Energising Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

Analysis: The establishment exposed

The Express Tribune
By Zahid F Ebrahim
October 20, 2012

The infamous 1996 Asghar Khan case is finally over. It took the men on the hill a quarter of a century to come to terms that Benazir Bhutto was right. The 1990 election was indeed stolen.

The Supreme Court has not minced words in its short order: “Late Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then President of Pakistan, General (R) Aslam Baig and General (R) Asad Durrani acted in violation of the Constitution…”. Brazenly, this cabal rigged the 1990 elections by doling out funds to parties opposing Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party. According to the Supreme Court, “Their acts have brought a bad name to Pakistan and its Armed Forces as well as secret agencies in the eyes of the nation, therefore, notwithstanding that they may have retired from service, the federal government shall take necessary steps under the Constitution and law against them.”

The Supreme Court verdict clears the way for prosecuting General Beg and General Durrani for treason against the State under Article 6 of the Constitution. However, it is unlikely that the present government has the will to institute such proceedings or waver from its time-tested policy of reconciliation.

The Asghar Khan case will pose an equally uncomfortable dilemma for the armed forces. Given the recent precedent in the NLC scam, General Kayani and the corp commanders will now be asked as to why General Aslam Beg a former Chief of the Armed Forces and General Asad Durrani, head of the ISI, not be re-inducted into the army and face court martial.

In the ultimate analysis, a trial for treason or a court martial are unlikely to have any salutary effect on the destiny of this nation. Knowing the truth – as we have done so with the Supreme Court verdict – may serve national interest much better.

General Durrani is of course guilty of stealing the 1990 election. But he was man enough to admit his wrongs. We must not forget that without his admission and sworn affidavits, this blot on our nation’s history would never have seen the light of day. More dark knights from the establishment need to take General Durrani’s high road.

The Asghar Khan case is not just about 1990. It is about 2012. If this verdict has vindicated Benazir Bhutto, it has also thrown the gauntlet to Asif Ali Zardari’s Presidency.

The Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s constitutional violations – however, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court sound like they may have someone else in mind.

The Supreme Court has held that “A President of Pakistan, in parliamentary system of government, being head of the state represents the unity of the Republic under Article 41 of the Constitution. And as per the oath of his office in all circumstances, he will do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Thus, holder of office of President of Pakistan, violates the Constitution, if he fails to treat all manner of people equally and without favouring any set, according to law, and as such, creates/provides an occasion which may lead to an action against him under the Constitution and the Law.”

 

[RabzonKhan]

Making democracy work

The News
Syed Anwar Mahmood
November 03, 2012


At 65, Pakistan is no longer an adolescent, but a full grown adult – yet it still seems to be crawling instead of running. Having suffered intermittent military rules, it is presently governed by elected governments, both in the provinces and at the federal level. We have a National Assembly, and we have provincial assemblies that are about to complete their five-year tenure for the first time ever, if we are to exclude the post-Bangladesh government of late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that assumed office in December, 1971 and held general elections in March, 1977. The last five years have been eventful in many ways but are we better off today than we were in 2008? Are we happier? Perhaps not, and if not – why? This is mostly because we have a democracy that is not democratic. The problem lies not just in those we elect to govern but in the manner in which we elect them and, more importantly, in the system under which we elect them.

Parliamentary democracy, introduced in the subcontinent by the British and later adopted by us, has simply not worked. That is a fact that we will gloss over only at our own peril. We need democracy; there can’t be two opinions about it, but democracy comes in many shapes. Parliamentary democracy has worked in India and now appears to be working in Bangladesh because the two countries got rid of feudalism through their tenancy laws soon after independence. We did not do any such thing and thus have a democracy of the elite that primarily works for the elite. Coupled with the problem of feudalism is our very low literacy level. These two factors combine to perpetuate a democracy of the elite. There is thus a need for bold and sweeping reforms that correct the system and mould it into a shape and form that is democratic in essence too.

For starters, we need to debate switching over to a presidential form under which we have a president who is also the head of the government and is elected directly in a nationwide, one man-one vote election, on a party basis. Given our past experience, duality of power does not work. Even today, President Zardari is the de facto chief executive of the country. Why not formalise it? He may deliver better overtly than covertly. I will be surprised if Mian Nawaz Sharif opposes it; it will suit Imran Khan too. But then we will have to replicate it in the provinces with party-based, directly elected governors as chief executives of their provinces. This will prevent situations like those we are witnessing in the Punjab today. Also imagine the savings and the efficiency in governance that this will bring. It will also do away with the culture of horse-trading and the element of uncertainty that hangs over every elected government.

The presidential and gubernatorial form of government that I suggest will work only if we concurrently introduce a few other reforms. The tenure of office of the president, the governors, the National Assembly, the Senate (to be elected directly by the provinces) and the provincial assemblies should be reduced to four from the present five years. We must keep in mind the level of patience of the Pakistani nation, which wears off a little too early. Five years is, therefore, a little too long, and a four-year tenure may be the answer. It will also help inject stability in governance which perpetually remains threatened by different conspiracies and machinations under our present political dispensation.

We should have had real land reforms after we had gained independence. Unfortunately, that did not happen and is not likely to happen any time soon. To counter the negative consequences of feudalism in our politics, we need to introduce a proportionate system of representation replacing the present first-past-the-post system. This will facilitate representation of the middle class in our elected assemblies and, to a large extent, check the overbearing influence of the elite – both feudal and industrial. It will also create a stake in the system for many political parties that get a considerable number of popular votes but end up with no representation at all, while also pulling in some regional parties into the national mainstream. This is a system that is practiced in many democratic countries of the world and will suit Pakistan more, given its present political, ethnic and governance issues.

No democratic system can lay claim to true democracy unless it has its roots where it matters most, and in our case it matters most in our cities and towns, our districts and tehsils. It is here that the people suffer most and need good governance, which flows from rulers who are accountable to the people. Hence the need to have democratically elected officials at these levels. Call them Nazims, mayors or any other name, they must be elected by the people. Having different forms of local governance in the country will not do. One can understand dictators not willing to delegate authority and power but such reluctance amongst our political leadership can only be called unfortunate.

And last but not the least, we must seriously consider the need to have more provinces – smaller in size and administratively efficient. Be it South Punjab or Bahawalpur, the erstwhile Balochistan States Union (Kalat, Kharan, Lasbela and Makran) or Hazara, let more flowers bloom from the same tree. All we need to do is to take good care of the tree. Keep watering it, keep feeding it with nutrients and it will continue to bear fruits for us all. But for that, we need our political elite to rise above their own selves and consider these proposals in the larger interest of Pakistan, which has given them so much. It is now their turn to return the favour. Will anyone from amongst them take these up as an election issue in 2013? I pray they do.



The writer is a former federal secretary.

 

[VCheng]

................. But for that, we need our political elite to rise above their own selves and consider these proposals in the larger interest of Pakistan, which has given them so much. It is now their turn to return the favour. Will anyone from amongst them take these up as an election issue in 2013? I pray they do............

Those prayers will not be heard. After all, the system works marvelously well for those who control it. Why would they EVER change it willingly?

 

[RabzonKhan]

Those prayers will not be heard. After all, the system works marvelously well for those who control it. Why would they EVER change it willingly?

To some extent, you're right, but then unthinkable can happen, look at the judiciary, its history, 'Doctrine of Necessity' to the present.

Umeed pe duniya kayam hai.

 

[VCheng]

To some extent, you're right, but then unthinkable can happen, look at the judiciary, its history, 'Doctrine of Necessity' to the present.

Umeed pe duniya kayam hai.

Sirf ummed say kaam nahi chalta. Kuch amal aur harkat ka kaam bhi kerna chahiye.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Sirf ummed say kaam nahi chalta. Kuch amal aur harkat ka kaam bhi kerna chahiye.

As I said, unthinkable can happen, our judiciary is one good example. Today we have a vibrant and free media, Imran Khan’s popularity has been good for democracy, rather than looking at Kayani and GHQ people are looking at Imran Khan, even though I'm a big critic of Imran Khan's policies on war on terror, but I give him credit for once again popularizing democracy in Pakistan. So who knows he can pursue this idea.

Na-umeedi gunah hai.

 

[VCheng]

As I said, unthinkable can happen, our judiciary is one good example. Today we have a vibrant and free media, Imran Khan’s popularity has been good for democracy, rather than looking at Kayani and GHQ people are looking at Imran Khan, even though I'm a big critic of Imran Khan's policies on war on terror, but I give him credit for once again popularizing democracy in Pakistan. So who knows he can pursue this idea.

Na-umeedi gunah hai.

I wish IK lots and lots of luck! He will need all the luck in the world and then some.

This incident alone tells a little about the magnitude of the task he faces:

from: http://dawn.com/2012/11/03/the-might-of-the-influential/

The might of the influential
From the Newspaper

The bakery incident involving Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s daughter and son-in-law, if anything, reflects the sick and decadent mindset of the ruling elite and their beliefs that they are above the law.

This is what happens when political power is handed over to children, as if it is a hereditary family asset, which would automatically transfer to next of kin like it does in a monarchy.

We have witnessed how the so-called will of a politician was used to assume political office in Pakistan.

Perks of power being abused by family members of elected public office-holders or paid bureaucracy has become a norm in this country.

This should not happen in a constitutional democracy, but it has been happening for past 60 years and things are getting worse now. Those in power, measure their status with the ease and frequency with which laws are circumvented and made slave to their whims. No where else in the civilised world will we witness this malaise of the VVIP syndrome than in the Third World where corruption is rampant and individuals matter instead of laws.

In a democracy, no citizen is above the law. It is the rule of laws, not of men. The law-enforcement agencies, it seems, are there not to protect common citizens, but satisfy the ego of the elite, protect them from prosecution and appease them, irrespective of what the law states.

Why should police escorts be available to sons and daughters of chief ministers, federal ministers, governors, paid khaki and civil bureaucrats, most of whom do not even pay taxes?

M. ALI
United States

 

[RabzonKhan]

We ‘idiots’ wont shut up

Dawn
Abbas Nasir
Nov 10 2012

“The army chief does not express personal opinion. Whatever he says is the collective view of his institution.”

These were General Jahangir Karamat’s words a few hours after he ceased being Pakistan’s chief of army staff; his tenure prematurely over after his controversial call for the setting up of a National Security Council.

In his second term in office, a ‘heavily mandated’ Nawaz Sharif wasn’t willing to brook any ‘nonsense’. He asked for his army chief’s resignation. A BBC colleague suggested we try and get the general’s view.

We called Army House from London expecting a rebuff. But the operator put us through to Gen Karamat in the shock and confusion that must have followed the chief’s decision. The general denied he was sacked: “I resigned because I didn’t want this controversy to damage the country”.

I put it to him: “Was the NSC statement your personal opinion or did it represent the collective wisdom of the army?” He responded with his “collective view” statement.

We also interviewed Sharif’s top aide Mushahid Husain. With unmistakable triumphalism, he said the decision showed who was boss.

It wasn’t long before it emerged that many generals, and most notably the CGS (chief of general staff) Lt-Gen Ali Kuli Khan (Khattak) who was in Peshawar for the day, later protested to the chief that he had decided to go quietly and not allowed them to sort out the government.

Sharif handpicked Lt-Gen Pervez Musharraf because he was advised his choice didn’t have a big constituency in the army, given his ethnic origins. Therefore, he would remain grateful at being elevated and follow orders without question.

It wasn’t long before the all-powerful prime minister found out how wrong he was. After a disastrous Kargil misadventure and continued defiance, when he tried to sack the army chief, he was overthrown, jailed and exiled.

Whether it was an ‘individual’s decision’ or the collective will of the institution manifesting itself, Pakistan was going to be set back another 10 years as, following in the footsteps of Ayub and Zia, Musharraf declared himself the monarch.

Frankly, as the Supreme Court proceedings in the Asghar Khan case and its ruling demonstrated, even when the army wasn’t directly, blatantly in power, it or its key individuals were still controlling most of the levers of power, even to the extent of manipulating elections.

In fact, just before the PPP government was sent packing in 1990, I was working for the Herald and wrote a story on how politicised even Gen Beg’s spouse was. Addressing a Rawalpindi Garrison Women’s Club meeting, she let loose on PPP’s ‘atrocities on the poor Mohajirs in Sindh’.

The PPP had already had to climb a mountain to form a government as another ‘individual’, the then ISI chief, had created an alliance to block its progress in the 1988 elections.

Anyway, after I wrote the Herald story on Mrs Beg, the then corps commander in Karachi requested a meeting. Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua was a bellicose officer who was supposed to be feared. As one prone to living dangerously, I agreed.

Ushered into his office and introductions over, the aides left the room. The general didn’t offer me a seat. I pulled a chair and lowered myself into it anyway. He reached into a drawer, pulled out a copy of the Herald with each of my stories marked by a coloured flag.

“Yaar, what’s this?” He barked, opening the page to the Mrs Beg story. “The chief called me from ‘Pindi. He was very upset.” I responded: “Is it untrue? If the chief wants he can issue a denial. But I have a number of witnesses who heard the speech.”

The general almost exploded: “I am sure she said it. But national interest bhi koyee cheez hotee hai (is also something). Do you have to report everything?” My current sense of realism, pragmatism … Ok, Ok … cowardice was still several years away. No family, no material possessions, nothing to lose.

“General, I thought this was going to be a grown-up conversation, a meeting to share our respective perspectives. Not a lecture on national interest. Had I known, I wouldn’t have bothered to come.” I started to get up.

The corps commanders, or at least Gen Asif Nawaz, had desks the size of football fields.

The big, burly officer got up and started to storm round his colossal desk. I rose to my full five-foot-nothing frame and braced myself. As he neared, I saw a half-raised right hand. Then I realised he was offering me his hand as he said: “Good. Now we understand each other perfectly.”

There was no mention of my journalism anymore and none either of national interest. He ordered tea, biscuits and a friendly chat followed. All my quirky views were heard without a frown. Things have moved on over the past two decades.

Now, Gen Kayani voluntarily says he has no monopoly over defining national interest. He says there is a need for all to follow the constitution. He acknowledges mistakes have been made in the past but calls for the rule of law to deal with those at this ‘defining moment’ in our nation’s history.

The army chief’s statement and the chief justice’s apparent retort to that have been described as ominous signs of this and that. I firmly believe that the past is another country. It will haunt us but we’ll never return to it.

I don’t feel the need to qualify criticism of the military by paying a perfunctory tribute to the several thousand soldiers who have laid down their lives valiantly battling the forces of darkness. Where I stand ideologically, they are my heroes anyway.

As for whether some generals indulged in corrupt practices or are clean as a whistle, we’ll wait for the due process of law to tell us. But we won’t abandon, or abdicate, our right to ask questions because a former head of ISI says: “Shut up, idiots.”


The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Towards a stronger democracy

The ExpressTribune
Editorial
November 30, 2012

Given the troubles our country has faced in the past, with much of our history dominated by military rule, we worry constantly about the state of democracy. However, there are occasional, encouraging signs that it might, at last, be beginning to grow just a little stronger and a little more firmly entrenched in our soil. One such sign came on November 28 with the public hearing by the Defence Committee of the Senate on civil-military relations. The three-hour long discussion was a detailed one, with reports stating that problems inherent in the delicate relationship were brought up, rather than just being brushed over. It seems then that the Committee has carried out an exercise that went beyond cosmetics. The fact that such issues can be discussed is a welcome omen; it opens up more space for civilians and for views that were long considered taboo in a largely closed society, dominated by the military and the constant fear of intervention by it.

Though that fear has not vanished completely, the mere fact that the issue is being discussed with calls made at the hearing for more ‘direct dialogue’ marks an important step forward. The Senate discussion was attended by 26 people, including seven parliamentarians. Former defence secretary Salim Abbas Jilani, former corps commander of Rawalpindi Lt Gen (retd) Salim Haider and analyst Hassan Askari Rizvi all spoke as a variety of ideas came forward. Persons who had held key positions in the past spoke of how military leaders were consulted on matters that went far beyond defence.

Rizvi, an experienced academic, warned that things would not change immediately; that military action disrupting civilian control could take place even now. This is something all of us would have to agree with but just the fact that the matter has been openly spoken about at Senate level marks a change in itself. It may represent a key step along a road that can finally lead to greater transparency and stability in our system of governance, allowing all institutions to work together while remaining within the spheres defined for them by the Constitution.

 

[RabzonKhan]

What price democracy?

The News
Ghazi Salahuddin
Dec 09, 2012


It is hard to seriously reflect on the quality of our democracy, in spite of the fact that there is such a lot to think about democracy, Pakistani-style. In any case, I was part of a solemn exercise devoted exclusively to an assessment of democracy in the year 2012. The session continued for about five hours, with a break for lunch. And what were the findings of these deliberations?

Before I come to that, I have to tell you that the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency – Pildat – has formed this Democracy Assessment Group of which I also happen to be a member. The group had earlier issued its reports based on a quantitative assessment made on an international framework.

By that measure, the quality of democracy in Pakistan has improved from the period before the 2008 elections. In an assessment made in January 2010, the pre-2008 era earned 40 percent marks. In comparison, the quality of democracy as it stood in January 2010 was given the score of 48 percent. There was a slight improvement in the mid-term assessment made in September 2010, with a score of 49 percent. The score for the current year is yet to be calculated and now a Pakistan-specific framework has also been designed.

The meeting on Thursday was meant to discuss the draft brief on the quality of democracy in 2012. In addition, the issue of delimitation of constituencies in Karachi and the verification of electoral rolls also came under scrutiny. Some members of the Pildat’s Citizen Group on the electoral process were also invited to the meeting and it was followed by a national workshop in which representatives of political parties and other sections of the society expressed their views. These would serve as an input for the final democracy assessment report to be released next month.

Coming back to the essence of Thursday’s discourse, let me first refer to the statement that was issued by the Pildat. It said that while processes that strengthen democracy have effectively been put into work, the ultimate performance of democracy as it affects the people has not been satisfactory in the year 2012.

It was noted that the completion of the five-year term by the present government “is a milestone in the country’s political history”. However, “there is more that needs to be done on the governance front”. This, then, was the gist of the observations that were made by the members of the Democracy Assessment Group and the National Workshop.

Obviously, there has been a marked inclination to balance the positive trends with the negative ones. It should be easy to guess how this balance is achieved. It is seen to be an achievement that the process has not been interrupted. Besides, the passage of the 18th Amendment that prescribes provincial autonomy is a tribute to our parliamentary democracy. Disqualification of a sitting prime minister did not rattle the system. For the first time in our history, the chief election commissioner was appointed through a consensus-backed process. And so on.

Similarly, the negative trends are also glaringly evident. The law and order situation remains alarming, with a particular focus on Balochistan and Karachi. The energy situation is precarious. The delivery of public services has further declined. There has been a surge in sectarian killings and in violence against minorities. Instances of corruption seemed to have increased. With all the headlines that the Supreme Court has generated, dispensation of justice in an overall context remained highly flawed. The economic woes of the people have increased. In short, there is gloom all around.

Irrespective of how any group’s assessment would define the quality of our democracy, I feel distressed by trends that, in my view, undermine the very potential of what a democracy is meant to be. There is a growing sense of disorder at all levels. Intolerance and extremism are gaining strength. It would appear that after five years of a professedly democratic dispensation, people are less democratic in their behaviour.

So, what is there to celebrate if the elected government has completed its term? If you hear a sound of applause in the background on this accomplishment, you may find it blending into a mournful song that portrays a loss of hope in the future. That this should happen on the watch of a coalition that is supposed to be liberal, with secular tendencies, is the real tragedy.

Ideally, a government completing its term is like a dog biting a man – not news in normal circumstances. It should be possible for a regime to remain in a state of paralysis and live out its prescribed term in office without any mishap. Would that be something to celebrate? Yes, the present interlude would be a source of inspiration and strength if it had weakened forces that are essentially anti-democratic. That has not happened. The rise in extremism is in itself a negation of democratic values and principles.

Tomorrow, on December 10, the world is observing Human Rights Day. It is an appropriate occasion to look at the human rights situation in Pakistan and see if we have moved ahead in protecting the rights of the vulnerable groups and oppressed sections of the society. In this respect, some incidents that were reported this week may serve as reminders of the general drift.

For instance, armed men barged into the graveyard of the Ahmadis in Lahore early morning on Monday and destroyed 125 epitaphs and desecrated the graves. On the same day, also in Lahore, two gunmen shot and severely wounded an elderly Swedish woman. She has lived in Pakistan for nearly forty years, doing charity work. In Karachi, a Hindu temple was partially damaged in the course of the demolition of ‘encroachments’. There have been more severe assaults on the minorities in the recent past.

This ambivalence about how the present democratic rule has wounded our lives is not easy to understand or to resolve. One can only hope that the imminent transfer of power after general elections in a few months’ time will lead to a beneficial shift in the present balance between the negative and the positive trends. Still, it is difficult to expect a new beginning if the present state of disorder and moral, as well as intellectual disarray is allowed to persist.

Apparently, our ruling politicians have demonstrated that you can also damage democracy through supposedly democratic means. Their policy of consensus is the policy of compromise with the anti-democratic mindset. This means that the threat to democracy in Pakistan is not only from military intervention. The challenge now is to build intellectual and psychological support for democratic values and counter extremism with a new narrative of what democracy actually means. It does not mean the mere survival of a regime.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The day after May 11


The Express Tribune
By Ayesha Siddiqa
May 15, 2013

The writer is an independent social scientist and author of Military Inc.


Two days after the general elections in Pakistan, I sat watching a debate between senior leaders of the PTI, the MQM and the PML-N regarding rigging in elections. The most amazing part of the conversation was the suggestion by the PTI leader that perhaps, intelligence agency wallahs were stuffing ballot boxes at a polling station from where a PML-N candidate won. The same leader also talked about an opinion piece suggesting that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was bribed to ensure a certain win. The other day, I heard a ‘so-called’ journalist talking in a television programme, of foreign countries like Turkey being involved in ensuring certain election results in Pakistan. Notwithstanding some genuine complaints of rigging, the conversation and suggestion reflected a desire to delegitimise the larger election process, which did not bring about results that a certain segment of the population desired. While it is necessary to sort out the urgent issues regarding glaring discrepancies in results and measures to strengthen the ECP, it is also necessary for the post-May 11 Pakistan to find closure. Instead of constantly delegitimising the process, it is necessary to accept the fact that a large part of Pakistan that voted differently from how certain people thought they would, also represents the country. Its opinion ought to be respected as well.

There is a great risk of a segment of the population that was enthralled by the idea of Naya Pakistan getting depoliticised out of frustration. Like others, I have also heard conversations in which the Naya Pakistan wallahs were going around cursing people’s decision, calling them stupid and even suggesting that participating in elections was an effort not worth their while. Some even went to the extent of calling people paindu (rural) and illiterate. Besides a lot of institution-building and strengthening that is required, Imran Khan must nurse the wounds of his supporters at the earliest and draw their attention towards the fact that it is a great achievement that the PTI has risen from being a party of one in parliament to over 30 members. Moreover, unfavourable results do not mean that we stop emotionally and physically investing in this country. People’s choices must be respected. This nursing of the wounds is part of the larger process of making efforts to bind the country together.

The other interesting trend pertains to the image of regionalisation of politics. To an outside observer, Pakistan does not feel tied together. The PML-N has emerged as a big force in Punjab, the PTI in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, the PPP relegated to rural Sindh, the MQM in urban Sindh and Baloch and Pashtun nationalists in Balochistan. A lot of people are hugely angry on the PPP’s lacklustre performance of the past five years. So, one could argue that it got what it deserved. Notwithstanding the errors made by its leadership and erosion of ideology from the party, the fact remains that we are observing the breakdown of what was once the only genuine national party. The federation needs to be connected, which it is not at the moment. The PPP’s weakening as a party within Sindh itself will have repercussions for sociopolitical development in the region and its connection with the federation. The crippling of the party, for which the leadership is to blame as well, has and will create spaces which will be dominated by pro-establishment parties or the nationalists. In both cases, it does not bode well for the province or the federation. It is necessary to appease the disgruntled youth in Sindh who may be tempted to fight against the state, especially in reaction to the use of force by it. The number of missing people and dead bodies is increasing in the province.

The above narrative means that party or parties have to move rapidly to shun their character of being regional entities and reach out to other regions. In the past five years, the PML-N leadership has shied from visiting other provinces. At least, this is a complaint one heard from urban and rural Sindh. The PML-N winning seats in the Balochistan Assembly is a good sign. It now needs to do more to expand in other parts. Shedding the image of a Punjab-based leadership and party is necessary. The development agenda also has to extend beyond a single province.

As part of the effort to strengthen the federation, the ruling party at the centre will also have to look more carefully to the needs of south Punjab, which seems to have given a huge mandate to the party. As a region known for both poverty and popularity of the PPP, some were surprised to see the PML-N sweep elections there. This happened due to a combination of factors, such as the party aligning with emerging power centres in the region, especially those representing new capital. In some cases, it also partnered with electables from amongst the Seraiki-speakers, who were already disgruntled due to the PPP not properly marketing the idea of a new province of south Punjab and Bahawalpur. An ordinary voter was left with pragmatism to support a party that might win and deliver. But the more important thing is that the people have honoured the PML-N by putting their confidence in it. The best way of consolidating such gains is to not ignore the need for a new province and offering a plan for better distribution of resources even within Punjab. The PML-N has done well in improving Lahore but now it also needs to distribute development to other parts of the country and the province itself.

While the list of things that the new government ought to do is endless, the need for strengthening the federation should be one of the primary goals. Accepting the legitimacy of the electioneering process and legitimising political and development agendas through meeting people’s needs will go a long way.