Faysal Shaikh
If there is one personality in Pakistani politics who has maintained the blend of religion, politics, and power for the longest time, it is Maulana Fazlur Rehman. His political struggle has its own place, his religious services and his role concerning madrassas has its own place, but in a democratic society, the public should get answers to some fundamental questions. Because the responsibility of accountability is doubled for a leader who seeks public support in the name of religion and morality.
The biggest question about Maulana’s politics is whether his principles are permanent or they change with the political situation? The political history of the last four decades makes this question even deeper. The first question is about internal party democracy.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) is a large religious political party, but since 1980, its leadership has continuously remained in the hands of a single personality. In the party’s internal elections held in September 2024, Maulana Fazlur Rehman was once again elected Ameer unopposed. This continuity gives rise to the question whether in four decades, no other leadership in the party became capable enough? Or has the party structure been made such that there is no room left for dissent?
The incident of December 2020 further strengthens this question, when four senior leaders including Maulana Gul Naseeb Khan and Maulana Shuja-ul-Mulk were expelled from the party. These were leaders who had worked for the party for years. Their expulsion deepened the impression that the tradition of tolerating internal democracy and dissent is weakening in JUI-F. If the party talks about the constitution and democracy in national politics, should it not demonstrate the same democracy within itself?
The second major question is about transparency. Is JUI-F ready for an open debate on the transparency of its internal elections, party ticket decisions, and financial accounts? This question arises for every political party, but the responsibility is greater for a religious party because it takes donations, charity, and support in the name of religion.
Why should the same principle of transparent auditing of donations collected in the name of religious and welfare institutions not apply to all organizations? If the state demands accountability from other institutions, then the financial resources of religious parties should also be examined on the same transparent standard. This demand is not against any party, but for the betterment of the system. Giving an account of every single rupee collected in the name of religion is in fact a requirement of piety itself.
The third and most important question is about contradictions in political stance. In Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s politics, sometimes conciliation with the government, sometimes alliance with the opposition, and sometimes an anti-establishment narrative is seen. The same political forces with whom there was severe confrontation until yesterday, are seen negotiating today on common interests. PTI is the latest example of this.
Maulana’s relationship with PTI has continued to appear in the form of severe opposition, sometimes rumors of electoral alliance, and sometimes cooperation in the parliament. The public wants to know what has been the principled basis of different periods of political disagreement and cooperation with PTI? If PTI was being called illegitimate and un-Islamic till yesterday, then under what principled justification has political contact with the same party become legitimate today? Alliance in politics is not a crime, but calling every changing stance principled is also not correct.
This is the point where the public cannot be convinced by religious slogans, emotional speeches, and temporary narratives, but by permanent principles and practical character. A leader who seeks support from the public in the name of religion and morality should also clarify where public interest ends and personal and party interest begins in his political decisions.
Here, this principle should also be clear that constitutional principles are not only for political opponents. The same standard of accountability should also apply to one’s own party, one’s own decisions, and one’s own resources. If we demand democracy, transparency, and adherence to the constitution from other parties, we must also meet the same criteria ourselves.
Similarly, any serious allegation related to national security or financial irregularity should be decided only on the basis of evidence and legal procedure. Neither can someone be declared a traitor merely by leveling an allegation against him, nor can someone be considered above accountability by making him a sacred cow.
The law should be equal for everyone, whether he belongs to a religious party or a secular party. In the end, the question is not why Maulana is doing politics, the question is under what principle he is doing it? If politics is being done on principles, then its continuity should be visible. If politics is being done for a share in power, then it should not be cloaked as principled politics. The conscious people of Pakistan now look at character more than slogans, and this is the beauty of democracy.