Daily Times Editorial Aug 21, 2013

Light at the end of the tunnel Amidst questioning about what exactly would be on offer in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s maiden address to the country after assuming office, there was also a muted interest, such being the worries amongst the public regarding the affairs of the republic. As it turned out however, the speech was little more than a damp squib. While Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif touched on a whole range of important subjects, the thrust centred on a recounting of the past glories of Nawaz Sharif’s previous stints in power and how, when that process was interrupted by the military coup of 1999, Pakistan’s march towards a bright future had been tragically halted. According to the prime minister’s version of the history of the last 14 years, everything had gone to the dogs because he and his government were toppled and he had to spend years in exile and then in the opposition. Inevitably, the three major issues facing the country, i.e. the economy (with the energy crisis at its heart), terrorism, and foreign policy were the centrepiece of the prime minister’s address. While his descriptive analysis of these problems was correct, it hardly set the television screen alight since these were well known and oft repeated by the prime minister and many others over the years. However, what was glaringly absent from the address was the prescriptive or corrective policy formulation that could have lightened heavy hearts and brought a smile to the lips of the depressed citizenry, the relatively long timeline for turning things around notwithstanding. On energy, it is interesting to note how the PML-N has been steadily backsliding on a date for ending load shedding. After tall claims of ‘instant’ or at least short order ‘fixes’ during the election campaign, we soon learnt from the lips of none other than the Energy Minister Khwaja Asif that at least three years were required to bridge the supply-demand gap of energy. Now the prime minister has extended that deadline to five years, i.e. towards the end of the present government’s tenure, and that too qualified by the loaded word ‘hope’. The prime minister is right when he says that the energy crisis cannot be eliminated without additional resources being poured into enhanced power generation. Now that reality has bit, the prime minister acknowledges that the timeframe for improvement/addition is 3-4 years for coal-fired plants (6,600 MW being planned in Gadani and more in Thar based on indigenous coal) and 8-10 years for hydel (970 MW from the long delayed Neelum-Jhelum project, 425 MW from Nandipur, over 4,000 MW from Diamer-Bhasha, whenever it finds the requisite funding). The prime minister referred to the government’s retirement of Rs 480 billion circular debt soon after assuming office, which had led to an increase of 1,700 MW thermal generation. He also mentioned the ongoing campaign against electricity and gas pilferers, responsible for Rs 150-250 billion annual losses. In sum, the prime minister was nothing if not honest and upfront in delivering the truth to the public that they would have to live with load shedding until at least 2018, and that too with huge increases in energy tariffs aimed at reducing the government subsidy to the sector. On terrorism, the prime minister proffered both an olive branch and a mailed fist. He argued that the offer of dialogue to the extremists was intended to ensure minimum loss of innocent lives, of whom the toll is already 40,000 civilians and 5,000 security forces’ personnel. But dialogue, the prime minister warned, was not the only option and if it failed to produce the desired results, the full might of the state would be deployed. This last is what those informed observers who have been studying the phenomenon of terrorism over many years say is critical. Grave doubts and a great deal of criticism swirls around the military and other security forces’ strategy, or lack thereof, in trying to tackle the problem in a piece-meal and seemingly desultory manner. The worst interpretation of this is that at some level, and for reasons rooted in the past high hopes of projection of power through proxies in the region, there is some level of turning a blind eye or even complicity between the deep state and the terrorists. The most optimistic interpretation is that our military and security forces lack the skill and wherewithal to combat a tough and elusive enemy. So long as the terrorists feel they have the initiative and the upper hand, the compulsion to come to the negotiating table remains weak. Only when the terrorist tide is rolled back does dialogue have even a snowball’s chance in hell of yielding positive results. The political forces are hopelessly divided in their approach to the problem, negating the usefulness of an all parties conference, which the government too seems now to be going slow on. In his speech the prime minister said he was expanding on his original offer after the elections of inviting all parties to discuss how best to resolve Pakistan’s security and economic woes. This is a vaguer formulation than the all parties conference, and perhaps reflective of reduced hopes of a consensus on these issues. The government has to get the military on board if there is to be any chance of success. In the light of a change of top command in the military, this juncture holds promise as well as uncertainty. On foreign policy, the prime minister reiterated his desire for peace, amity and normalization of relations with all neighbours, particularly India, a sentiment whose difficulties of achievement are hardly news to anyone, particularly given the present state of tensions on the Line of Control and the Afghanistan conundrum, the latter unlikely to yield a solution despite Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s impending visit. Nevertheless, for the sake of this and succeeding generations of South Asia and the broader region, it is an aspiration worth pursuing and intimately tied up with the fight against jihadi terrorism. Disappointing though the prime minister’s maiden address may have been for most viewers and listeners, it at least had the merit of no tall claims, a sober reiteration of the grave problems the country faces, and the expression of hope for a better future. Time will tell whether this hope can and will be translated into reality.