ANALYSIS: DEMOCRACY IN 2010

By Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi

The confrontation between the PPP and the PML-N is going to intensify in early 2010 with a focus on the political future of President Asif Ali Zardari. The statements by Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari on December 31, 2009 clearly show that the battle lines are being sharply drawn. Nawaz Sharif targeted Zardari when he asked the beneficiaries of the NRO to resign and face the courts and argued that “the money deposited in Swiss banks was the property of the people of Pakistan” and that “it must be brought back to national exchequer.” This statement means that Nawaz Sharif has adopted the perspective of the hard-line elements in the party that have long argued for taking on the PPP in unambiguous terms.

The political outlook at the beginning of the year does not appear to be reassuring for democracy in Pakistan. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led federal government, including the presidency, find themselves in a siege environment with pressures coming from the superior judiciary, the military and the political opposition, especially the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). One cannot go to the extent of suggesting that there is a carefully planned conspiracy to pull down the government. However, the political fallout of the developments in 2009 has raised doubts if the post-election 2008 system can stay intact for another year.

The political future of President Asif Ali Zardari is not the only thing in jeopardy. There are more serious issues involved here. Given the fact that Pakistan faces a grave terrorist threat and its economy is heavily dependent on external support, increased political wrangling and a ‘now-or-never’ struggle between the government and opposition can collapse the whole edifice of civilian political order. All political players will lose in the incident of the unravelling of the state and societal order.

The pressures on the current political arrangements are coming from four major sources, in addition to the threats of religious extremism and terrorism. These sources are the military, the judiciary, the opposition political forces and ineptitude of the government.

Traditionally, the military and its allied intelligence agencies have had a profound impact on politics and these continue to be important players even today. However, as the military has adopted a low profile and a subtle approach to power management, the superior judiciary has stretched the domain of judicial activism to build pressure on the civilian political elite, especially those in power. What has increased political bickering is the effort by different political parties to get political mileage against the PPP out of the Supreme Court rulings.

The confrontation between the PPP and the PML-N is going to intensify in early 2010 with a focus on the political future of President Asif Ali Zardari. The statements by Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari on December 31, 2009 clearly show that the battle lines are being sharply drawn. Nawaz Sharif targeted Zardari when he asked the beneficiaries of the NRO to resign and face the courts and argued that “the money deposited in Swiss banks was the property of the people of Pakistan” and that “it must be brought back to national exchequer.” This statement means that Nawaz Sharif has adopted the perspective of the hard-line elements in the party that have long argued for taking on the PPP in unambiguous terms.

Zardari’s address on December 27 carried a clear message that he will fight back against his adversaries. On December 31, he was more categorical in responding to PML-N’s growing hostility towards him. He said that he possessed some “political weapons which he would use when he felt necessary.” He did not explain the nature of his political weapons.

It is noteworthy that parliament does not figure in different scenarios that the opposition is constructing for Zardari’s exit. No opposition leader talks of impeachment of Zardari on the basis the corruption charges because the opposition knows that unsubstantiated charges do not provide a credible basis for impeachment. Further, they do not have enough votes in the two houses of parliament to adopt this method.

The focus of the PML-N is on the developments outside parliament. Three possible scenarios can be constructed. First, the Supreme Court strikes down the presidential immunity from criminal trial and then Zardari is put on trial and convicted. The most dubious assumption is that the Supreme Court will strike down a clearly written article of the constitution and disregard the internationally established political norm of certain immunities to the head of state.

The second scenario hopes that the military top brass will apply enough pressure from the sidelines for Zardari’s resignation and, thus, clear the political deck for the opposition. This scenario is based on the assumption that the military top brass will facilitate the opposition agenda.

Third scenario perceives the PML-N spearheading a nationwide agitation against the backdrop of the alienated judiciary and the military. This agitation will paralyse the government, forcing it to accept the demand for the removal of the president. The dubious assumption in this scenario is that the PML-N can launch a nationwide agitation at a time when its main support is concentrated in Punjab and its political standing is weak in other provinces. Perhaps some religious parties may be willing to help the PML-N but these political parties, too, have major standing in Punjab.

The PPP is not expected to give a walkover to the PML-N, especially when it has strong presence in Sindh and Punjab and has a reasonable presence in the NWFP and Balochistan. There are strong doubts that the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the Awami National Party (ANP) and the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam-Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) will join hands with the PML-N to oust Zardari.

Another set of assumptions relate to the continuation of the PPP government minus Zardari. The underlying idea is that Yousaf Raza Gilani will play ‘Farooq Leghari’ and join hands with the opposition and the military establishment to knock out Zardari.

The available evidence suggests that the minus-one formula is not going to work. The PPP is not expected to stay in office if Zardari is ousted. It will not be an easy job to create an alternate political coalition at the federal level around the PML-N.

If the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence/Military Intelligence (ISI/MI) help to contrive a coalition for the PML-N, how long the PML-N led government will play subservient to these king-makers? Will it be in a position to change Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policy and pull out of all security and financial arrangements with the United States to satisfy its rightist and Islamist support base? If it does not do that, how far its policy will be different from the current PPP government?

The revised version of the Bangladesh model whereby the PPP and the PML-N are excluded and a government of technocrats, established with the blessings of the military and the judiciary, is going to run into political and constitutional obstacles. Any deviation from the constitution and established democratic norms, including the election of February 2008, will unravel the political institutions and processes. This will compromise Pakistan’s effort to cope with religious zealots and other extremists who are challenging the domain of the state. As the political forces get bogged down in unnecessary power struggle, these anti-state forces will have greater freedom of action, thereby causing the fragmentation of the state system.

The major political parties should show restraint in pursuing their partisan agendas. The PML-N and the PPP should work out a working relationship within the existing political arrangements. Any attempt to turn them upside down by any means and for any reason will be self-destructive for the civilian political forces. It may be easy to dislodge the present arrangements, but no credible political alternative is going to be available quickly.

The PPP should go ahead with the consensus constitutional amendments at the earliest. President Zardari needs to step back from active role in policy making and management and the federal government should devote more attention to improving governance. However, both the government and the opposition will have to review their present postures simultaneously, otherwise democracy can run aground in 2010.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Courtesy Daily Times, Jan 03, 2010

MORAL BANKRUPTCY

By Andleeb Abbas

The historical decision by the judiciary to declare the NRO null and void has created panic in a section of political ranks. The ruling party has predictably decided not to resign and is now looking at the two-pronged approach of denying and mudslinging at the opposition to prove that they are all in the same boat; and, technically, they are correct. PML-N and PML-Q have a history of taking loans and not bothering to return. While Mr Zardari is in the hall of shame for being a billionaire robber baron, the Sharif and the Chaudhry brothers are not far behind in this public money loot sale.

Truth can never be shot down. Somehow, this lesson has never been registered by the insecure leaders of our country, who still believe that position and power will eventually prevail over truth and reality. Herein lie the seeds of their own downfall. With the illegitimate protection of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) blown away, they find themselves exposed and insecure. With their legitimacy in question, they are using all ‘entitled privileges’ to shoot the messenger who brings the bad news. Suspending secretary interior on stopping the minister of defence from going to China is just the beginning of a predictable reaction of people who are desperate to hold on to their positions, as without that they cease to exist.

The historical decision by the judiciary to declare the NRO null and void has created panic in a section of political ranks. The ruling party has predictably decided not to resign and is now looking at the two-pronged approach of denying and mudslinging at the opposition to prove that they are all in the same boat; and, technically, they are correct. PML-N and PML-Q have a history of taking loans and not bothering to return. While Mr Zardari is in the hall of shame for being a billionaire robber baron, the Sharif and the Chaudhry brothers are not far behind in this public money loot sale. According to the latest reports, the Sharif brothers owe Rs 3 billion to banks. In 1998, as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in a typical emotional drama on TV (similar to the one he did during the long march), had announced to surrender all the physical assets of Ittefaq Foundries, Brothers Steels, Ittefaq Brothers and Ilyas Enterprises to the nine banks. However, as we are familiar with his political histrionics and know that he is master chameleon, he managed to get a stay on the assets on the basis of some ‘technical default’ grounds. The NRO was a mockery, as is this technical default, which, in a ridiculous comparison to some strange term of ‘wilful default’ was declared legal. The defaulters’ list is as illustrious as the NRO list and includes many famous names and their kith and kin. The political elite is responsible for a majority of the Rs 193 billion default so far officially recorded. In fact, it has become a family heritage. The prime minister’s wife has kept up this tradition by also defaulting and then agreeing to settle the amount as media spotlight became uncomfortably glaring. Pakistan Green Fertilisers Limited Director Fauzia Yousuf Gilani, Ziaur Rehman, Khalid Hussain, Nasreen Munawar Chaudhry and Syeda Samina Abrar allegedly got a loan of Rs 71 million from the Zarai Taraqiati Bank in 1987 and did not return the money. However, NAB has withdrawn the case on their agreement to pay back the loan.

Like the Sharif brothers, the Chaudhry brothers have made merry of other people’s money. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, along with his cousin Pervez Elahi and brother Wajahat Hussain had borrowed massively for Punjab Sugar Mills and coerced the National Bank of Pakistan to write it off. The blatant attempts to legitimise their illegitimacy has been laid bare by the judiciary, and thus they are now trying to agree on a mudslinging ceasefire which, if continued, is likely to burn all of them in disgrace.

The common trait which brings PML-N and PML-Q together is their tainted and corrupt past. A few days ago, these two parties were sworn enemies. However, despite their inherent dislike for each other, they somehow always ended up ‘compromising’ with each other. Not long ago they were ready to slit each other’s throat and now they are almost at hugging distance. This change of colours and preferences is termed as flexibility, while in actual fact it is mere suitability to their own political designs. Such are the ironies in this ‘Political Corruption Association’.

With a record of failed collaborations in the past, it is but natural that this alliance based on circumstantial convenience will wither away with a change in conditions. Both the parties are playing on the nation’s nerves and patience and hoping that political fatigue in the public will once again condone their disastrous and callous decision-making. The reason given for this unwanted reconciliation is that the country cannot afford to have destabilisation which will result if these two ‘saviours’ of Pakistan do not let go of their grudges for the betterment of this country. However, by now the public is completely aware that each one of them is trying to save their skin. Fortunately, there are so many skeletons out of the cupboard now that there is no hiding place.

While the political leadership is focused on saving their positions, the country has been left politically, economically and socially stranded. The horrible potpourri of strategies to deal with the internal and external threats has led the government to a state of ‘no state’. The army is a pivotal part of this game and between the army, White House and the government, foreign policy has become a tragic caricature of shoot or not-to-shoot. On the one hand we have drones that have no sense of humanity, targeting the innocent and not-so-innocent in one go, on the other, we have the Taliban crushing any form of decency in the areas they can penetrate. While the government stands paralysed, anybody with the least of force can stamp on rules and laws.

This state of ‘no state’ is the result of moral bankruptcy. Moral default creates vulnerabilities in leaders in a situation of crisis. As the country faces food crisis, energy crisis and security crisis, the real face of these chronic defaulters has become frighteningly visible. The test of a leader is in testing times, which assess the leader’s ability to make the right choices. Therein lies the opportunity to rise above himself, above the petty issues and fight the temptations to take the easy way out. Strong leadership is all about not giving in and not giving up. Unfortunately, on these grounds every leader of ours has defaulted. They have been led by their own temptations and by the force of circumstances rather than choosing to be ones who would drive the circumstances. To be such a strong leader you need to sacrifice personal interests, ego, and financial, political and social comforts — a tough choice none of our leaders is ready to make. In every adversity there is an opportunity. Having exposed their weaknesses in the hour of crisis, these leaders are giving the nation an opportunity to make choices based on character, performance and behaviour rather than personality, sympathy and rhetoric. As a nation we have to stop believing that except for these faces there is no choice. As a nation we must see the unseen, speak the unspoken and choose the unchosen.

Andleeb Abbas is a management consultant and CEO of Franklin Covey

Courtesy Daily Times, Jan 03, 2010