Energising Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

Analysis: Energising Pakistan

Talat Masood
November 06, 2008

The expansion of the federal cabinet was long overdue. One could fault it for being unwieldy, especially at a time when the economy of the country is in distress, but the selection of ministers appears to be on merit and most of them have good political standing.

Regrettably, the government since its inception has not demonstrated a sense of urgency that the current economic and security situation demands. People justifiably expect that with the induction of a new team, this attitude would change and that the government will be more focused, professional, and will work with greater zeal.

Meanwhile, President Asif Zardari’s excessively large entourage of over 200 people to Saudi Arabia, from whom we are seeking financial assistance and an oil facility, would not resonate well with them or other multilateral donors. It also sets a poor precedent and sends the wrong signal back home.

The response of our leaders to the tragic earthquake in Balochistan was also disappointing. Surprisingly, neither the president nor the prime minister visited the quake survivors to express their sympathy and solidarity with them. Provincial governments could have ensured the security of the VIPs with assistance from the military. After all, President Bush, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown have all regularly visited the most dangerous areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are our leaders so scared and insensitive to the misery of their people?

A larger question needs to be answered by our leaders as well: for almost all our internal problems, whether these pertain to economy or security, why are we becoming increasingly dependent on foreign help? Instead of finding indigenous solutions to our problems, our success is now based on how much of assistance we can get from abroad.

We have lost our sense of pride and dignity as a people and as a nation. A country that is not economically viable cannot claim to be independent in the true sense. Little effort has been made by the government in the last eight months to improve the quality of the country’s economic institutions.

The highest priority at this point should be given to education. A significant reason for lack of progress is our dysfunctional primary and secondary education. This education fiasco is not because of a failure of our children. In fact, they are as good as any others, if provided the basic facilities. It would be unrealistic to expect growth in major sectors of the economy — agriculture, industry and services — without first-rate scientific and technical education.

Agriculture is a major sector of our economy, and yet it was grossly neglected during the previous regime and continues to suffer. We also need to widen and deepen our industrial base. Apart from implementing measures necessary for macroeconomic stability, monetary and financial policies should facilitate growth in the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Pakistan has had its share of difficulties more than most countries, mostly due to our own failures but at times forced by external factors. The current situation is indeed very challenging, but also affords an opportunity for us to revisit our destiny. We need to introspect as to what makes nations tick and what makes them fail. How do nations rise from obscurity and what ingredients give them vitality.

Economic dynamism is by far one of the most expressive forms of a nation’s vitality — as we are witnessing in China and to some extent in India, or as we saw in the growth of the tiger economies of East Asia. It takes the form of development of infrastructure in energy, communications and transportation. Investment starts flowing as other countries also develop confidence in economically dynamic countries.

Do we have the ability to bounce back from our present state? What should be done in the short and long term to ensure economic growth, political stability and domestic peace?

We pride ourselves, justifiably so, in having made the transition to democracy. But democracy does not mean merely an adoption of the ballot box. Our parliamentarians should take genuine interest in legislation and discuss national issues seriously, so that the government can formulate sound policies.

It was disappointing to learn that during the security briefing, attendance of parliamentarians was poor. It would be appropriate if the parliament also discussed the state of economy and major foreign policy issues, and made recommendations to the cabinet.

There is no doubt that the power in the country today lies in the hands of collective mediocrity. But our institutions were throttled by the military regime and the country has to go through this transitional phase before a new generation of more capable leaders will emerge. The current weakness or inexperience of our leaders could be partially offset if they draw strength from institutions and refrain from ad-hoc decision-making.

There are some obvious shortcomings in our democratic dispensation. First, the political parties, in power or in the opposition, have to be more democratic and less dynastic. It would be electrifying if leaders are chosen on the basis of merit and not on lineage or ‘feudal power’. The rise of Barack Obama to the US Presidency shows how fair play and strong institutions facilitate the emergence of good leaders.

As Pakistan has a parliamentary form of government, the prime minister, and not the president, should be the focal point of executive and political power. The current aberration has to be removed and the president should play the classic role of head of state and be more inclusive. What Pakistan needs is more democracy, not less, to progress.

Development of civil society is also essential for giving vitality to a nation. The lawyers’ movement and several NGOs have helped in this regard. It is unfortunate that the previous regime suppressed such movements instead of embracing them.

The present government too feels uncomfortable with the lawyers’ movement, but it has to realise that the issue of judges will not go away until resolved amicably. No country can claim to be civilised or modern until it has a sound and independent judiciary.

The writer is a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at talat@comsats.net.pk

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Unwarranted despondency

Syed Mansoor Hussain
November 17, 2008

I miss President Musharraf. At least when I got exasperated or just plain depressed about what was happening in Pakistan, I knew who to blame. Most importantly, he was a glorified military dictator and as such could be blamed just for that if nothing else.

Now when I get despondent about Pakistan, I do not know whom I should blame. After all, all those in positions of power have been elected by the people in a free and fair election. The president was elected by an overwhelming majority of members of the four provincial assemblies, the national assembly and the senate.

The prime minister got a unanimous vote of confidence from the parliament, while the provinces are run by parties that won on their merits and are therefore representing the will of the people.

So who should I, and others like me, blame if things are not up to snuff, or at least not what we as the people expect from our elected representatives?

Here I had to remind myself of what representative democracy is all about. People elect representatives and they then govern and legislate in their name. That is how the system works and that is how the cookie crumbles. If we now do not like what we did when we voted in the last election, we should keep our cool and wait for the next elections. That is how democracy works.

I decided to analyse the reasons for my despondency. What, after all, is so bad? Pakistan still exists and, in spite of dire warnings, has not yet defaulted on its foreign loans. Load shedding, at least in Lahore, is over. Prices of essential food items have stabilised and my driver, the benchmark for my assessment of the economic situation, has not recently complained about inflation.

Even the price of petrol is expected to come down some more. As that comes down, it always brings down the prices of almost everything else with it. A couple of decent rains over the next few weeks, a decent IMF loan and a month or two without any suicide bombings and suddenly things might start looking even better.

Most importantly, there are no charges of corruption against the new government even though corruption is still very much with us. Yes, wheeling and dealing is definitely going on but no big names have been implicated. The press is free and quite vociferous in its opposition to this government yet not a word has been said about corruption in high places.

As far as the Punjab is considered, the road that I keep complaining about is still the way it was. But it seems very likely that it will be repaired one of these days.

Concerning my profession, sadly, since this government took over, physicians of little professional competence have been promoted to positions of responsibility and authority, assuring the continued destruction of our great public medical colleges, universities and hospitals.

Young doctors are in the streets demanding help and, most importantly, respect. Yet none is forthcoming. The chief minister of the Punjab is a man who one expects will do the right thing and I sincerely hope that he will, and soon.

Here I must admit that doctors deserve much of the opprobrium heaped upon them, but the young among them with some idealism left, deserve better. They are the future of our profession. If we treat them well, give them the respect they deserve and the professional opportunities they demand, we will have made a great investment in the future of healthcare in our country.

Last week, I drove to Islamabad from Lahore. As I drove through the heart of the Punjab and saw the countryside as it enfolded, I realised why I love this country so much. The landscape made me happy: the rolling fields, the small villages, the orchards, the Salt Range, everything. It is a beautiful country with great people; people who go out every day and work hard.

But then I also remembered how I felt when I was in Islamabad. It almost seems as if Islamabad is not even a part of Pakistan. While in Islamabad, the rest of the country seems so very remote along with all its problems.

It is perhaps difficult to think of unpleasant things in such pleasant surroundings. No slums, no starving poor, no traffic jams, no load shedding, almost nothing to distract the powerful from their unmitigated pursuit of more power.

Power, as Lord Acton said so famously, tends to corrupt. But I have realised that the most detrimental effect of power on most people is that it produces in them an often entirely unwarranted sense of self-importance. With this increased self-important always comes a total loss of objectivity and introspection.

As a Pakistani that exulted at being given a real voice during the elections and a choice about who should govern us, what should I do? Demand that the army take over because I am not happy with how things are going or else hold my peace until the next elections come about? A rhetorical question, of course. All of us who believe in democracy must keep the faith and wait for the next elections.

Upon further introspection, I became less sure that it was despondency that had seized my mind. Perhaps it was just a matter of exalted expectations that I had placed upon the democratic set-up. Since those expectations were not being met, I was feeling down in the dumps.

What I and most other Pakistanis then need more than anything else is something to make us feel good about things. Many, many billions of dollars in our foreign exchange reserves will be good. But more importantly, we the people want to admire and respect those that rule us. And that perhaps is what we need more than anything else right now.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The purpose of power

November 15, 2008
By Irfan Husain

BY now, even his most bitter detractors have come to respect Asif Zardari’s political skills. In the space of less than a year, he has rid us of Musharraf, marginalised the lawyers’ movement, sidelined Nawaz Sharif, and got himself elected to the highest office in the land.

Clearly, this is a street-smart operator who knows how to use events to his advantage.

But politics is not just about rising to the top: ultimately, it is about using this power effectively. Asif Zardari has yet to demonstrate that he is as good at making judicious use of his political capital as he was at acquiring it. True, he has put his weight behind the military operations being conducted against terrorists in Fata and Swat. But beyond this, one cannot discern any clear-cut direction his government is following.

We have heard a number of vague promises, but there is little that is solid by way of specific policy directives. Granted, there is an economic crisis to overcome, and inflation is gnawing at the well-being of millions of Pakistanis. In such a situation, the least our leaders can do is to show a modicum of restraint in public spending on frivolities. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the cabinet expansion we have just witnessed.

For defenders of the government to claim that the present number of ministers is less than those anointed by the Musharraf-Aziz-Chaudhry combine is to say that the previous regime was the gold standard the present government wants to be compared with. Surely we have the right to expect better from an elected government that has come into being after many sacrifices, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination not the least among them.

Quite apart from the resources squandered on this ministerial horde, there is the larger question of image and perceptions. If a country like the United States can be run by a federal cabinet of 16 or so ministers (called ‘secretaries’ in America), we hardly need four times that number here. Granted, ours is a system of political patronage where individuals, parties and groups have to be kept happy through ministerial appointments, together with all the perks that go with them. But it was not seemly to induct a bloated cabinet at a time when the whole world is tightening its belt; when Baloch quake victims are freezing in makeshift shelters; and when emissaries including the president are travelling the world with a begging bowl. By expanding the cabinet to accommodate some decidedly unsavoury characters you would not invite to your home, he has exposed the paucity of talent available to him.

If the cabinet expansion was unseemly, how about the recent junket to Saudi Arabia in which over 200 freeloaders hitched a ride? We are told by official spokespersons that the expenses were personally paid by Asif Zardari. We are aware of his reputation of being a ‘friend’s friend’ (yaron ka yaar), but even Bill Gates might draw the line at being presented such a staggering bill. And of course this kind of personal extravagance raises the question of where this money came from. I’m sure Zardari would be happier to put this line of questioning behind him, rather than have it reopened by splashing out on this scale so publicly.

Another decision to raise eyebrows is the current floor on trading at the stock exchange. This artificial (and utterly futile) device prevents share prices falling below a certain arbitrary level. Most share prices around the world are falling, reflecting the global economic crisis. So why should our bourses be shielded from this storm?

The argument against this kind of boneheaded intervention is that whenever this floor is removed, prices will plummet, instead of going down in a series of trading sessions where traders can bail out if they want to. At present, the impression is that the whole exercise is designed to protect certain big punters and brokers from huge losses. And this in turn reinforces the perception that there is a quid pro quo.

Although Zardari is supporting the ongoing fight against the deadly jihadi threat, his government has not done a very good job explaining what is at stake, and exactly whom the army is fighting. The resulting confusion has caused unnecessary ambiguity that is reflected in the media. For the first time since 1965, I find myself supporting our army as soldiers fight and die to keep the Taliban at bay. At the same time, I am appalled that so many Pakistanis are questioning the whole operation, and criticising the army.

A few days ago, reporters from The New York Times filed a long story about the difficulties our army is encountering in its war. A huge, sophisticated tunnel complex in Bajaur was described to explain why it had been necessary to call in artillery and fighter-bombers. And while the report covered the plight of the civilians displaced by the fighting, readers were able to understand why heavy weapons had been needed. The story had been made possible because the army took a number of foreign reporters into the battle zone. Surely the officers at the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) should be conducting a similar PR exercise for local journalists.

As we find ourselves in the embarrassing (but familiar) situation of begging for a bailout, it would help if potential donors knew that their assistance would be a one-off injection, rather than a permanent life-support drip infusion. They can best be convinced of this if they are presented with a road map of where we are headed, and how we intend to cut unproductive expenditure. What they are seeing instead is an economy in free fall; a civil war being fought with lukewarm support; an unwieldy government that lurches from crisis to crisis; and a bloated, inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy.

If this image of a banana republic is to change, an example must be set at the top. Asif Zardari has, against expectations, emerged as a credible, shrewd politician. In some ways, he has had power, if not greatness, thrust upon him. But he needs to divest himself of some of the freeloaders who have homed in on Islamabad after his elevation. Above all, he needs to get serious about governance.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Analysis: Crisis of governance

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
November 23, 2008

The federal government must be pleased with the availability of an IMF loan facility worth $7.6 billion to salvage Pakistan’s faltering economy. This also facilitates Pakistan’s efforts to obtain loans and investment from other countries. External economic support does not by itself solve an economic crisis; it merely provides an opportunity as well as fiscal space to address pressing economic problems. They key issue is whether or not the Pakistani government is willing and able to take the tough decisions needed to pull the country out of its current economic predicament.

Pakistan has been the recipient of liberal economic assistance from abroad at several points in its history. In the mid and late 1950s, the US provided economic and military assistance to Pakistan after the latter joined US-sponsored regional alliances. The US and some other western countries again provided large loans and grants to Pakistan in the 1980s to aid the resistance to Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. The third phase of western, especially American, economic favours began after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Pakistan’s civilian and military rulers developed the habit of living beyond their domestic means by using a part of foreign economic assistance to cover their enhanced perks and administrative expenditure. Some economic aid was used to provide limited relief through subsidies in order to obtain the people’s support for the government, but personal and partisan considerations usually influenced the disbursement of economic assistance. Spending on defence also remained very high.

Less attention was paid to putting the economy on a sound footing by pursuing projects that strengthened the industrial base and expanded opportunities for education and technical training. Such projects would have made the economy viable for periods when external support would not be easily available.

Liberal economic assistance during military rule under Zia-ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf created temporary prosperity by expanding opportunities for some professions and businesses, showered favours on a selected few and encouraged consumerism. Zia and Musharraf also used foreign economic assistance to build support for their regimes rather than spending it on long-term economic and social development projects.

The boom of the Zia period was exposed after his death. In Musharraf’s case, the signs of economic trouble were visible in the last year of his rule, although his economic advisors refused to acknowledge them. Even today, they blame the current civilian government for the economic crisis instead of accepting the flaws in their economic priorities and management.

Now, the PPP-led civilian government faces the challenge of properly availing of the new external economic commitment to put its economic house in order. The government has adopted some measures to provide relief to the common people, through reduction in oil prices, readjustment of electricity bills after the initial hike, and schemes like the Benazir Income Support Programme.

Pakistan’s economic crisis cannot be resolved by giving some financial support to the people and reduction of price of some goods. It calls for the restoration of the confidence of domestic and external investors, tightening of fiscal and monetary policies, improvement of governance and political management, and preservation of social stability by ensuring socio-economic security for ordinary people.

How can the government ensure increased exports and decrease imports? What are the new Pakistani goods and products available for export to other countries?

There is a lot of discrepancy between rhetoric and reality in the government’s efforts to implement its economic and political agendas. The current economic predicament requires an immediate downward review of administrative and related expenditures.

However, there is no indication that the government has evolved any plan to make administrative expenditure cost-effective. Perks and privileges of those in power remain untouched. Add to this the expenditure on stepped-up security arrangements. It is difficult to judge from the disposition and lifestyle of top government officials that Pakistan is facing a serious economic crisis. If the rulers are unable or unwilling to check their excessive expenditure, will there be cutbacks in development and welfare projects?

Governance and political management issues are quite serious. The PPP leadership talked of extending provincial autonomy; a review of the National Finance Commission Award in consultation with the provinces; dialogue with dissidents in Balochistan; and constitutional changes to restrict the discretionary powers of the president and enhance the role of the prime minister and parliament.

However, no meaningful move has been made on these issues. The general impression is that the PPP is no longer in a hurry to amend the constitution to reduce the powers of the president after getting its co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari elected as the president. Political circles in Pakistan are divided on Zardari’s assumption of the presidency, especially with his continuation as the operational head of the PPP.

One may explain the large size of the federal cabinet with reference to the coalition nature of the government and the use of patronage to satisfy various partners. Further, it seems that it has become tradition in Pakistan to install large cabinets. However, this practice does not create a good impression at a time when the country is facing a difficult economic situation.

Similarly, the frequent official and non-official foreign visits of President Zardari have raised eyebrows in Pakistan. It does not help the government’s image when a large entourage accompanies the president and the prime minister on such trips. This type of distribution of patronage should be discouraged. Even if the visit is non-official or the president pays for the expenses of some members of the entourage, such visits are still a significant burden on the treasury. Large entourages create a bad impression in the host country and make it difficult for the concerned Pakistan embassy to manage such a large number of people, most of whom are irrelevant to the bilateral visit.

The PPP is a nationwide party and it enjoys support in all the four provinces. Its coalition government has the backing of the ANP and the JUIF. It also maintains a working relationship with the MQM and PMLN. It is secure in power, and although the PMLN builds pressure from time to time, its power interests in the Punjab restrain it from open and sustained confrontation with the PPP.

The PPP’s main problem is image and weak governance. The expansion of the cabinet has not helped in this regard. The government’s image as a centralised entity dominated by the president and heavily reliant on distribution of state patronage does not convince politically active circles and others that it can cope with the current economic crisis.

The PPP leadership must be seen as taking concrete steps to improve governance and adopting effective measures to efficiently utilise international support to overcome the economic crisis. The PPP has not so far been able to win the confidence of the people in its capacity to overcome the crisis and save Pakistan’s political, economic and social future.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and
defence analyst

 

[RabzonKhan]

Analysis: Nurturing our fragile democracy

Rasul Bakhsh Rais
December 23, 2008

It is not without reason that most critics of elected governments and democratic institutions in Pakistan have overtly and covertly worked with dictators in the past. Most of these critics are uncomfortable with the though and sight of those that have acquired positions of power and high public office through the ballot box.

There are several reasons why these elements reject and loathe public representatives. In Pakistan’s case, personality clashes and clan rivalries aside, most critics have an ideological problem with the way the common man confers legitimacy on his representatives. These critics doubt the ability of the common man to participate in the process of determining the rulers of the country and shaping the direction of state and society.

The viewpoint of these critics is what is called an elitist view of politics and society, one that is above the common man. Ideas of democracy and popular sovereignty are truly revolutionary because they help transform the structure of governance in a society from oligarchic and military rule to a democratic one. However, these oligarchies never really disappear, nor do related structures of power. They simply start to fade away when a society opts for democracy. Democracy in traditional elite-dominated societies is like any other evolutionary process: as those that believe in the system gain strength, faith in the system to help society is also strengthened.

Also, like any other evolutionary process, building democracy is complex and difficult, and it gains followers and strength over a long period of time. It is wrong to think of democracy as an event or as something that comes about in a couple of election cycles.

What is intriguing in Pakistan’s case is how quickly, after each election when the new government is trying to find its feet and deal with the troubled legacy of the previous dictatorship, their detractors start making predictions of their failure. Why so soon, and why not allow these elected governments the chance to complete their tenure before judging them?

Contrary to these critics’ claims, it is not their ‘love for true democracy’ or the ‘national interest’ that prompts such attacks, but a hidden agenda of settling old scores, toppling the new government through intrigue and alignment with the military, and bringing back elitist politics.

This, at least, has been the pattern in the past. Hopefully, there will not be a painful repetition of the past with the departure of Pervez Musharraf and his political leftovers, the PMLQ.

An old line in the Pakistani political discourse is that democracy does not work for us; and that politicians are corrupt, inefficient, insincere and even unpatriotic. Nothing is more damaging for democracy than the propagation of this view, which casts doubts about the system in the minds of the people. And let us not forget that this view is very deliberately cultivated by vested interests, particularly the old guard and reactionary elements.

While we do need to be critical of the policies and actions of elected governments, and keep watch over elected officials, to keep the government responsive and accountable to the people, this task can be effectively accomplished by public intellectuals, the media and civil society without criticism meant to destabilise and discredit democracy.

While monitoring the performance of a new democratic government, which we must do without fear or favour, we need to be mindful of the fact that a lot of path-clearing needs to be done for the smooth functioning of democracy. This involves working in the true parliamentary spirit of the constitution, restoring balance among institutions and ensuring their functioning within their constitutional spheres, and settling the issue of provincial autonomy.

No single party or person can settle all these issues. Those familiar with issues of democratic transition realise that democracy needs to grow, and what really helps it grow is consensus among the elite on a legislative-normative framework — essentially, rules of the political game. Anything can be said and done within that framework, and doing so will not hurt the growth of democracy in Pakistan.

What hurts those who have struggled and sacrificed for democracy and have suffered pain and humiliation at the hands of dictators is terming democracy ‘punishment’. Mr Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, in a recent op-ed in The News (“Is democracy a punishment?” Dec 16), has not been kind to our democratic ideals and the struggle for them.

If one general election could lead to a democratic heaven, then we would have been there many years ago. As a veteran politician and a man with a sense of regional history, Mr Bhutto must know that democracy is also the function of elite bargain, protection of interests, and the acquisition and maintenance of power when one can within the constitutional framework.

Outsmarting political opponents is part of the political game as long as it remains within limits of law. This is exactly what President Asif Ali Zardari has done, perhaps more shrewdly than anyone had expected. Fortunately, a national consensus has emerged, that whatever the failures of an elected government, they will not be turned into excuses to destabilise it. Public critique of the government through the media and civil society, and even non-violent protests are accepted norms of engaging with an elected government to make it do what it otherwise is reluctant to. Further, path-correction is not a political defeat for any democratic government, and they often make these corrections.

Our fragile democracy needs to be nurtured and nourished. No democracy in the world is perfect; all are in a process of change, self-correction and redefinition. Our democratic journey must begin with accepting the legitimacy of an elected government, its right to govern and our right to raise voices. This is the social compact, and we can never build true democracy by violating it.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistan's regression into dictatorship

By DR S.M. RAHMAN submitted 17 hours 48 minutes ago

President Musharraf doffed his uniform reluctantly and 'democracy', though battered, demoralised and rendered fragile under recurrent martial laws did make its appearance on the political horizon only to give a false hope of Pakistan's transformation into a stable political order after February 18, 2008, deviating from the chronic dictatorial mind-set of our polity.

It was expected that the chronic legacies of the Musharraf era would soon end and the 'pillars' that sustain a country's viability would be strengthened through political consensus.

A very sound step was taken by General Kayani to withdraw the army from the civilian set-ups and Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) was exclusively tasked to concentrate on combat intelligence relevant to professional requirements, renunciating its political role which was assigned to it by the civilian government of Bhutto.

These were very laudable steps and indeed quite necessary to put life-blood into the civilian institutions, which were rendered subservient to an 'individual' - the military dictator - a paradigm which is 'anachronistic' and the Napoleonic Era is a "primitive" stage in the evolution of participatory political culture.

The post-February 18 era did galvanise the nation towards establishing 'democracy', adhering to the sacrosanct norms of democratic governance. The elections were, by and large, fair and transparent and no party got absolute majority.

The Peoples' verdict was to steer the system through coalition and sense of 'togetherness'. People were indeed wise to give a divided verdict so that the political parties learn to operate through 'give and take' approach.

Musharraf's worst onslaught was on the judiciary, which tried to be relatively more independent than what the dictator could tolerate. He summarily dismissed sixty judges of the Supreme Court by imposing the so-called 'emergency' as a COAS and through high-handed manipulations managed to contain his hold over the reins of power.

The judges who took oath under PCO, irrespective of the image and respect of the judiciary in the country and beyond just acted on the dotted lines provided by the military ruler.


This, the national sensibility could not endure and Lawyers' Movement was a true reflection of the peoples' faith and commitment to the rule of law and the judiciary to be respectable as totally independent institution to serve as a vital pillar which could provide 'justice' as justice should appear to be.

The Lawyers' Movement may be characterised as a 'shinning' example of expression of public opinion to be accepted and endorsed by the government. Over five lakh people demonstrated in favour of restoring the deposed judges and in a respectable society, particularly democratic in character, the "Will" of the people would have been implemented. Promises were made, oral as well as written and the president even signed the commitments made to PML-N, but reneged on his words. The CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry is still not reinstated besides solemn promises. This was the first blow to the nascent democracy.

Zardari not only became a king-maker, he catapulted himself to be the elected President of Pakistan. Contrary to the norms of 'parliamentary democracy', the president is functioning as the 'chief executive' and not a representative of the federation, which in all fairness, the president should be.

A party chief, if he is elected president, must relinquish his earlier position. Having both would tantamount to wielding absolute power, no less than that of a military dictator. Therefore it should be remembered that the prime minister was elected through Parliament as per norms of the system.

The Parliament which is supposed to be supreme body has been rendered to be a show-piece. This is another great blow to the emerging democracy. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of PML-N, has been totally hoodwinked by the manipulations and political chicanery of the federal government that promised to do away with the controversial 58-2(b) and the notorious 17 amendment, of the Musharraf regime ala courtesy Fazalur Rahman. The promises have not been honoured.

So what has changed? Do people perceive the present dispensation a really democratic one? There is total crisis of credibility. The system is essentially a civilian dictatorship camouflaged with structural paraphernalia like the National Assembly, a whole lot of ministers, ministers of state and advisors with great drainage on national exchanger.

The favourites are being accommodated in all positions of power and privileges. The most important ministers like the Ministry of Interior and Law have been given to those who were not 'elected' by the people.

The only redeeming feature is that the government of Punjab is functioning in the supreme interest of the province. It is the height of sycophancy that the governor wants to convert Punjab into Larkana - a PPP stronghold.

Even military dictators would not have relished such 'crude' expressions of flattery. The PPP workers are as disillusioned as the opposition parties, who had pledged to support the government and allow it to complete its tenure, but the indications are rather ominous.

The prime minister should be respected and consulted on all national and international issues. Undoubtedly it was the PM's prerogative to decide who will break the news with respect to Kasab's nationality.

Durrani professed that he obeyed to the "boss" in making the announcement. If the national security advisor does not 'know' who the real "boss" is in 'parliamentary democracy', it is indeed very unfortunate, and yet the US administration is pleading for his restoration on the job. Even this much latitude they are not prepared to grant to Pakistan to select its own security advisor. What kind of democracy do we have? It is all farcical devoid of all norms of propriety and good governance.

Why is that, the country when run by the army chief, tries to function like a "democratic dictatorship," while the civilian government operates like a "dictatorial democracy?" That is the fine distinguishing feature of the two.

The question is why are we so authoritarian and control-oriented nation? More than feudalism, the curse is the feudalistic mindset, which is operating at every level of governance. There is chronic indecision to do away with the vestiges of authoritarian - 17 amendment and 58-2(b). Democracy is 'puerile' with such aberration.

Russell rightly commented: "Nothing is so exhausting as indecision, and nothing is so futile."

The writer is a political analyst

 

[RabzonKhan]

The rhythm of democracy

By Shandana Khan Mohmand
January 28, 2009

ONE can only imagine how proud America must have felt as a nation on Jan 20 when its “vote for change” resulted in Obama taking office.

The moment was historic for many reasons, but perhaps most so because it was a manifestation of the fact that nations can change their entire destiny, without violence and with the greatest dignity, simply by casting their vote. That, in essence, is the beauty of an election.

I admire Americans for what they did on Nov 4, 2008, just as I admired Indians in May 2004 when election results in India swept the Congress back into power by condemning the BJP and its policies. One was overawed and impressed by the Indian nation and its voters. Living under military rule then, I wondered how it would feel to be a citizen of a country that had the ability to express itself so eloquently and forcefully in such a peaceful and effective manner through the ballot box.

I was jealous of the Indian nation then, as I would have been of the American nation today had I not witnessed the elections of Feb 18, 2008 in Pakistan. The current government may find itself mired in inadequacy and defeated by the magnitude of the mess left behind by an eight-year military dictatorship and the euphoria of the Feb 18 election might be vanishing fast. But there are important lessons that came out of that election and that need to be remembered.

First, like the Indian voters of 2004 and the American voters of 2008, the Pakistani voters too voted for change, though in a much more dramatic fashion as they were choosing not between two political parties but two systems of governance. It was also dramatic because the military ruler against whose system they were voting was still in power, and because the air was thick with the threat of violence. Yet the voters came out in greater numbers than in the last few elections, and spoke for change, an act of bravery that the failure of the subsequent government should not erase from our memory.

On that day, the voters showed their appreciation for the power of politics in general, and the power it gives to them individually — in particular to determine who will rule. Those that chose to set aside both apathy and cynicism to engage in the politics of their country and braved the insecurity of the Pakistani streets, proved that they were thinking voters with expectations, who knew it was payback time through the ballot box in the case of broken dreams.

The next time someone tells us that we need military rulers because we as a nation have no idea of how to handle or respect any other type of rule, we can remind them of Feb 18 when voters made it clear to the likes of Generals Ayub, Zia and Musharraf that they possessed minds that understood and appreciated politics, and that despite what the generals and those that condoned their rule might have thought, electoral politics was certainly suited to the genius of the Pakistani people.

Second, through the polls the Pakistani voter asked what the point of the last eight years had been. The parties that fought one another through the elections of the 1990s emerged dominant on Feb 18 — eight years, two coups, two PCOs, one LFO, one Pemra ordinance and many constitutional amendments, witch hunts, manipulations, dismissals, exiles and arrests later. Rather than putting the house in order, the rulers of those eight years left us to contend with terrorism, insecurity, bankruptcy and a shortage of almost everything.

Is there a lesson? Yes, a resounding one: that there is no point in interrupting the natural political process, at least not if helping the country is the aim. There is an organic rhythm and logic to politics that will continue to play itself out through the most inorganic, imposed attempts to change its course. There is a natural force to politics that appears to tend towards processes based on the will of the people. As soon as this will is allowed free expression, it speaks up against imposition. It happened in 1970 after the resignation of a dictator, it happened again in 1988 after the death of a dictator, and it happened yet again on Feb 18, 2008, this time most gloriously because the dictator was still alive, in power and watching.

So if future, self-proclaimed ‘saviours’ are reading this, they should remember that there is only one option in terms of fixing the system of governance in this country — let politics roll and let successive elections and peaceful, dignified transitions purge unpopular, unwanted politicians.

And finally, the Pakistani voter made a clear statement in favour of process and parties instead of personalities as one political bigwig after another came tumbling down that election day. This was especially visible in PML-N’s surprising victory in Punjab. The party had lost many of its bigwigs to the PML-Q in the last eight years, and until a few days before the elections analysts predicted that the road was going to be particularly rocky for the politically inexperienced candidates that the PML-N was fielding.The victory of this party against the PML-Q, along with the victory of many other political underdogs, made it clear that the Pakistani voter was thinking of issues and manifestos, not personalities and power. This is politics in its most perfect manifestation, and we in Pakistan experienced it, even if for a brief moment.

President Obama assured his nation in his inaugural speech that though their challenges were daunting, they would be met. The challenges Pakistan faces are much larger than those faced by America, and the leadership far less inspiring and able, but we can rest assured that the coming of a democratically elected government is the first step in the direction of meeting these challenges.

The writer is a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex

 

[RabzonKhan]

Sad days for the country

Reality check

Friday, February 27, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood

It is unfolding like the chronicle of a death foretold. The decision to disqualify the Sharif brothers is the beginning of the end of another sad episode of Pakistan’s democracy.

It is not as if the army is dying to take over. It has its hands full dousing fires within and maintaining the sanctity of the borders. Nine years of Musharraf have also cooled much of its ardour for civilian rule. But the legendary ability of the political class to self-destruct has begun to create conditions that will pull it in.

This is not a rush to judgement. Even a brief look at history bears this out. Bickering in the fifties brought in Ayub. Street warfare in the late seventies gave the nation the delightful Zia-ul-Haq. Political vendetta and institutional clashes brought in Musharraf. Why would it be any different this time?

It is not that the political class has not been warned. It is a constant refrain in write-ups and talk shows and interactions large and small. Yet no one cares. It is as if the pleasure of a fight cannot be deferred. The desire for total power cannot be pended. It is the ultimate surge; putting down an adversary, the rush of a kill, the taste of victory.

But as Dryden said, victors are by their victories undone. They create a false sense of omnipotence, a kind of overconfidence that screens all dangers.

Listening to some of the “victors” since the court verdict is an education. They dismiss offhand the threat of popular reaction. This is strange, because those who come through the political process should fundamentally understand it. Yet, they have developed a huge confidence in instruments of the state.

They had fought the same police to a standstill in their street-fighting years. The same state structure had been unable to lure them when they were down. Now they think some strategic arrests and a few banging of heads will stop their adversaries. Also, that the numbers in the Assembly will be made up with the district administration leaning on members. How perceptions change!

They don’t realise that this administration is not what it used to be. Years of misuse and tinkering with the structure has reduced its clout. Also, frequent bouts of retribution after regime changes have made it risk-averse. Those who have now been put in the front line are reluctant warriors. They know that times change. They will only go so far.

Another change is the power of the electronic media. It is everywhere and, just by picking up visuals, has the ability to fuel the anger already present. It also subliminally exhorts everyone to be a participant rather than stand idly by. This is not deliberate. It is inherent in the situation. And constant coverage creates a profound perception of unrest. This makes the task of creating order harder.

Even if the storm currently raging in the streets of Punjab is put down, it will be a brief hiatus. Removing leaders of a major party from the political process is not an ordinary event. It will continue to have consequences. The door has effectively been closed on reconciliation. It is now war, in which some battles will be short, but the conflict will be ongoing.

The court verdict on Wednesday is also a sad reflection on the institutions of the state. No one, absolutely no one, believes that the judges acted independently. The Sharifs have openly said that this decision was given on the behest of President Zardari, but they are not alone. Even those who do not have any love for them believe this. What a low point for our judicial system!

A few days before the verdict was delivered, I was told on good authority that the Sharifs are going to be disqualified. A statement by the governor, that PPP will soon have its chief minister in Punjab, was also indicative. But I continued to have faith in the higher institutions of the state to behave responsibly.

Why, because it was obvious even to the blind that the last thing Pakistan needs at the moment is conflict and unrest. We are going through perhaps the most difficult period of history since 1971. Not only are fires raging all over the NWFP and repercussions of the Mumbai tragedy continue, but also the economy is in severe recession. Industry is in deep trouble, businesses everywhere are hurting and people are losing jobs. Lack of bread and butter is not just a metaphor.

At this stage for the court to be so heedless of consequences was beyond me. I therefore downplayed the possibility. This was despite the fact that I knew preparations were afoot in the Governor’s House to take over the administration after the disqualification of the chief minister. Even the names of the people likely to replace senior bureaucrats in Punjab were becoming known. Yet I believed that the court would exercise better judgement.

Then some moves made by the prime minister gave hope. He said all the right things and met Shahbaz Sharif to defuse tension. Now it seems like an elaborate ruse. It is as if he knew what was going to happen and just wanted to look good. If he had serious reservations, as he indicated in a phone call to Shahbaz, he should have stood his ground.

Because, governor’s rule could not be imposed without his consent. Top administrative changes in the Punjab also required his approval. He seems to have gone along willingly. The only change he made was to get his nominee appointed chief secretary. This was a small price to pay for Zardari. Now all this talk of Gilani coming of age and asserting himself should come to an end.

There are going to be tough times ahead. Public order has already been disturbed, and in March the lawyers’ movement gets going. The likelihood is that there will be much greater participation in their march to Islamabad. They will be joined by major and minor political forces and civil society activists. It portends to have much greater substance than before.

The administrative strategy will be to stop them wherever they are and not let them come to Islamabad. This will involve arrests and skirmishes all over the province. Normal business will be badly disturbed, if not come to a standstill. A suffering economy will be further affected. Is there anything that can be done?

Very little. Some methodology can be found to reverse the court decision but the bad blood created is difficult to defuse. In any case, the lawyers are not going to stop. They want restoration of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary and will not settle for anything less.

President Zardari may consider sacrificing Salmaan Taseer to relieve some tension, but it will now be too little too late. The more likely scenario is that he will use the police to create surface order and declare victory. If he is unable to, the entire structure has the potential to crash.

This will not just be bad for the PPP or democracy. The country will go down further. Once again, the apex court will have inflicted unacceptable damage on the country.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Democracy derailed

By Dr Tariq Rahman
28 Feb, 2009

PUNJAB is up in flames in the wake of the court decision that the Sharif brothers were not eligible to contest elections or hold public office. This is not surprising.

The PML-N had won a popular mandate in the province and there was a general view that Shahbaz Sharif had provided good governance in his year-long rule. What is incomprehensible is why the PPP decision-makers failed to realise that a strong public reaction is to be expected if an elected, popular government is removed and governor’s rule is imposed in its place. This is a major development that threatens to derail democracy in this country.

The other decision which threatens democracy is the peace the ANP has made with Sufi Mohammad in Swat. In principle, of course, negotiation and peace are always better than the use of military force. Unfortunately, whenever attempts at making peace were initiated earlier, they made the Taliban stronger and the common people suffered from their domination and barbaric practices. Even this time, according to newspaper reports, military vehicles will move in Swat with the prior permission of the Taliban.

If this is true – and I hope it is not – the common people would be left to the mercy of the Taliban. This is not peace; it is the death of democracy in Swat. It is, indeed, the extinction of the hope of democracy and human rights in that unfortunate piece of land. But going back to the derailment of democracy in the whole country, let us consider the fallout of the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab and the ouster of the Sharif brothers.

Three scenarios come to the mind. First, the people will be cowed after a few days of anger and an uneasy peace will prevail. The PML-Q and the PPP will form a government in Punjab and the PPP will complete its tenure. However, when elections are held and these are fair it will be voted out and will no longer remain a strong national party.

This will be very unfortunate since the PPP is still seen as the best choice for liberals and religious minorities in this country. Other parties, including the PML-N, tend to encourage jingoistic nationalism and also pander to religious prejudices. Both attitudes, if taken to extremes, are inimical to peace, human rights and the spirit of democracy.

The second scenario is that the agitation will continue. The lawyers’ movement will also strengthen it and, after much police brutality and bloodshed, the PPP government will have to agree to hold mid-term elections. In this case even if the PPP loses votes the process of democracy will be strengthened and the PPP will gain some credit for having allowed elections.

However, the longer the period of agitation the fewer the PPP’s chances of winning elections in Punjab. Moreover, the economy will suffer and the enemies of democracy will get a chance to point out that democracy does not work in the country.

The third scenario is that the agitation will be so strong or so lengthy that the army will step in. If this happens the process of democracy will be disrupted once again. That would be the worst possible thing to happen and will weaken liberal and democratic forces in the country more than anything else. In short, we will be back to square one as we have been several times in the past.

Besides, there are other possibilities also. For instance, there may be a revolt within the PPP resulting in pro- and anti-Zardari factions, new combinations of political actors may emerge, and so on.

However, the chances of all this happening are few, But they could also lead to the weakening of the PPP, mid-term elections or even a new dictatorship.

In short, what we are witnessing is a shattering of our dreams of only one year ago. What we had expected was that the judges would be restored with Iftikhar Chaudhry as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the PML-N and PPP would rule the country jointly for five years and people would truly start believing that democracy can function in the country.

The sceptics assure us that if Iftikhar Chaudhry had been restored he would have abolished the NRO and that would have meant the end of Zardari’s career. First, this is by no means certain. It is possible that he would not have touched Zardari in any way. Secondly, if he had been restored after Zardari became the president there would be no problem as Zardari would have enjoyed presidential immunity. And, above all, if Zardari had done all the right things he would have been so popular that he would have had an assured future in any future political set-up even if he had to leave this one.

As it is, Zardari seems to have taken steps which will probably harm him in the long run. Moreover, he is seen as the architect of a script which has caused widespread disappointment in the new dispensation. The judges illegally removed by Musharraf still remain where they have been for so many months. The functionaries appointed by Musharraf are still functioning. The off-and-on relationship with the Taliban still remains. People still tell us that the armed forces either cannot or will not destroy the Taliban. Investment is still down and young people have little hope of finding good jobs. Bombs still explode in our midst. The system remains the same; only the faces have changed. Democracy has been derailed – but was it even on the rails?

 

[RabzonKhan]

A virtual martial law

Saturday, February 28, 2009
Mir Jamilur Rahman

During the military dictatorship of Gen Musharraf, some public leaders and intellectuals had formed the opinion that it will take Pakistan 300 more years to become a democratic country. They had reached this disappointing conclusion in view of Pakistan's history. As soon as Pakistan was put on a democratic journey, a military or civilian dictator would jump in and undo and reverse the little bit of democratic progress Pakistan had made. It is the result of frequent interventions by the anti-democratic forces that Pakistan has less democracy now than it had at independence.

The disqualification of the Sharif brothers has put back the democratic clock by another 100 years. No doubt, our Constitution has been badly mauled by military dictators Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Musharraf, who--with the military force behind them-- arbitrarily amended the Constitution to fortify their rules and indemnify their illegal positions. In the process they dealt a near-death blow to the judiciary. However, their civilian successors have seldom tried to undo the mischief that had been played by these two military dictators. Only once was the notorious amendment 58 (2) (b), which empowered the president to dismiss an elected government, repealed. This was done by heavy-mandated Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and fully supported by Benazir Bhutto. Before being kicked out President Musharraf had restored the infamous amendment. It now hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of Prime Minister Gilani.

The military dictators had transferred all the important state powers from the prime minister to the president. This action has relegated the prime minister to a high-grade official of the Republic, always subservient to the president. There have been numerous news reports that all is not well between the president and the prime minister. That Prime Minister Gilani is not his own man, because the powers of chief executive are denied to him. Some reports suggest that on a few occasions the prime minister has defied the president in the matter of postings and transfers. However, there is hardly any evidence that the holders of these two important offices do not see eye to eye with each other. Prime Minister Gilani is cognisant of the factors which have put limits on his authority. Therefore, the question of his showing defiance does not arise at all. In fact, both are on good terms and working as a coordinated team. One wields the stick, and the other offers carrot, and thus the victim hardly feels any pain. Moreover, defiance to the president would be a folly. If Prime Minister Gilani were to show any sign of defiance, he would be sent home cruelly by through the application of 58 (2) (b). It has been done before and, if need be, could be done again. Prime Minister Junejo was sent home by Gen Zia although he himself had nominated him as prime minister. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had elevated Leghari, secretary-general of the PPP, to President of Pakistan. President Leghari paid her back by dismissing her.

Nawaz Sharif laments that he was made a fool by President Zardari. Mr Zardari, of course, is a very smooth political operator. He wins over his political opponents by raising the slogan of national reconciliation and government by consensus. In practice there is neither reconciliation nor consensus. He assures that he would take everyone on board. He is not a prisoner of any ideology. Absence of ideology gives him freedom to move freely from one stance to another. He would sign political agreements and forget about them or interpret them differently without feeling embarrassed. He considers politics a business and has over the years become a sharp politician.

Punjab is now under virtual martial law with Governor Taseer as its administrator. Punjab, which is bigger in area and population than England, has been deprived of representative government. Now an unelected servant of the state will decide the fate of Punjab. He is contemplating turning the province over to the PPP, a minority party in Punjab, and thus sow the seeds of discontent and disappointment for the people of Punjab.

It does not appear that the agitation will subside. Eventually the Taseer government will have to start arresting political leaders. The lawyers' long march is also getting nearer. Their leaders might also be arrested. People can say goodbye to media freedom. As a first step the government could follow the precedent set by Gen Musharraf: There could be a complete ban on TV coverage of the current agitation and the impending long march.

The writer is a freelance columnist

 

[RabzonKhan]

Democracy can work

Thursday, 05 Mar, 2009

WITH the country in the throes of a political crisis yet again, it may appear that we really don’t have a solution to our problems. Give the politicians a situation, any situation, and it seems they will invariably find a way to make a hash of it. Yet, in the past year there have been at least three instances when the politicians have demonstrated what a rules-based democracy could look like, were it ever given a chance to take root. First and most recently is the demonstration by the PML-N that it still has the numbers to form a government in Punjab. More than 200 MPAs responded to the PML-N’s call and have publicly thrown their weight behind the party, an unambiguous informal vote of confidence that should be heeded by Governor Taseer. From the point of view of democracy, the battle for Punjab could have been less damaging if the protagonists had remained within the confines of the assembly. The PPP erred by imposing governor’s rule and scuppering the Punjab Assembly’s will. The PML-N erred by resorting to street protests in which public and private property has been damaged. Governments rising and falling is always destablising, but worse is the outcome where both sides take the battle outside the confines of the assemblies.

The second positive example is the unopposed election of 31 senators from Sindh, Punjab, the NWFP and Islamabad after rival parties accepted their relative strengths in the assemblies and worked out a compromise. The alternative, an ugly free-for-all in which money plays a dominant role, occurred yesterday with the contested elections of the remaining 19 Senate slots from Balochistan, NWFP and Fata. A report in this paper last week suggested that a Fata Senate seat, elected by the 11 Fata MNAs, could cost as much as Rs300m. The contrast between the two processes could not be starker: greed and defiance engendered uncertainty; cooperation and an acceptance of how the electorate voted produced stability.

The third example is the impeachment process of President Musharraf. The president was expertly isolated by having the provincial assemblies pass resolutions against him and was then left to decide if he wanted to face the humiliation of being ousted by parliament. He chose to resign, and democracy benefited because the battle had been fought inside the assemblies. Apparently then, the democratic method is alive and can and has been used to good effect. The problem of course is that it has been used too infrequently. Yet, while the transition to democracy was never expected to be smooth, it remains the only option for a better future. It is still not too late to put the transition back on track but for that the politicians must remember that rules-based ooperation is always better than no-rules opposition.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Democracy and its enemies

Thursday, March 19, 2009
Ameer Bhutto

The ides of March have dealt the Zardari administration a crippling blow, not just on the judges' issue but also on the fiasco in Punjab. The fact that nothing can stand in the way of the people once again stands emphatically proven. The People's Party is now tripping over itself to claim credit for the restoration of the judges, saying that its government was fulfilling its promise to the nation, but it is too late for such claims. The judges were restored as a direct result of the irresistible display of public strength, not by the largesse of the People's Party.Zardari had already declared on television that he had no mandate from the people to restore the judges, and resisted doing so for almost a year. Also, many People's Party leaders were recklessly predicting that the long march would fail and were ruthless in their attacks on the deposed chief justice and his supporters. For how long did they insist that the judges cannot be restored by executive order? After ordering a crackdown on the long-marchers, leading to thousands of arrests, baton charges and use of tear gas, how can they now claim credit for the restoration of the judiciary, as if this was done under their own initiative?

Democratic systems are sometimes identified by the noise and chaos that usually characterises the expression of this will, but there is method in this madness and only it can dispense political legitimacy. It unleashes creative forces that are vital for the linear development of legal, political and social systems and institutions. Anti-democratic forces too have a spirit that is recognisable by its propensity to stifle and smother the public will. It encourages the misuse of laws, like Section 144, and it drives regimes to restrict the media to conceal ugly realities from the people. Such measures reek of fear and desperation and are the last refuge of dictators.

This government has amply illustrated which side of the divide it stands on. The crackdown it ordered on the long march was reminiscent of the darkest days of martial law. How can a nation be stopped when it is mobilised? To give the masses cause for protest by continuing Musharraf's laws and policies is bad enough, but to try to stop them from expressing their will by use of force only compounds the error, and borders on insanity. Even Musharraf had the elementary common sense to allow the long march to proceed. Though a head-on collision with the masses was avoided in the nick of time, how can this government still claim to be an awami government when it follows a path that conflicts with the aspirations of the people? People are the real masters in democracy, not politicians, and the role of the people is not limited to casting votes. The continued sanction of public will is a sine qua non for political legitimacy which this government has clearly lost. Taking on the people in defiance of this fundamental principle is to declare yourself free from and above all accepted norms and constraints of democratic conduct.

The People's Party once produced statesmen. The new party leadership has dragged the calibre down to such a level that it is now synonymous with deceit and a total abandonment of principles. They are well on their way to achieving something that even Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf failed to achieve--i.e., tarnish the political ascendancy of the party that the blood of the Shaheeds gave it. This new People's Party is not the party of Shaheeds but the party of oppression, political arrests, baton charges, tear gas and governor's rule. It suffers from a massive credibility crisis as no one is prepared to believe the party leader after he himself announced that his oaths and commitments should not be taken seriously. The ban on Geo Television has placed this government in closer ideological proximity to the Zia and Musharraf juntas than a representative democratic government. Has President Barak Obama banned Fox News for being a thorn in his side? Despite being the most powerful man on earth, he dare not trifle with the freedom of the press and media. The same goes for Tony Blaire, who had to tolerate jibes by the media that were often highly personal in nature. But the Zardari administration could not put up with Geo's airing of Benazir Bhutto's speeches that showed the world how far this government, which came into being in her name, has strayed from her mission.

Benazir had invited the International Republican Institute to come to Pakistan to expose Musharraf's unpopularity by means of public surveys and opinion polls. But now, since Zardari has donned Musharraf's mantle, the IRI's surveys are no longer tolerable and it has been asked to pack up and get out of Pakistan. What remains in this new People's Party that might justify its claim to be running a democratic government? Indeed, what remains in it that makes it recognisable as the party created by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and inherited by Benazir Bhutto? Even the man on whose complaint Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged reportedly warrants a phone call of thanks from the party leader for his part in the Sharifs' disqualification case. The timid silence of other People's Party leaders, some of whom are men of political and social standing, is very sad. Hats off to Sherry Rehman for doing the right thing. But the others continue to stomach the stench just to keep their cushy jobs. What happened to all that grief-stricken chest beating of a year ago and their professed loyalty to Benazir Bhutto, in whose name they are enjoying the perks of power, but whose murder seems to have been forgiven and forgotten for the sake of power?

The question arises that with the nation aligned against it, on whose strength did the government hold out for so long before restoring the judges? The frantic diplomatic activity we witnessed in the run-up to the long march, with US ambassador Anne Patterson, White House special envoy Richard Hallbrooke, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British foreign secretary David Milliband interceding in person and on the telephone between Zardari, Gillani and the Sharifs, provides a hint to the answer to this question. There is no getting away from the reality that Pakistan is of pivotal geo-political significance to the global interests of western powers, particularly with reference to their so-called war on terror. The influence they exert to achieve their ends permeates deep into the domestic affairs of Pakistan. The exercise of such influence has stunted the growth of viable legal and political institutions and systems which can be neither effective nor durable unless they are allowed to pass through natural rigors in order to mature. Western powers prefer to establish relations with pliable regimes rather than earn the respect and support of the people. In this, some of our politicians are eager accomplices for the sake of even short-lived power.

The restoration of the judges is the greatest victory for the masses in Pakistan since the popular uprising against Ayub and Yahya. But it is not enough. The surgical knife must plunge deeper to cut away every trace of the malignancy that afflicts the country. It is time for the government, or at least Zardari, along with his motley gang of advisors, to go. Whereas the people of Pakistan gave a clear illustration of their feelings for him in the long march, by now even his western benefactors must have realised the futility of vesting any hopes in him.

The gruesome spectacle that the nation witnessed on television in recent days, in which the Constitution and state institutions were subjected to one man's whims, cannot be just swept under the rug and forgotten as if nothing had happened. Responsible people have to be held accountable. Heads must roll. In genuine democracies, governments have been known to fall on far lesser grounds than this. But we all know that resigning on matters of principles is a concept totally alien to most Pakistani politicians. Will it take another long march to make them see the writing on the wall?

The writer is vice-chairman of the Sindh National Front.

 

[muse]

Talat Massod offered little support to Musharraf and now offers Musharraf's prescription - sad - "Democracy can work" -- indeed, possibilities are infinite - from experience we know what our intellectuals suggest democracy is, has a poor track record in Pakistan when it comes to PERFORMANCE.

What lesson should we take from this, Sissyphus?

 

[RabzonKhan]

Why this delay?

Dawn Editorial
Tuesday, 14 Jul, 2009

THE delay in doing away with the 17th amendment with all its aberrations is astonishing given that there is a virtual consensus on its repeal. On Sunday the prime minister repeated his resolve to annul the Musharraf-gifted law that is now part of the constitution. Speaking at the convocation of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani reiterated his determination to amend the basic law, pointing out that the present system of government was neither parliamentary nor presidential — a ‘hodgepodge’, as he put it. Almost every political entity is in favour of scrapping the 17th amendment. In fact, the very first paragraph of the Charter of Democracy, signed in London on May 14, 2006 with Benazir Bhutto and the Sharif brothers present, declared categorically that “the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment shall be repealed”. Armed with this national consensus, the democratic government should have translated this idea into reality long ago. Clearly, the resistance against reverting to a true parliamentary system comes from within the PPP.

The most pernicious part of the 17th amendment is article 58-2b which gives the president the power to sack the government, even if the prime minister enjoys the National Assembly’s confidence, and dissolve the lower house. Ziaul Haq inserted it into the 1973 Constitution by decree and it enabled him to sack the Junejo government. Subsequently, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari exercised this power to sack three prime ministers — Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and then Benazir again. Incidentally the article makes it clear that the president can exercise this power only if a situation arises where the government of the federation cannot be carried on according to the constitution. In each case, no such situation existed and Ziaul Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari used it for purely political purposes. In his second term, Nawaz Sharif had the article repealed. Pervez Musharraf brought it back through the Legal Framework Order.

What is involved now is the PPP’s credibility. Both the prime minister and President Asif Ali Zardari stand publicly committed to the repeal of the 17th amendment. However, mixed signals from the presidential camp smack of dithering and lack of resolve. The president may say one thing in public but his views are perhaps best couched in the statements of loyal functionaries. One cannot but recall here the inordinate delay that went into the restoration of the sacked judges. They were restored, no doubt, but not before mob fury forced the federal government to act. Let the 27-man committee formed last month by Speaker Fehmida Mirza expedite its work.

 

[Interceptor]

Talat Massod offered little support to Musharraf and now offers Musharraf's prescription - sad - "Democracy can work" -- indeed, possibilities are infinite - from experience we know what our intellectuals suggest democracy is, has a poor track record in Pakistan when it comes to PERFORMANCE.

What lesson should we take from this, Sissyphus?

What makes me sad is that how you don't realize that almighty general sahib didn't create his own constitution, allowing his corrupt and barbaric governance to be the corner stone of Pakistan.

He too was using a flawed democracy to run this country. He is crook, the opening statement of the Constitution of Pakistan declares Pakistan a democracy and a federation, if he really used a different governance than why did add the 17th amendment. He did it to run this country from his chair. Why did allow a rubber stamp parliament, he could have made into a games room you don't parliaments in dictatorships its a one man show. If he was really a revolutionary he should have ripped the constitution into pieces and do as he pleased. It just kills intellectual stupidity to see that he had ever made any change to Pakistani governance. Pakistan It will always remain a democracy, no matter how many times you think it isn't.