Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s political strategy has gained widespread recognition. Interestingly, both the government and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) are acknowledging his approach. Even PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry, who has been critical of his own party’s leadership, is praising Maulana’s politics. Surprisingly, even the establishment seems supportive of Maulana’s approach. With the 26th Constitutional Amendment, Maulana has managed to please everyone, setting an unparalleled example of political compromise.
On September 14, Maulana created a significant challenge for the government by not approving the constitutional amendment. The government pleaded with him, yet he remained unmoved. It’s said the establishment also pressured him, but he stood his ground, causing alarm within the ruling alliance.
Some thought that this signaled an end to cooperation between Maulana and the government regarding the amendment. However, despite his refusal on September 14, Maulana did not shut down negotiations. This approach teaches our youth an important lesson: cooperation can continue even amidst disagreements. Unfortunately, many young people today interpret disagreement as a reason to end all communication and even personal relationships.
Maulana also skillfully handled PTI, maneuvering them into a position where they could neither fully support nor oppose the amendment. They felt constrained to align with Maulana, even though his party expressed disappointment over PTI’s reluctance to vote. This strategic move has left PTI appearing weaker and politically diminished compared to Maulana’s party.
While it’s publicly perceived that Maulana rejected the government’s draft, allowing the government to lose face, in reality, the amendments favored the government’s interests. The government’s main priority was to change the process of appointing the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and this objective was achieved with Maulana’s help. Despite the public perception, Maulana’s amendments aligned with the government’s timeline, ensuring the changes came into effect before the appointment of the new Chief Justice.
The government no longer has to take credit for the amendment’s draft, as Maulana publicly claims to have rejected it. This strategic play has allowed the establishment to achieve several of its goals. Judges challenging the establishment have effectively lost their chance to become Chief Justice, which, for now, eliminates competition.
The public perceives this as Maulana’s victory and the government’s defeat. Yet, the reality is that the government and establishment’s goals were met through Maulana’s amendments. This situation suggests that allowing Maulana to celebrate a victory might be part of a broader political script.
In essence, Maulana facilitated the government by letting it distance itself from the amendment’s outcome. It’s a classic example of political optics, where the apparent loser is the actual winner, and vice versa. This is the true art of politics.