FROM its inception, the MQM has remained an enigma both to its hardcore supporters and sworn enemies. Starting off as a small group of ‘disaffected’ students espousing the ‘Mohajir cause’, it soon became a formidable political force in urban Sindh.

Not long after, it transformed into a national party despite touching the pinnacle of power built on ethnic politics. It forever faced charges of rigging, violence, extortion and even high treason. And yet nearly every government — civilian or military — avidly wooed it. It carried the stigma of being the creation of the security establishment, and yet received harsh treatment at the hands of its putative creators. More puzzlingly, it dominated the country’s political sphere for years on the back of its ‘eternal leader’ Altaf Hussain; even so, that very ‘quaid’ was branded a traitor and excommunicated recently by his protégés.

What brought the MQM to this sorry pass — a quirk of fate or its own misdoings? Did Altaf Hussain cause his own fall from grace or has the ‘decapitation’ been part of an old policy to dispense with popular leaders, using intrigue and violence? And what lies ahead for the MQM, Altaf Hussain and the politics in Sindh and the country?

Mustafa Kamal of the Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) calls the MQM’s present predicament a “miracle of God”. Perhaps. But there are also plausible reasons behind the MQM’s existential crisis. In fact, the Muttahida had it long coming. A party that thrived for years on the personality cult of its unquestioned leader was bound to pay for his blunders too. Particularly noteworthy are Altaf Hussain’s five grave misjudgements that explain his present plight and the party’s current problems.

The MQM supremo has only himself to blame for the ‘minus-Altaf’ formula.

First, he misjudged the high moral ground the Rangers had occupied after restoring relative order to Karachi. No wonder the MQM’s calls for protest against the Rangers’ ‘excesses’ went unheeded.

Second, he misjudged the bargaining strength of the MQM vis-à-vis the provincial/ federal government, let alone the powerful establishment. He ignored that his MPs were no more required to form or sustain governments.

Third, he misjudged the impact of launching diatribes against the security forces at a time when the country was facing increased hostility in the neighbourhood, while his alleged connections with Indian agencies had left him with fewer friends among fellow politicians.

Fourth, Altaf Hussain misjudged the changed political culture and demography of his stronghold, Karachi, where no single ethnic group or political party could rule, let alone own, the city. And the MQM’s newly elected, though incarcerated, mayor has rightly pledged himself to act as the mayor of all communities.

Finally, and more importantly, Altaf Hussain terribly misjudged the efficacy of his command over the party that he had ‘ruled’ on the strength of a dual image nurtured over the years: one as a benign father figure for his followers; the other a ferocious dictator who brooked no dissent in the party. But the latter facet had lately begun to wear off as the MQM’s fearsome sectoral structure that projected it had crumbled under the Rangers’ weight, releasing the ‘disgruntled’ party workers from the fear factor and allowing a number of them to defect to the newly formed PSP.

The MQM supremo can, therefore, blame only himself for the apparent success of the ‘minus-Altaf’ formula. True, populism and principled politics have cost political leaders their lives and offices. It is also true that Altaf Hussain and his close associates’ loyalty has remained suspect in the past too. But they were spared the state’s wrath because either the evidence against them was insufficient or the MQM’s ‘utility’ for the political set-up, in Karachi and Islamabad, mattered.

But these two factors were missing when Mr Hussain made his Aug 22 speech against the country. His acerbic utterances and a defanged and demoralised MQM left the local leadership with no option but to commit political hara-kiri along with their ‘quaid’, or denounce him as a traitor to save the party, and their skins. They rightly chose the latter option.

But now what? Will the MQM-Pakistan — as it is now called after the Karachi and London chapters excommunicated each other — survive, let alone thrive, without the driving force and moral authority of its ‘quaid-turned-traitor’? Would the minus-Altaf formula also banish him from the constituencies where, until recently, he enjoyed considerable influence? Or will his departure further deepen the fault lines in the party and cause it to unravel, allowing several contenders — PSP, PPP, PTI, MQM-H, ANP, PML-N and JI — to fill the vacuum? It is too early to attempt any answers. But as it is, the MQM-P’s future seems not so sanguine.

Dr Farooq Sattar, the party’s new head, was trained as a deputy, not a leader. He lacks charisma and the finesse to employ ‘Mohajirism’ as a populist electoral plank, while keeping the party’s national image alive (as did Altaf Hussain). His task becomes more onerous due to the party’s image problem. Some of his associates continue to carry the party’s burdensome baggage. Cases involving heinous crimes are pending against them while the Rangers’ operations continue unabated.

Finally, the establishment’s role will also matter where the existence and future course of the MQM-P are concerned. As it is, the establishment has not relented. Altaf Hussain won’t be allowed to organise a political party through remote control in the foreseeable future, though he will try to peddle Mohajir politics through social media, further straining Pakistan’s relations with the UK.

Thus, the fate of the MQM-P or Altaf Hussain’s politics may see more vicissitudes. But what is certain for the moment is that Karachi has turned far more peaceful and manageable. It generates renewed confidence in the revival of its lost glory. It begs for measures to address its chronic socioeconomic and politico-administrative issues that have historically bred bad governance, violence and ethnic tensions.

Therefore, it anxiously awaits the activation of the long-suspended local governments to replace the bureaucracy that — in league with inept ministers — has over the years turned it into a shambles.

The writer is a lawyer and academic.

shahabusto@hotmail.com