Baluch nationalism itself should not abandon internal democracy

 Baluch nationalist forces neither want to nor are in a position to be a dictator, because Baluch nationalism behaved much less like militarisation and much more like endless debating society.

It has became clear after the disintegration of soviet union the Baluch nationalism turned from body of few thousand and few tribes into a mass movement of hundreds of thousands, may be a millions of professional mobilises  who have joined Baluch nationalism.  They share not all the old nationalist political cultures. Some of who have recently joined, what they knows is that the decision made by superior must be carried out if the nationalism movement to be saved. They have imposed an increasingly authoritarian mode of rule on the movement seemed necessary to maintain leader position not the liberation movement.

It is a beginning of one party system and rejection of internal opposition. Baluch nationalism itself should not abandon internal democracy and must operate by its own constitutions. The annual meeting of parties’ congresses should become regular.

The decision to impose values, or revolution, from above; the single political leadership of the movement concentrate absolute power in its hand subordinate all else is bad for Baluch national liberation. At this point the movement would become autocracy under one leader, one would seek to impose total control over all aspects of movement and people thought as far as possible and subordinate to the achievement of the nationalist objectives as defined by it.  This is certainly not envisaged by great visionary nationalist martyrs. The idea that the nationalist should force every Baluch to think the same and endow a leader the father of nation is not possible for practical reasons within Baluch societies.

One might claim that nationalism is for its advocate a zealous personal commitment, that it became a mass movement, delicate theory a symbol of identity and loyalty, like flag be saluted. Such mass movements has admired, even to worship its leader, though the leader must be with an argument and rivalry within  kept under some control. The intolerance which has been implanted by nationalist activists for pragmatic reasons that they did not wanted arguments in the nationalist ranks which could prevent practical effectiveness, these intolerance are not values in themselves.

One may be intolerance toward the views that encourage or prolong colonisation, but one also has time for other opinions within nationalist movement. History has proven that the possibility of dictatorship in any organization based on a single, irremovable party or leader, in a party organised on the centralised hierarchical basis, the total assumption is that the struggle must not be reversed and that movement’s fate is in their hands and in nobody else’s. Authoritarian and hereditary always claim that there are working in the interest of people.

M.Sarjov