INSIGHT: Seeking balance —Ejaz Haider
The army too is skating on thin ice. It has to be careful about how it approaches the actors to avoid getting caught in the vortex. Essentially, its strategy would be to arbitrate successfully without getting involved because involvement brings with it its own problems without solving anything
Good news first. An overwhelming majority of the Pakistan People’s Party leaders and cadres is deeply disturbed over how the party has ended up making Nawaz Sharif so popular. Sharif has become a beacon of democracy and rule of law while the PPP looks like former General Musharraf dressed up in civvies.
He should; the PPP has worked hard at it.
That is factor number 1 and shows the party’s spirit is intact.
The army has politely asked the two sides to shape up, stopping short of “or ship out”. Prudence and history demand that the politicos complete the sentence themselves; the good news, factor 2, is that at least the PPP is now concerned about the “ship out” ending.
The Americans have also got into the act. They realise, having seen the end of a quasi-military rule and now the tottering democratic dispensation, that some baseline is important for democracy to work. Things cannot move forward until the issue of the judges is resolved.
So, how is it going to unfold now?
Efforts are on for reconciliation. First to go is likely to be Governor’s Rule. That would automatically restore the pre-Governor’s Rule political configuration in the Punjab.
Next, a constitutional amendment that takes care of a broad array of issues, including the judiciary and the powers of the president. This might also envisage creating a Federal Constitutional Court and working out the modalities of accommodating all the judges (pre- and post-November 3, 2007) in the FCC and the SC.
This has been, and could be, a sticking point politically because the surge on the streets demands nothing less than the restoration, up front, of ex-CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry, finesse can take a hike.
Two factors could, however, make the political actors work this out — lifting of Governor’s Rule, signalling the Centre wants reconciliation; and, yes, the army working the back channel and acting as both the guarantor and the arbiter.
But while things seem moving towards this end, there are pitfalls still.
Sharif could rely on compellence strategy. He has already initiated an action and also shown irrevocable commitment to it. He could play on the assumption that if things spin out of control and the army has to step in more overtly, it will not overstay its welcome; in other words, the army would streamline the system and order new elections.
A risky strategy this, as compellence always is, Sharif might calculate that the army, at this stage, cannot afford to stay long in the driver’s seat — or even sweep everyone aside. That experiment was tried by Musharraf and failed. If his calculation proves right and this scenario comes to pass, Sharif would be the winner.
The army has therefore to be very clear about its options if one or both the actors refuse to play ball.
This is where it becomes more important for the army to deal with the government to get Islamabad to do what is required so it (GHQ) doesn’t have to do something more overt and allow Sharif to take advantage of the situation.
From this perspective, the army too is skating on thin ice. It has to be careful about how it approaches the actors to avoid getting caught in the vortex. Essentially, its strategy would be to arbitrate successfully without getting involved because involvement brings with it its own problems without solving anything.
There is some sense that the PPP realises this and is also prepared, at this stage, to deprive Sharif of the political capital he wants to earn from this situation. This is the only response to compellence. As Thomas Schelling put it, compellence “can cease, or become harmless, only if the opponent responds”.
In this case, Sharif has to be deprived of those causes which made him initiate the action because he framed his demands and his politics on the basis of popular support to those causes. The man who has to show this clear understanding is President Asif Zardari.
Every passing day is reducing his options both within the party and in relation to other political actors.
Now, the bad news.
Would the restoration of ex-CJ Chaudhry strengthen the judiciary? Not in and of itself. A strong judiciary is one part of the broader concept of Constitutionalism and that concept is linked to the evolution in a certain direction of political, social, economic and legal structures.
Right now, what might make the lawyers’ movement successful is its backing by some political parties. Those parties have declared their support for a strong judiciary and rule of law. Be that as it may, the movement is essentially political rather than judicial and that point should not be lost on anyone.
Real success would come only if and when the political would shed its immediate expediency and express itself in and through the legal-constitutional. That expression would require more than just the restoration of the CJ; it would, more than that, necessitate a transformation of the political, economic and social structures of this country.
Another problem relates to the powers of the president. Pakistan has oscillated between the two extremes of having a toothless president and one with sharp teeth and claws. Given the current mood, we seem to be moving again in the direction of having a ceremonial president. That would be moving from one mistake to another.
The need of the hour is to find the right balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister.
Ejaz Haider is Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times and Consulting Editor of The Friday Times. He can be reached at
[email protected]
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
