist tendencies around the globe. In Pakistan, the situation is more grim since the absence of the Left has resulted in the choice between religious and statist militarization and liberal hypocrisy. Given this historical trajectory, and the terrible consequences that can flow from it, it is all the more important to become involved in constructing a radical alternative to keep alive the hypothesis of equality and freedom.

In a more orthodox Marxist language, one can argue that the ultimate option being presented to us, once again, is the choice between Socialism and Barbarism. One could choose to ignore this reality, only if so much was not at stake.

Ammar Ali Jan