The Daily Times reports that the MQM and PML(Q) are transporting themselves back to the good old days of the early 2000s, when they were nice and cuddly with each other as part of the Musharraf set up:

The Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) have reached an understanding to convert their strategic relationships for Sindh and Punjab into an election alliance, while a formal announcement in this regard would be made at an appropriate time.

Sources in both the parties were of the view that the understanding of evolving a strategic relationship has been a result of months’ long deliberations at the highest level. PML-Q leaders Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Mushahid Hussain recently visited Karachi and met the MQM leadership.

[...]

The sources said the strategic relationship has been carefully designed to enhance the electoral potential of the two parties and to dent the support base of their common political foe, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

Once again members of Bhai Log, Inc. Photo: AP

One thing I would note about this is that party alliances in Pakistani politics are very fluid. The PPP and PML(N) were at each other’s throats for all of the 1990s, then had a bit of detente in the Musharraf era, then kissed and made up with the Charter of Democracy stuff, were briefly allies after the 2008 elections, and are now in opposition again. The MQM was once the target of the military establishment, but is now seen by many as doing the latter’s bidding. It was also an ally of the PML(N) in the 1990s, but now the two say lots of mean things about each other. The JUI(F) drops in and out of the government and opposition like it means absolutely nothing. And so on.

My view is that the reason our alliances are so fluid is that our parties basically stand for nothing, ideologically speaking. You can’t really attach them to specific worldviews beyond caricatures (“the PPP is a center-left party”) or notions of ethnic or nationalistic solidarity (such as the ANP or MQM). What this means is that power considerations become, essentially, the sole metric of who to ally with or who to band against.

By contrast, in most “normal” democracies, parties have to balance power considerations with policy considerations. So let’s say you’re the Green party in a Scandanavian country somewhere, and the Conservatives need your seats to form a government. Well, most Green party types would be loath to join up with Conservatives, but they would also understand that to get their agenda forward, they need to make a bargain or two. So they might say to the Conservatives, “Look, we’ll join your government as long as you promise to pass legislation X, Y and Z that is very near and dear to us and we care a lot about.” And so they form an alliance where no one is supremely happy but no one is supremely unhappy either. That’s democracy at work.

But in Pakistan, our parties have no real policy objectives attached to their name. Nothing on education or energy or urbanization or transport or the war(s). Nothing substantive, anyway. What that means in practical terms is that they find such bargains much easier, because they’re deciding things solely on the basis of power considerations. Policy matters don’t even enter the mix. Pakistani politics is that Lord Palmerston line of “no permanent friends or enemies” on steroids.