Business Recorder Editorial November 24, 2020

Afghanistan: peace in sight?

 

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan paid a daylong visit to Kabul on November 19, 2020, during which he reiterated Pakistan’s desire to see peace return to Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of war and internal strife. The PM underlined the benefits for our tribal areas of a possible downturn in violence in our neighbouring country. Peace, he said, would allow connectivity and enhanced trade, leading to prosperity on both sides of our common border. While the PM offered assurances to the Afghan leadership of Pakistan’s readiness to help in reducing the level of violence, it must be noted that despite the US-Taliban agreement in Doha in January 2020, the intra-Afghan dialogue remained stalled since its inception in September 2020 on issues such as the agenda for talks, interpretation of Islam, women’s rights and sundry other contentious issues. A ray of hope is engendered by the report that these issues have now been sorted out by both sides and the dialogue will hopefully now take off. However, despite these encouraging developments on the negotiations front, the violence has not decreased but rather increased since the US-Taliban Doha agreement in January 2020. Analysts saw this as a Taliban strategy to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table. They also pointed to the encouragement offered to the Taliban by outgoing US President Donald Trump in announcing a further drawdown of US troops from their present strength of 4,500 to 2,500 by January 2021, when Trump is scheduled to step down. Although his successor, Joe Biden, is also in favour of a US withdrawal, he seems more mindful of the criticism of the US establishment that a hasty withdrawal could unleash greater chaos, as happened in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. The likelihood therefore of the new Biden administration making haste more slowly in this regard is high.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral relationship has hitherto been seen almost exclusively through the prism of conflict. If things can now be turned round towards peace and stability, there is every reason to hope for better relations. While every peace process has its share of spoilers, in this case al Qaeda and Islamic State amongst others, so long as the main protagonists, the Afghan government and the Taliban and their respective backers remain on the path of a negotiated political solution, the hope for drawing a curtain on one of the longest running wars in modern history could become a reality. PM Imran Khan’s maiden visit seems to have been marked by cordiality, a sea change from the history of strained relations between the two neighbours. Channels of interaction must be kept open for this happy outcome to be achieved. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has accepted PM Imran Khan's invitation to visit Pakistan in the first quarter of 2021. Pakistan, despite being in economic difficulties itself, has, according to President Arif Alvi, set aside $ one billion to help the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan and the post-peace return of the remaining Afghan refugees on our soil. While these portents seem good, experience shows that the long standing Afghan quagmire often proves the old adage about many a slip between cup and lip. Nevertheless, since all stakeholders seem agreed on peace through negotiations as the way forward, all parties must back their verbal commitment with practical efforts to make sure one of the last hurdles, the intra-Afghan talks, produce a settlement acceptable to both sides in the interests of the long suffering Afghan people, the region, and the world.

Business Recorder Editorial written November 17, 2020, not published because of being overtaken by events

TLP protest

 

The Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) protest against France’s insistence on the display of caricatures/cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has yielded a rich crop of some 250-300 people injured amongst the protestors and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) since the night of November 15, 2020 in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Initially prohibited by the authorities, the TLP protest march from Liaquat Bagh to the Faizabad interchange mobilised some 3,000-5,000 plus militants, against whom about 5,000 police and paramilitary forces were arrayed. It now seems the LEAs underestimated the capabilities of the TLP cadre. Pre-emptive arrests of TLP workers all over Punjab (some 400 in Rawalpindi alone) failed to stop the march, as did the barricades and deployment of the LEAs on the route and at Faizabad. When even water cannon failed to quell the protest, reports speak of an operation planned against the sit-in at Faizabad, but this was apparently halted on the orders of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, who ordered a peaceful resolution through talks. The outcome of these talks is a handwritten agreement bearing the signatures from the government side of Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Pir Noorul Qadri, Interior Minister Ijaz Shah and the Deputy Commissioner Islamabad. The TLP claims on the basis of this document that the government has accepted all four of its demands. These include the government asking parliament for a decision within three months to expel the French ambassador, not appoint any ambassador to France, a boycott of all French goods and the release of all the arrested TLP workers. No case will be filed against the TLP leaders and workers even after (and whenever) it calls off its sit-in (which it has yet to do). Meanwhile Faizabad remains occupied by the protesters’ sit-in, along with the occupation/blockage of roads connecting to or emanating from Faizabad. As to the agreement, there is still no official confirmation of its contents or what the TLP claims has been guaranteed to it post-sit-in. The only response from the authorities so far is an interior ministry notification regarding the immediate release of all TLP workers arrested all over Punjab in the last few days. TLP has so far not concurred with the government’s version that the protest has been called off after prolonged negotiations. TLP says its final decision will only be after a meeting with its leadership. TLP supremo Khadim Hussain Rizvi is expected to make any announcement regarding the end of the protest from on top of the stage. Needless to say, the sooner this transpires, the better for the citizens of the twin cities whose lives, commutes and business have been badly disrupted since the protest began on November 15, 2020.

It is disconcerting the amount of street power religious extremists have accumulated in Pakistan over the years. Certainly enough to hold the state hostage when this street muscle is deployed, as happened in the Lal Masjid episode, the TLP’s 2017 protest (dispersed with the help of public distribution of cash to the protesters to persuade them to go home), and now this one. One can sympathise with the PM’s probable concern that in the charged emotional climate of protest against the Prophet’s (PBUH) insult, softly, softly may well be the better option than an all-out operation that potentially could have led to bloodshed. Of course we also have the pig-headed stubbornness of French President Macron in persisting with the insult in the name of free speech, when all sensible people would abide by the old dictum: your freedom ends where my nose begins. To add injury to insult, Macron also insists on ‘moulding’ all immigrants and non-white people in his country into some pre-conceived notion of what it means to be French. This attitude is likely not only to prove more divisive than ever, it smacks of a desire for uniformity irrespective of the diversity of French society today. Surely this ‘imposition’ runs counter to the idea of a tolerant, democratic society. Then Macron has a view of Islam that conflates the attitudes of an extremist Muslim minority to that of Muslims entire, when the overwhelming majority of Muslims, including those who live in France, are moderate, sensible and law abiding citizens. The other side of the coin of course is our minority religious extremists such as the TLP holding state and society hostage to their blinkered vision. While this tail has enough mischief capacity to wag the dog, better sense needs to prevail both in the west, especially France, as well as in the Muslim world and community to approach the sensitive issue of the Prophet’s (PBUH) respect sensitively and with due moderation on all sides.

The November 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents: 

1. From the Editor: PDM and the Left.

2. Professor Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: International Relations: Revisiting the Conventional 'Realism' Paradigm – II.

3. Book Review: Dr Nichola Khan: Dr Steve Lyon: Political Kinship in Pakistan (Lexington Books, 2019).

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review

Director, Research and Publication Centre  

Business Recorder Editorial November 20, 2020

Public rallies ban

 

As could be expected, the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) has rejected the government’s desire to ban all public rallies because of the Covid-19 second wave threat. This response, as well as the PDM’s rejection of any talks with the government, including on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s floating the idea of electoral reforms requiring a constitutional amendment in a televised address on November 17, 2020, reflects the state of extreme polarisation in the country. If the opposition had complaints against the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government over the last two years, including allegations of the PTI having been brought to power through rigging the 2018 general elections, the recent Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly elections, seen as a rerun of the 2018 general elections by the PDM and analysts, have further soured the political atmosphere. Inevitably, this has led to a hardening of positions. The PDM’s Karachi rally did not seem to be followed by any significant reports of a Covid-19 increase, but it has been argued that its Gujranwala and Quetta rallies did. This different outcome may, in some observers’ opinion, be the result of the Karachi rally having an overwhelming participation of people brought in from other areas of Sindh and the country as a whole. However, given the complexity and unpredictability of the pandemic, nothing can be said with absolute certainty in this regard. However, there may well be a case for considering the risks attendant on the PDM’s upcoming rallies in Peshawar on November 22, 2020, Multan November 30, 2020, and Lahore December 13, 2020. It goes without saying that given our political traditions and culture, attempting to impose SOPs on such rallies to guard against the spread of Covid-19 is a virtual impossibility. The PDM’s rejection of the ban on rallies per se shows the trust gulf that exists between the two sides of the political divide. Given this situation, it came as no surprise to hear Punjab Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) president Rana Sanaullah, Ahsan Iqbal and other opposition leaders dismiss the ban as the government’s panicked response to the actual or hoped for momentum the PDM rallies may be accumulating incrementally.

While blame for the existing polarised political situation may be shared by both sides, greater responsibility for triggering it and also for defusing it lies on the government's shoulders. This is because the government has to govern, the opposition only has to oppose. In a parliamentary democratic system, a one-sided or aggressive approach by the government side cannot help the parliamentary system work. Proof of this can be seen in the present dysfunctional state of parliament. It is the government’s greater need to practice outreach towards the opposition, both outside and inside parliament, but with the latter of greater importance, to allow parliament to achieve some modicum of functionality. Here the role of Speaker comes into play as the guardian of the house and impartial conductor of its proceedings. We may have historically adopted the outward appearance of British parliamentary democracy, but have failed to inculcate its culture. The Speaker is held to the highest standards of fair and impartial running of the house, ensuring due respect and space to the opposition as well as the treasury. Unfortunately, we have adopted quite the opposite practice of the Speaker unabashedly displaying partiality towards the treasury benches inside the house, and (horror of horrors!) pronouncing on political issues outside it. Our current tragedy is that even a national health emergency such as a resurgent Covid-19 second wave is not addressed according to objective scientific and medical findings, being subjected instead to our daily dose of polarised politics instead. The PDM should consider the health risks to its own supporters as well as the country as a whole from continuing their rallies as planned. The government, on the other hand, is expected to show greater maturity in reaching out to, and respectfully dealing with, the opposition if our (admittedly flawed) parliamentary democracy is to have any chance of going forward.

Business Recorder Editorial November 18, 2020

Flawed approach to Balochistan conundrum?

 

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan’s visit to Turbat, Balochistan on November 13, 2020 had a familiar ring to it. Dilating on the need for equal development of all federating units for a strong federation, he announced another development package, concentrated this time on southern Balochistan. Familiar, because previous governments too have made soothing noises about dealing with Balochistan’s neglect and its poverty and deprivation as a result. For example, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government 2008-13, when Asif Ali Zardari was President, announced with great fanfare the Aghaaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistanpackage. For all intents and purposes, that package sank without a trace when the PPP left office. Similarly, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government 2013-18, held out the benefits of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the development of Gwadar port for the lives of the people of Balochistan, but the latter are still waiting for those ephemeral benefits to bring about any meaningful change in their lives. Farther back in time, the grievances of Balochistan stretch back 73 years to the emergence of Pakistan on the map of the world. During this long period, Balochistan has been dealt with harshly at one end through repression, and subjected to neglect at the other, a combination guaranteed to deepen the anger and alienation of its people. Now PM Imran Khan has traversed a similar path by promising ‘milk and honey’ to the impoverished people of Balochistan through a raft of development measures in infrastructure, education, health, housing, small industry, irrigation, employment, etc. The icing on the cake, according to the PM, is CPEC and Gwadar. It should be noted that the entire package is focused on the nine districts of southern Balochistan. These are almost exclusively Baloch areas. It is also argued that this region is relatively free of sardari(tribal chiefs) control. An emerging middle class in the region informs the package’s thrust to offer internet and modern IT technology to kick-start a hoped for transition into a modern economy. While none of the measures announced can be objected to, there are troubling unanswered questions.

Concentration on southern Balochistan begs the question what is the ‘sin’ of the rest of the Baloch areas of the province for which they are ignored in this package? After all they suffer from the same poverty and deprivation as the south. If tribal chieftainship is considered an obstacle in the rest of the Baloch areas, is it not a fact that they are no longer as isolated as may have been the case in the past? Strictly speaking, what is the ‘sin’ of the non-Baloch areas? The only logical explanation seems to be the security concerns regarding CPEC, emanating from the long running nationalist insurgency. But if that is a consideration, is it not a reality in the rest of the Baloch areas too? Development of the whole of the Baloch areas riven by the insurgency makes sense if their common long-standing grievances and various types of neglect are taken on board. But the elephant in the room is how to deal with the insurgency. Simply labelling it a tool of neighbouring hostile countries closes the door on any possibility of resolution of the conflict. Whether those countries are actually involved or not remains a matter of conjecture if not propaganda in the face of lack of clinching evidence. But even if for the sake of argument this is accepted as a fact, putting out the fire in one’s own house could deprive anyone of attempting to fish in troubled waters. Development could, if sincerely implemented, reduce the alienation of the people, especially the youth who are the main recruiting ground for the insurgents. It could also produce a climate in which the insurgents would have to reconsider their rejection of all but armed struggle. But for that to happen, not only must the latest announced package be implemented and be seen to be producing results, it must also be extended to all the Baloch areas and the rest of the province. The situation underscores the need for opening the door a crack to a negotiated political solution for what is in essence a political problem to be distinguished from terrorism.

Business Recorder Column November 17, 2020

G-B: rerun of 2018 general elections

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The interim, unofficial results of the Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) election show a disconcerting, familiar pattern. At the time of writing these lines, these results show the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) leading with 10 of the 22 seats being contested out of the 23 seats in the G-B Legislative Assembly. In second place are Independents with seven seats, followed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) with three, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) with two and the Majlis Wahdat-ul-Muslimeen (MWM) with one seat. The Independents and MWM are expected to join hands with the PTI to form the government.

Both the PPP and PML-N have rejected these results, alleging rigging. Disturbing reports, for example of a clash of PTI-PPP workers in Skardu, point towards the polarisation in the country generally and in G-B in particular increasing. This clash, according to the PPP, ensued when the PTI workers attacked the PPP’s office. Earlier, during the election process, the PPP had accused the returning officers in some constituencies of not announcing the results despite the vote counting having been completed. Further, the PPP alleged PTI workers took away the ballot boxes in Ghizer after 11 pm on Sunday night.

Federal ministers on twitter castigated the opposition parties for making rigging allegations even before the polling day on November 15, 2020. Federal Information Minister Shibli Faraz went even further, claiming the opposition’s narrative had been buried in G-B. On the other hand, just before the voting closed, PPP Vice President Sherry Rehman said at a press conference in Gilgit that a number of election observers of the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) had been removed from the polling stations before the counting process started. Further, some voters discovered when they arrived to cast their ballots that their votes had already been cast by postal ballot. No prizes for guessing which side benefited from this mail-in legerdemain. Information Secretary of the PPP’s G-B chapter Sadia Danish, who was herself a candidate in this election, alleged that the polling agents of the PPP’s candidate in Gilgit-1 (GBLA-1) had been made hostage at a polling station in Skarkai. Further, she accused the presiding officer of illegally stamping some ballots. Ms Danish said Form-45 had been received at 62 polling stations in constituency GBLA-1 after 8:00 pm. Whether this was due to the inefficiency of the G-B election commission or something else can only be left to the imagination.

This third election in G-B had assumed unprecedented significance because of the tense political situation in the country as a whole when the opposition’s 11-party Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) is in the middle of an anti-government campaign of protest rallies. In this context, any controversy regarding the G-B elections is bound to feed into an escalating conflict between the two sides of the political divide. Even before the polls opened, allegations of horse-trading and pressurisation of the previous ruling party in G-B, the PPP’s local, seasoned leaders to switch sides to the PTI were doing the rounds.

PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has openly accused the PTI and its backers of stealing the G-B election. He has warned the PPP should not be pushed into reacting in extreme manner. Maryam Nawaz too has tried to put balm on the opposition supporters’ wounds by saying they should not be discouraged by the results of this allegedly rigged election. This puts paid to the theories circulating about establishment-engineered splits in the PDM. 

It would be useful to recall that the 2018 elections, about which the opposition had alleged interference and intervention by the military and security forces to bring about a result they desired, had left the PTI just short of a simple majority. The deficit was made up by the usual cast of opportunist parties and politicians always waiting in the wings to answer the establishment’s call. This time in G-B too, it seems the same formula will be applied, with the simple majority deficit of the PTI being made up by the so-called Independents and turncoats who have abandoned their mother parties at the behest of the establishment.

If the 2108 general elections and the just concluded G-B elections are the new rules of the political game set by the establishment, it is debatable whether this can produce an acceptable and stable dispensation anywhere in the country. Nor can the prospects of a genuine democracy emerging at some time be considered bright. If this analysis proves correct, the possibility of an explosion cannot be ruled out. The rules of political contention must be above board, fair, without prejudice or manipulation by the powerful establishment. Anything short of that is a political disaster in the making.

However, for a genuine democratic system to be created, all political forces have to learn the cost of collaboration with the establishment, both to their own credibility as well as something describable as a credible democracy. Only principled opposition to an establishment-created, false political dispensation can take the country forward.

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 14, 2020

Establishment trying to wean PPP away?

 

The court of inquiry ordered by COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa after a telephone conversation with Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari following the so-called ‘Karachi incident’ has found the officers of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Rangers responsible and ordered their removal. The inquiry stated that despite being experienced officers, they acted ‘overzealously’ in forcing the Inspector General (IG) Police Sindh to file an FIR against Captain (retd) Safdar in the wake of the incident at the Quaid’s Mazar that was seen as disrespectful to the country’s founder. Soon after, Captain (retd) Safdar was arrested at his hotel room where he was staying with his wife, Maryam Nawaz. ISPR stated the removed officers face further departmental proceedings after they had been placed at the disposal of GHQ. In the aftermath of these events, senior police officers in Sindh had gone on leave en masse for the humiliation of their chief. This prompted General Bajwa’s call to Bilawal, who has responded positively to the development, saying the inquiry and action were appropriate and would have the effect of strengthening institutions (instead of the clash embedded in the ‘overzealous’ steps taken). Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, has rejected the inquiry report, dubbing it a cover-up by making junior officers scapegoats and allowing the real culprits to go scot-free. Interestingly, the police investigation into the FIR registered against Captain (retd) Safdar by one Waqas has been found to be false. Waqas was found not at the Mazar at the time, no threats being hurled could be proved, and he failed to join the investigation. Suspicion fell on the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) when reports revealed Waqas’ connections with the party. In all this, the original complaint of inappropriate behaviour at the Quaid’s Mazar has got lost in the melee. 

The incident and its fallout points to some interesting thoughts and developments. The ‘overzealous’ actions of the officers involved beggar the imagination as being solely their own doing without clearance and instructions from higher up. To that extent, Nawaz Sharif’s criticism may not be without weight. However, it is also an emerging fact that the establishment may now be reconsidering its policy of putting all its eggs in one basket. The ‘outreach’ to the PPP may be a reflection of seeking wider options in case the need arises. The PPP on the other hand has a different take on the situation from the rest of the opposition given its stake in the existing dispensation in the form of the Sindh government. No such consideration limits Nawaz Sharif’s actions as he has little to lose and thinks there is much to be gained by playing aggressively on the front foot. He has not, reportedly, ruled out the option of a meaningful dialogue with the establishment, if Shahid Khaqan Abbasi is to be believed, which points to more possible, even if unlikely for the moment, options for the establishment to keep in its back drawer. Although the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) as a whole has welcomed the inquiry decision, Maulana Fazlur Rehman remains the obdurate fly in the ointment of any dialogue with the establishment given that he has even less to lose than Nawaz Sharif currently. The establishment’s response to the embarrassment caused by its ‘overzealous’ officers seems to have been to defuse and divert the opposition’s anger against it onto the government so that it avoids blame. Whether it has succeeded in this damage control exercise only time will tell, but widespread public opinion seems sceptical of the whole exercise. A dialogue may well be in the interests of a more rational and acceptable way out of the impasse in politics at present, in which Imran Khan and his government may prove the major hurdle, given his proclivity to refuse even ordinary interaction with the opposition. The establishment may simply be hedging its bets in case the present trajectory of the PTI government continues until a point is reached, triggered by the PDM campaign of rallies or some other cause, where a recasting of the game plan becomes an unavoidable necessity. The establishment, military and security agencies could make life easier for themselves and the country by staying away from civilian affairs outside their remit.

Business Recorder Editorial November 13, 2020

Trump’s tricks

 

Outgoing US President Donald Trump refuses to concede defeat despite his rival Joe Biden having clinched enough states to give him a very comfortable majority of the electoral college votes even before the remaining votes are finally counted. Instead, he has embarked on a stubborn strategy of challenging the almost universal conclusion that he has lost. Amongst the actions the seemingly petulant Trump plans are public rallies to support the legal challenges he intends to launch on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that the election was not fair and he has not lost it (at least yet). While going against the traditions of democracy and the US’s culture of losing gracefully, Trump is living up to his reputation of being a mean, petty and revengeful person. It seems he intends to use the time remaining till his final departure on January 20, 2021 to wreak vengeance at home and abroad. Domestically, the first victim of Trump’s belated wrath is Defence Secretary Mark Esper, the fourth defence secretary in Trump’s four year tenure. This action smacks of Trump settling scores within his own administration. Trump and Esper fell out publicly over the former’s desire to use the military against protests launched throughout the country against the police killing of black man George Floyd in Minneapolis and Esper’s stalling on Trump’s desire for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Trump named Christopher Miller, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, as acting secretary of defence, although it is highly unlikely the Senate will confirm him or any other nomination by Trump in his twilight days. Informed US observers have termed Trump’s action ‘childish, reckless’, considering the implications of rendering the defence secretary’s post a lame duck in the middle of global security challenges. Trump has also departed from the tradition of easing the transition of power to the new president. For all intents and purposes, the transition is on hold. Voices of dissent at this churlish behaviour are beginning to be heard from within Trump’s inner circle, including his wife Melania (who reportedly has a keen interest in Trump leaving office soon so that she can divorce him) and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Many amongst this circle believe Trump’s slipshod legal challenges will peter out without evidence. None, however, believe he will refuse to leave office in January 2021, which could trigger a constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, Trump’s obstructionism in the face of the truth that he has lost and his vengeful parting kicks to former colleagues cannot but leave a bitter taste in their wake.

Internationally, there are reports Trump intends to sabotage Biden’s commitment to re-engagement with Iran and a return to the 2015 nuclear deal by imposing fresh and even more stringent sanctions on Tehran. Biden will have his task cut out for him to reverse Trump’s extremist actions that have damaged the US’s international credibility. Russia and China have adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude on congratulating Biden on his victory, citing the continuing Trump challenges, legal, political and administrative. Both at home and abroad, Trump seems bent upon setting a new and unprecedented example of a president erecting hurdles for his successor. No wonder the American people and states, friendly and unfriendly, seem to be heaving a deep collective sigh of relief at the departure of Trump. Unfortunately, the news does not seem to have arrived for Trump, or perhaps he thinks playing a ‘spoiler’s’ role at the end will give him the place in history that his four year incumbency certainly will not, except perhaps as a negative footnote.

Business Recorder Column November 10, 2020

The people have spoken

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The nail-biting finish to the incredibly close US presidential election is finally here. Democrat Joe Biden has won, Republican controversial President Donald Trump has lost. The margin of victory so far in the popular vote shows just how close this race has been: Biden 74.6 million to Trump’s 70.4 million votes. However, given the peculiarities and complexities of the US election system, this translates so far into 279-214 electoral college votes for Biden, a clear margin of victory from the 270 required. Once all the votes have been counted and legal challenges met, Biden is widely expected to garner 306 electoral college votes, ironically the same number as Trump in 2016. Accompanying Biden on the stage in his home town in Delaware was running mate Kamala Harris, who becomes the first woman, and that too of colour, to ascend to the Vice Presidency.

While the US media has declared victory for Biden, Trump in his usual arrogant style refuses to concede gracefully as is the tradition, instead going on endlessly about the election being rigged, stolen, not yet over, in the face of the overwhelming facts to the contrary. His legal challenges are being questioned even by some Republicans by now since he has failed to produce even a shred of evidence to justify his outlandish claims.

No one could possibly envy Biden for the tasks and challenges he has inherited in a deeply divided and conflicted US. Biden spoke to this when he vowed to unify the US, turn the page on the era of demonisation Trump unleashed, and reached out in traditional style to Republican supporters not as enemies but fellow Americans. The challenges confronting Biden are headed by a formidable list: Covid, the economy, racial inequality and oppression and climate change. On each of these, Biden will first have to overcome the Trump legacy of domestic mismanagement and divisiveness and international isolationism. Trump’s handling of the pandemic has shot the US into the unenviable position of being one of, if not the deadliest, countries to suffer a tragic loss of life, widespread infection, and its concomitant impact on the economy. Recovery of the latter will dictate reversing the ultra-nationalism embedded in the ‘America first!’ slogan in a globally interconnected economic landscape. That includes toning down the harsh rhetoric against China, the second largest economy in the world after the US. Biden has committed to returning to the Paris accord on climate change that Trump departed.

While the domestic challenges to Biden in a deeply polarised US cannot be underestimated, the world has watched this election with bated breath to see what the result will bring to various parts of the globe and the individual countries within them. Foreign policy, as always, will be the focus of extraordinary interest by US allies and ‘enemies’. First and foremost, given Biden’s commitment to a more rational policy towards Iran rather than the aggressive moves the Trump administration stood out for, the implications for the Saudi-led anti-Iran regional Arab front promise change. Biden in his election campaign had declared he would reassess US ties with Saudi Arabia, centring on the butchery of journalist Jamal Kashoggi in the Saudi Istanbul consulate, ending US support for the Saudi-led Yemen war, and the detention of Saudi women activists. Iran welcomed the chance afforded by Biden’s victory to compensate for past mistakes, without offering a friendly tone.

Biden’s foreign policy, given his long experience in the field as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Vice President under Obama, will be characterised by fundamental departures from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable style. This means a return to a more traditional approach that seeks to repair the damage to old alliances such as the trans-Atlantic one and the replacement of Trump’s nationalist isolationism with multilateralism in an effort to restore the US’s badly damaged global leadership role. Reaffirmation of ties with European allies, re-engagement with international institutions and recommitment to NATO are expected.

Biden’s win has set off speculation about the US role in the longest running conflict in the Middle East – the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Since the Palestinians are currently being abandoned by more and more Arab countries in the region, Biden’s victory is being posited as potentially troublesome for Israel and helpful to the beleaguered Palestinians. But this should not fool us into thinking that Washington’s pro-Israel fundamental stance will alter. All it means is that Biden is more likely to engage with the Palestinians estranged from the US and return his country to the previous broker’s role again. The most extreme of Trump’s concessions to Israel such as the West Bank settlements and annexation of the Golan Heights may be revisited, but the Israelis have little to fear and the Palestinians little to cheer in the change in the White House.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has appealed to the incoming president to continue support to his government, both military and economic, and calibrate the withdrawal of US troops with progress in the peace negotiations. His nemesis, the Taliban, have declared they expect Biden to adhere to the accord arrived at with his predecessor. It is too early to say what if any change can be expected in this regard.

Pakistan, as usual, pitches high hopes from every new occupant of the White House. However, while Biden may continue to work with Islamabad in the Afghan theatre, the unrealistic hopes of some that the Kashmir conflict will see a more sympathetic treatment seem exaggerated. The US’s commitment to forge an anti-China alliance with India is unlikely to allow too much change in Washington’s policy towards the Kashmir issue. Sadly, that means the suffering Kashmiri people continue to be virtually alone in their struggle for self-determination and against oppression.

Of course all this is preliminary and only when Biden enters office on January 20, 2021 will these foreign policies assume clearer shape. The likelihood is a return to more traditional diplomacy in a sharp turn from Trump’s dramatic unilateral nationalism.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 10, 2020

 Tareen’s return

 

Jahangir Tareen’s return to the country from London after an absence of five months has tickled the speculative nerve of our commentariat. Although Tareen told media on his return that he had been in London for medical treatment, the circumstances surrounding his departure suggest other reasons. Tareen left Pakistan for London soon after the sugar inquiry commission report was made public in June 2020 that revealed the names of different players in the sugar sector, including Jahangir Tareen and Khusro Bakhtiar, who were accused of benefiting from the crisis that ensued because of a shortage brought on, amongst other factors, by the government’s mistake in allowing the export of sugar, a transaction that also helped these sugar barons to benefit from a subsidy on the export price. At the time, the government, and particularly Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, came in for a bit of stick from the opposition for allowing a close confidant of the PM to escape. On his return, Tareen denied he had received any ‘NRO’ to allow him to return, claimed he had nothing to hide, his business was clean and transparent and that he had no worries in this regard. However, he kept mum when asked whether he would be joining the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA’s) inquiry for which he had been summoned for investigation before his departure. Initially Jahangir Tareen rejected the summons, later he asked for time to respond, and then stated he would appear before the FIA after his return. The FIA had asked for details of Tareen’s assets in Pakistan and abroad, his bank transactions, especially transfer of money abroad (amidst speculations about his declared/undeclared properties in the UK), bank accounts of his family members and employees and sugar-related transactions of his firm JDW. Interestingly, Tareen attempted to put a positive spin on his return by claiming he would continue to help the government in its endeavours to control the sugar shortage and the resultant price hike. He also tweeted that his firm was not part of the petition against the Punjab government notification to start the sugar crushing season from November 10, 2020, and all his mills in Punjab and Sindh would start crushing on that date. The positive note in this message may or may not put to rest the questions unanswered about his and other major sugar barons’ role in the crisis, which has yet to abate. For consumers forced to play exorbitant rates for the everyday sweetener, this may well be salt on their wounds.

The sugar inquiry scandal points to troubling anomalies in the so-called accountability process. As it is, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has muddied the water to the extent that the anti-corruption drive so beloved of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government has lost a fair bit of credibility as being tilted against, if not a witch-hunt of, the opposition, while treating the PTI leaders caught in the NAB net with kid gloves. Imran Khan himself has recently been acquitted in the parliament attack case because of the prosecution (appointed by the PTI government) stating it did not wish to pursue the case. The foreign funding case of the PTI before the Election Commission of Pakistan does not appear to be going anywhere. Add to this the public perception of Jahangir Tareen being let off the sugar scandal hook, and the suspicion of partisan treatment of those in government (or close to it) and those in the opposition approaches firm conviction. In Jahangir Tareen’s case, when the sugar inquiry report was made public on the instructions of PM Imran Khan, the latter stated before even any investigation that Tareen would be cleared of all the charges against him. Now Tareen’s return has set off speculations regarding some ‘assurance’ received by him that he would not be touched. The underlying reason for the timing of the ‘facilitation’ of Tareen’s return with unknown assurances may be the rifts in the ruling coalition with the smaller partners complaining of neglect and not being taken along by the majority PTI. It may be recalled that a the time of the setting up of the PTI coalition government in 2018, Tareen is credited with herding about 20 MNAs into the PTI corral. Tareen may also be expected to help fund and organise the PTI’s counter-campaign of rallies against the opposition’s onslaught.

Business Recorder Editorial on November 4, 2020, not published

Unprecedentedly divisive US election

 

Voting in the US presidential election has ended, but the final result is still some way off. This is because of the huge number of mail-in votes, early voting, and the different rules in place in various states when to conduct the vote count and issue certified final results. However, risky as predictions are at the time of writing these lines, it seems inescapable that Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump by a margin of between 11 and 50 electoral college votes, with the most optimistic results still leaving Biden short by anything from six to 46 electoral college votes from the winning number 270. Results in some hotly contested swing states are still awaited though, therefore final pronouncement has to wait. This has not stopped Donald Trump, as he had threatened to do before and on election day, from claiming, in various messages, that he had won or that the election was being stolen from him through alleged ‘rigging’. With no credible evidence of any electoral fraud however, Mr Trump’s fulminations sound like the desperate bleatings of a sore loser, thereby living up to his pre-electoral image. Biden on the other hand has sounded mature and statesmanlike in stating that nobody, including Trump, could replace the American people in deciding who won or lost. While advocating patience to allow the complicated and in some instances diverse state-by-state tallying of all votes, in person or mail-in, Mr Biden’s campaign has geared up its legal team to meet Trump’s threat to take the issue of the conduct of the elections to the Supreme Court for adjudication, where the Republican judges’ majority, Trump hopes, will find for his cause. It should be understood, however, that the US Supreme Court cannot be approached directly since it has only appellate jurisdiction. Therefore if the electoral battle lands up in the courts, it will be a relatively lengthy process of county and state courts’ adjudication of any disputes, with appeal ultimately lying to the Supreme Court. Despite the pre-election day polls and now the interim results, the American people may have to wait to discover finally who their president for the next four years is to be.

Fortunately, widespread fears of violence on election day proved unfounded. Peaceful protests and celebratory rallies did punctuate the proceedings soon after results started rolling in, one could say prematurely, but there were few untoward incidents and only a smattering of arrests of participants. An unprecedentedly divided US with a nervous electorate saw a record breaking turnout of some 160 million people. This could be ascribed to the electorate’s perception of this as a make-or-break election as well as to the Democrats urging people to vote, based on the perception that their full electoral strength was not represented in 2016. The Democrats’ simple but effective message was: Donald Trump can only be stopped and removed if their voter showed up on the crucial day. And show up they certainly did. Apart from the swing states still in contention awaiting the final vote tally, there have been few upendings of states’ traditional political leanings towards one or the other of the two contending parties. That still leaves some margin of hope for the Trump camp that when the tally is completed, they may achieve a surprise upset of the trend so far. But, looking at the interim figures for both candidates, this seems increasingly a forlorn hope. This election has been watched with feverish intensity all over the world, an indicator of the power the US still commands in global affairs. In South Asia too, the election has received round-the-clock coverage and commentary. Pakistan shares some anxiety about who the next incumbent of the White House will be, since our vital national interests, domestically, regionally and globally, still rest so much on the relationship with Washington.

Business Recorder Editorial November 8, 2020

Uniformity fetish

 

On November 2, 2020, Prime Minister Imran Khan chaired a meeting on the government’s effort to introduce a uniform education system. He said such a system would end the class-based system as all children would get equal opportunities to excel. While on the face of it this seems like a laudable goal, there are a number of questions left unanswered. First and foremost, despite the federal and provincial governments being seemingly together in this endeavour, the gap between the private schools and state schools and madrassas appears huge. This relates not only to the fee structure, which likely leaves out the poor and even a majority of the lower middle and middle classes from accessing the better standard education private schools offer and in fact consolidates inequality, it is not clear whether all the provinces are fully on board. Since education is a provincial subject (apart from the federal capital), the provinces would have to pass legislation to give legal cover to the changes envisaged. The state education sector has been the victim of neglect for many many years, both in funding and the quality of teachers, and therefore instruction, available there. The madrassas have still to fully prove that they can make a departure from the narrow religious instruction they traditionally impart to move their charges into the 21^stcentury. While some madrassas have embraced general education in recent years, this is certainly not universally the case. The religious clerics who man the platform of madrassa organisations have resisted reform for as long as memory serves. The government intends to introduce the uniform curriculum for primary education in April 2021, middle (grades 6-8) by 2022 and high (grades 9-12) by 2023. The curriculum itself has not been made available publicly to allow experts in the field to examine it critically. One of the issues bedevilling education has been religious instruction, which has failed to make allowance for children of religious minorities. Now the scheme intends such students to be taught separately about their respective religions. Last but by no means least or even an exhaustive inventory of problems, teacher training and quality remains a big hole in the state sector and madrassas, and even the much vaunted private sector may need help in this regard. This is especially critical since Federal Education Minister Shafqat Mehmood briefed the meeting on the values to be imparted to children under the new educational dispensation. These include character building, self-defence, awareness about environmental issues, honesty, truthfulness, tolerance, mutual harmony and democracy. Quite a tall ask from the level of quality available in our current pool of teachers.

What is inexplicable about this whole exercise is the need to reinvent the wheel while worldwide experience can be drawn upon. This experience has by now demonstrated in practice that education till at least the primary level should be imparted using the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. The difference in cognitive advance as a result is undeniable. Children at that stage have little problem learning more than one language. Urdu, the national language and lingua franca, and English can be taught at primary level as subjects so that as children proceed up the education ladder, they do not face difficulty in gaining higher education and becoming citizens of a connected world. Pakistan’s diversity suggests that uniformity should not be made a fetish. The content of the curriculum could, after thorough debate and discussion by all stakeholders, be agreed through consensus. But depriving children of the use of their mother tongue at least until primary level disadvantages them in terms of cognitive advance. It also has the undesirable effect of distancing and alienating children from their linguistic and cultural legacy, not to mention the identity that flows from these. Our failure to recognise the multi-national character of Pakistan has led to tragedy in East Pakistan (amongst other factors) and caused a sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces of today’s Pakistan. Even the majority province of Punjab needs help to recover its virtually lost Punjabi identity. The fear is that the government’s real, unstated desire is to pour all children into an ideological straitjacket that force multiplies the current culture of unquestioning rote learning. A linguistically and culturally diverse education system not only draws on the advantages of initial instruction in the mother tongue, it could in freedom impel a voluntary national identity despite ethnic differences, thereby achieving the cherished goal of national integration in a democratic, not top-down forced manner.

Business Recorder Column November 3, 2020

Portents of trouble ahead

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The war of words and hostile rhetoric between the government and the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) continues unabated. If anything, the daily diet of such rhetoric is stoking the fires of a possible confrontation between the two sides with consequences that may go beyond the contenders’ aspirations. Shaikh Rashid, that irrepressible mouthpiece of the establishment, has hinted as much the other day, but it is not known whether this statement is his own initiative or dictated by the powers that be.

The descent of the political discourse into the gutter was initiated by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI), even when it was in the opposition. Since being ‘installed’ in power two years ago, their language towards the current opposition has if anything become harsher and even more abusive. Unfortunately, although milder, the opposition’s counter-statements too seem to be incrementally imitating the PTI’s example. Arguably, when Imran Khan downwards, government ministers and spokesmen are being downright rude and abusive, a calm and reasoned tone would help the PDM’s cause more than going down the PTI’s ignominious path in this respect.

The reason for the hotting up of political contention between the PTI government and the PDM is not difficult to discern. The latter’s recent rallies in Gujranwala, Karachi and Quetta assumed momentum. The PTI’s rhetoric after these mobilisations appeared tired, repetitive and less than credible. The PDM’s case against what they dub as an inept, incompetent, ‘selected’ government is gaining weight. However, what the PDM has not so far done, and given its disparate character may well be unable to do, is to translate the support from the suffering masses into an active force on their behalf by carving out a programme that addresses their economic woes. So far, the PDM keeps recounting the people’s sufferings and laying the blame (naturally) at the Imran Khan government’s doorstep, without offering anything resembling a roadmap to relieve this affliction.

The PDM’s case, as is well known by now, consists of the accusation that the PTI government was imposed on the country by means of a rigged election in 2018. Nawaz Sharif, in his incendiary speeches to the Gujranwala and Quetta rallies (he missed the Karachi one) has focused his critique on COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa and the ISI chief, Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed, as the architects of this alleged electoral hanky panky. Nawaz and subsequently the PDM leaders have been attempting since then to defend this charge in the face of the government’s verbal assault on Nawaz and the PDM that by attacking state institutions, they are speaking the country’s enemy’s language and following his agenda. The government’s resort to the ‘patriot’ and ‘traitor’ card is as old as the country itself, and somewhat timeworn. The PDM is taking pains to distinguish its critique of these two individuals of the top military brass from the institution of the armed forces per se.

Nawaz Sharif having thus put the cat among the pigeons, it became a foregone conclusion that as a result, the role of the military in politics (which enjoys a long and not very illustrious pedigree in our history) would once again assume centre-stage despite the establishment’s efforts to be kept out of the current fray. The issue has by now become so fraught that the daily dose of rebuke and abuse between the government and the PDM cannot continue like this indefinitely. The pressure has reached a point where something’s got to give.

Interestingly, as a report has highlighted recently, the government’s allies have assumed a pregnant silence in this fracas. Ordinarily, these allies would be expected to rise in defence of the major component of the ruling alliance, i.e. the PTI. But the occasional mealy-mouthed criticism of the PDM aside, not much has been forthcoming from this source. The reasons are unknown, but one speculation is that these ‘seasonal birds’ are waiting to see which way the wind blows before they exercise their well known alacrity for switching sides to the winners.

The Jamaat-i-Islaami (JI) has finally decided to come out with its protest campaign against the government. This is going to be a solo flight because the JI has serious reservations about, and conflicts dating back to the Afghan Mujahideen struggle with Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F). What a turnaround from the days when Imran Khan’s early mentors in politics included the JI and late ISI chief Hamid Gul. Such are the vagaries of time and politics.

The PTI government is under severe criticism for its disastrous handling of the economy whose problems have been exacerbated by the corona pandemic. The excuse that Imran Khan and his government have been trotting out ad nauseam that they inherited an economy in crisis from the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government no longer washes with public opinion two years down the road. Instead, the PTI government’s handling of the sugar, wheat, food crises, its inability to fully embrace CPEC’s advantages (and overcome its disadvantages), its lack of plan for the revival and flourishing of industry, commerce and agriculture, i.e. the real economy, and its focus on controversial, showpiece real estate projects such as the Sindh and Balochistan islands and the Ravi Riverfront project in Lahore reflect the lack of vision of this government. Imran Khan may have hoped to rope in his foreign funding friends who helped finance his philanthropic projects (and, the accusation standing before the Election Commission states, the PTI itself), but he may by now have discovered the chimera that hope was.

In Pakistan, it seems the more things change, the more they remain the same. In a familiar pattern, Imran Khan, with his unending abuse of and threats (and actions) against the opposition, has once again, like Ayub, Bhutto, Zia and Musharraf in the past, united the opposition against his government. Questioning the patriotism of opponents and dubbing them traitors is nothing but reflective of the bankruptcy of the PTI government’s narrative. Judging by the past again, if the government follows through on its anti-PDM rallies in some meaningful way, the chances of street clashes cannot be ruled out. Then the Shaikh Rashids and other Cassandras may well be proved right about the political class’s inability to handle things democratically to prevent an extra-constitutional intervention as has happened in the past. At present, before things get out of hand, the establishment should rethink its failed experiment a la Imran Khan, and agree to fresh, genuinely free and fair elections if it wants to prevent the whole house crashing down around our ears.

Unfortunately, the forum where political differences and conflict should be resolved in a civilised, democratic manner, i.e. parliament, is dysfunctional under the abusive exchanges and partisan political role of the Speakers, who are expected on assuming office to shed party loyalty and become impartial custodians of the House. On the contrary, the Speakers not only openly favour the treasury benches in the House, they even indulge in political statements in its favour outside it! Woe betide such a parliamentary dispensation posing as a democratic one.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 3, 2020

Peculiarities of US electoral system

 

November 3, 2020 promises one of the most fractious presidential elections in the history of the US, the country having been polarised as seldom before by President Donald Trump’s antics. However, it is important to understand that on the question of the most critical election for the world as a whole given the US’s contemporary overwhelming power, Donald Trump represents less cause of the system’s discontents and more a symptom of its peculiarities and defects. Historically, the US federation that came into existence after its War of Independence comprised 13 states. Incrementally, more and more states came into being and joined to make up the current 50. An independent US was founded on the basis of white European immigration and black imported slavery. The divide between the Northern and Southern states rested primarily on the latter’s plantation economy being based on slave labour, while the industrialising North relied on a proletariat. Post-Civil War in the 19^thcentury, this divide was to have profound consequences. Immigration having declined, the North’s industry was hard pressed to find adequate labour. The freed slaves in the South then tended to migrate northwards and became an important part of the North’s proletariat. However, the abolition of slavery and the relative freedom granted to former slaves to relocate did not fully overcome racism, discrimination and violence by the state institutions (particularly police) and white supremacist groups to this day. The recent ruction about police brutality against black people and its antithetical Black Lives Matter movement have highlighted once again how the US is still grappling with its continuing slavery history.

But there is an even bigger anomaly at the heart of the presidential electoral system in what is touted as the world’s oldest and one of the largest democracies. Contrary to an ordinary understanding of democracy, the US system negates the one-man, one-vote principle and is capable of subverting majority rule because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College system. This system evolved in an attempt to correct the cumbersome procedures enshrined in the Constitution framed by the Founding Fathers. After founder George Washington’s uncontested election as the first president, a US polity that did not have political parties witnessed their emergence and rise. Whereas originally the parties selected their presidential candidate/s in primaries and caucuses, by now the primaries are dominant in the process while party national conventions have been reduced to little more than a rubber-stamp. The electoral college is composed of electors chosen by each state, their number being equal to the particular state’s representation in Congress, the lower House of Representatives and the upper Senate. Currently, the Electoral College numbers 538 overall, requiring 270 to win. However, the winner-takes-all system that accords the entire electoral college votes of a state to the candidate who wins a majority of its electoral college has led five times in the US’s history to a candidate losing despite winning a majority of the popular vote. In recent times, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton suffered this ignominious fate. Attempts over time to correct this anomaly have not succeeded, partly because consensus on the change could not be reached, partly because many people are more comfortable with this flawed system than the uncertainties of change. Another unintended consequence is that states considered ‘safe’ for one or the other of the two main parties, the Democrats and Republicans, seldom see much electioneering as a reflection of the perception that the result is a foregone conclusion. This leads to almost 75 percent of the country missing any electioneering. Though the system owes its origins and development to the manner in which the US was formed and expanded, its defenders quote the structure of the federalism adopted by the country, in which the states still enjoy more jealously guarded powers than any other modern democratic federal state. In recent times, television, and now the internet and social media have altered considerably the political landscape and enhanced the role of money in elections to an unprecedented level. Trump may be one of the most contentious presidents the US has had, but he represents a symptomatic anomaly compounded by the peculiarities of the electoral system described above. The rest, as they say, is up to the electors of November 3, 2020.