The issue of new provinces
The National Assembly (NA) was subjected to such uproar the other day that the session had to be temporarily suspended to allow heated tempers to cool. The issue that agitated the legislators from two parties, the MQM and the ANP, was regarding the former’s attempt to have a resolution for the creation of a Hazara province in the Hindko-speaking areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa discussed in the house. Although the discussion was eventually postponed, the amount of heat it generated added little to the understanding of a complicated but critical issue. The Prime Minister (PM) too whaled into the fray by advocating the creation of a Saraiki province in southern Punjab. Gilani said the creation of new provinces was the need of the hour and if a Saraiki province was not created during the tenure of a Saraiki-speaking prime minister, when would it happen, if ever? The PM therefore charged federal minister Khursheed Shah with the task of discussing the issue of new provinces with the government’s allies to forge a consensus before moving a resolution in the NA.
It is interesting to note that the desire for new provinces is rooted in the belated devolution under the 18th Amendment. The exercise has sparked off, on the one hand, demands for a Saraiki and Hazara province, and on the other, opposition from the parties ruling in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In the latter case in particular, the ANP’s umbrage at the suggestion from the MQM is at odds with its earlier stated position that if the people of Hazara clearly expressed a wish for a new province, the ANP could contemplate it. In other words, from a stance that spoke of a democratic solution to the issue, the ANP has veered towards a ‘defence’ of the not so long ago renamed entity now called Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The PML-N is known to be averse to the idea of carving out a Saraiki (or Bahawalpur province) in southern Punjab, because it would truncate its ‘fiefdom’. Similar sentiments seem to underlie the ANP’s latest position on the Hazara province.
The whole exchange generated more heat and noise than light. The issue of creating new provinces is too important to be reduced to a ‘political football’ or mere tit-for-tat point scoring. Pakistan’s history is witness to the fact that for long years, the country was an overcentralised state, a structure inherited from colonial days and continued after independence at the behest of powerful vested interests that were not prepared to concede democracy, let alone a democratic federal structure. East Pakistan’s fate may well have been different if this suicidal blinkered vision had not dominated for so long.
The other question is what should be the criteria for determining whether new provinces should be created or not? Conservative views insist this should only be done for administrative convenience. The party that clearly adheres to this view, the PML-N, is on the other hand reluctant to follow through on the logic of devolution under the 18th Amendment to restore (in better, improved form than the gerrymandered Musharraf local bodies) local governments to provide precisely the administrative convenience to citizens so otherwise beloved of the PML-N. The other view, rooted in a historical understanding of identities, argues for new provinces, or even perhaps a redrawing of the existing provincial boundaries on linguistic/ethnic bases. Although this notion is correct in principle, in the concrete situation of Pakistan, it is bedevilled by many complications. If accepted, the principle could possibly give rise to demands for separate provinces not only for southern Punjab and Hazara, but also a Pakhtun province to be carved out of northern Balochistan, an Urdu-speaking province in Sindh, claims on the ethnically Baloch areas of south western Punjab, and perhaps more that do not readily come to mind. How then to arrive at a universal principle that could satisfy cravings for new or redrawn provinces and yet be acceptable to all through a consensus? Whether on administrative or linguistic/ethnic lines, first and foremost, the will of the people of a particular province as a whole, and then the area under consideration for a new province has to be determined transparently and democratically. Referenda could be one method of ascertaining the opinion of the province and the area in question, as is the case in many democratic countries. In Pakistan’s specific instance, irrespective of such exercises of ascertaining the popular will, the constitution’s Article 239 (4) lays down that no bill to amend the constitution that would have the effect of altering the limits of a province can be presented to the president for assent unless it has been passed by the provincial assembly of that province by a two-thirds majority. It then also requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament in order to pass muster. The conceptual and ground complications of creating or redrawing provinces are forbidding enough. The legislative route could be even more tricky and difficult. That is why, perhaps, desire notwithstanding, it is not as easy as it may seem.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Daily Times editorial Jan 2, 2012
Memo affair
The nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) hearing the memogate case has unanimously ruled the other day that the petitions are maintainable and has set up a three-member judicial commission to investigate the affair and report back in a month. The commission will be headed by the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Balochistan High Court Qazi Faez Isa and include the CJs of the Islamabad and Sindh High Courts. The SC bench has also reiterated its order of December 1 directing former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani not to leave the country without the court’s permission. It may be recalled that the counsel for Mr Haqqani, Asma Jahangir, had argued before the SC that the petitions were not maintainable on grounds of the issue being a political one, and had cited case law from foreign and Pakistani jurisprudence in support of her arguments, apart from questioning the appropriateness of the issue being agitated at a judicial forum when parliament was already seized of the matter. She had also questioned the order of December 1 against her client, stressing that he had been ‘condemned’ unheard and this was a violation of Mr Haqqani’s fundamental rights. That order has been questioned also on the grounds of being tantamount to giving relief to the petitioner/s that they had not even asked for. No wonder then that the latest ruling visibly upset Asma Jahangir, who criticized the ruling as being ‘establishment-minded’, having put the civilian government under the military’s command and prioritized national security above fundamental rights. She was of the view that the order was not in accordance with the rule of law. She characterized the occasion as a dark day for the judiciary, questioning whether the judiciary restored through the lawyers’ movement was a judiciary of the people or the establishment. Reluctantly accepting the ruling, as is expected of a senior lawyer, she nevertheless reserved the right to file a review petition against the ruling once the detailed order was available. She also cautioned the petitioners, particularly the PML-N, that the court’s order would come back to haunt them in future.
As validation of Ms Jahangir’s contention, the parliamentary committee on national security has decided to summon Husain Haqqani, DG ISI General Pasha and the main character in the whole brouhaha, Mansoor Ijaz, to appear before it. We are in therefore for an embarrassing scenario where two of the highest forums of the state, parliament and the judiciary, would be dealing with the same matter at the same time. On this count, many senior jurists, including Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, have added their voices to the criticism of the SC in admitting the petitions for hearing at such a juncture. A possible, bruising outcome could be that the judiciary and parliament rule contradictorily on the issue, sparking a division and perhaps a clash between the two highest state institutions.
The independence of the judiciary has been proclaimed repeatedly since its restoration. That is of course a desirable outcome, given the sorry history of supine judgements of the superior judiciary in our past, especially where validation of military coups has consistently been in evidence. Although CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has repeatedly said there is no question of repeating that bad track record, the doctrine of necessity on which such past validations were based having been buried, the present case does arouse concerns that the court may be giving more weightage to the views of COAS General Kayani and General Pasha, whose affidavits before the SC seem to be at odds with their nominal ‘bosses’, the federal government. In cases of such political and constitutional import, the SC in its own interests must ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to have been done, without giving critics the slightest opportunity to accuse it of bias, since this would be deleterious for the respect and dignity of the judiciary.
The nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) hearing the memogate case has unanimously ruled the other day that the petitions are maintainable and has set up a three-member judicial commission to investigate the affair and report back in a month. The commission will be headed by the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Balochistan High Court Qazi Faez Isa and include the CJs of the Islamabad and Sindh High Courts. The SC bench has also reiterated its order of December 1 directing former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani not to leave the country without the court’s permission. It may be recalled that the counsel for Mr Haqqani, Asma Jahangir, had argued before the SC that the petitions were not maintainable on grounds of the issue being a political one, and had cited case law from foreign and Pakistani jurisprudence in support of her arguments, apart from questioning the appropriateness of the issue being agitated at a judicial forum when parliament was already seized of the matter. She had also questioned the order of December 1 against her client, stressing that he had been ‘condemned’ unheard and this was a violation of Mr Haqqani’s fundamental rights. That order has been questioned also on the grounds of being tantamount to giving relief to the petitioner/s that they had not even asked for. No wonder then that the latest ruling visibly upset Asma Jahangir, who criticized the ruling as being ‘establishment-minded’, having put the civilian government under the military’s command and prioritized national security above fundamental rights. She was of the view that the order was not in accordance with the rule of law. She characterized the occasion as a dark day for the judiciary, questioning whether the judiciary restored through the lawyers’ movement was a judiciary of the people or the establishment. Reluctantly accepting the ruling, as is expected of a senior lawyer, she nevertheless reserved the right to file a review petition against the ruling once the detailed order was available. She also cautioned the petitioners, particularly the PML-N, that the court’s order would come back to haunt them in future.
As validation of Ms Jahangir’s contention, the parliamentary committee on national security has decided to summon Husain Haqqani, DG ISI General Pasha and the main character in the whole brouhaha, Mansoor Ijaz, to appear before it. We are in therefore for an embarrassing scenario where two of the highest forums of the state, parliament and the judiciary, would be dealing with the same matter at the same time. On this count, many senior jurists, including Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, have added their voices to the criticism of the SC in admitting the petitions for hearing at such a juncture. A possible, bruising outcome could be that the judiciary and parliament rule contradictorily on the issue, sparking a division and perhaps a clash between the two highest state institutions.
The independence of the judiciary has been proclaimed repeatedly since its restoration. That is of course a desirable outcome, given the sorry history of supine judgements of the superior judiciary in our past, especially where validation of military coups has consistently been in evidence. Although CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has repeatedly said there is no question of repeating that bad track record, the doctrine of necessity on which such past validations were based having been buried, the present case does arouse concerns that the court may be giving more weightage to the views of COAS General Kayani and General Pasha, whose affidavits before the SC seem to be at odds with their nominal ‘bosses’, the federal government. In cases of such political and constitutional import, the SC in its own interests must ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to have been done, without giving critics the slightest opportunity to accuse it of bias, since this would be deleterious for the respect and dignity of the judiciary.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Daily Times editorial Dec 31, 2011
Hashmi’s swan song
Makhdoom Javed Hashmi delivered his farewell speech to the National Assembly the other day, having resigned his seat (along with his daughter) after leaving the PML-N and joining the PTI. A parliamentary veteran of almost three decades (he began in the partyless 1985 Majlis-e-Shoora of General Ziaul Haq and served the dictator as a minister), Hashmi was given his head by the speaker to say what was in his heart. Hashmi’s speech was of course first and foremost a litany of complaints against the leadership of his erstwhile party, the PML-N. It may be recalled that after the Sharifs opted to accept the offer of going into exile in Saudi Arabia and the PML-N virtually collapsed into a rump party, with the majority of its leaders and members trooping lemming-like into Musharraf’s King’s party, the newly formed PML-Q, it was Hashmi who held the remains of the PML-N together. His defiance of Musharraf landed him in jail on a spurious charge of defaming the military, but he never compromised on his opposition to military rule. Since 2007, when the Sharifs finally returned to the country, he had been sidelined by Nawaz Sharif and company. His departure was therefore the recognisable writing on the wall for some time, the rise of the PTI merely providing the opportunity. But Hashmi did not confine himself to criticism of the PML-N. He delivered a wake-up call to the lawmakers to change their attitude and conduct, which had miserably disappointed the entire nation. He argued that the ruling PPP should concentrate on saving the country rather than the democratic system, although he conceded the right of the incumbents to serve out their full term. However, he advised the prime minister to seek a fresh mandate at the earliest as the present drift had led to the country dying economically and the people deeply disappointed with the demonstrated tendency of the elected members to fill their own pockets instead of serving the electorate. He pleaded for a new Pakistan, for which the sine qua non was the evolution of a new system. An early election, he held, had the potential to bring forth a trustworthy leadership.
Javed Hashmi was echoing what a lot of people have been saying of late. The words ‘change’ and even ‘revolution’ have been ringing out in the political space, particularly since the momentum associated with the rise of the PTI. Unfortunately, though, such is the deterioration in the level of our political discourse (media pundits included) that no one has any clear idea what ‘change’, let alone ‘revolution’ means or entails. First and foremost, it would be instructive to remember that Pakistan’s political energies throughout the 64 years of its existence have been consumed in the struggle for democracy. The resistance to military rule and authoritarian civilian dispensations defines the political history of the country and colours its politics like nothing else. Since 2008, an elected government is in power, but this by now no longer seems enough. The performance of the government on the political, economic and social fronts leaves much to be desired, to put it mildly. Parliament’s performance has been no better, perhaps even worse, bright spots on the legislative horizon such as the 18th Amendment notwithstanding. Taking Hashmi’s nostrums as a starting point, the functionality or otherwise of our assemblies could do with some revisiting. Democracy does not end with free and fair elections. They are only the starting point of the democratic process, whose test lies even more than the polls on the performance of the elected representatives in the assemblies. If these assemblies merely reinforce the notion of ‘parliamentary cretinism’ without answering the expectations and aspirations of their electorate, disillusionment cannot but be the logical outcome. The limited experience of democracy we have points to some ugly features of our political structure and culture. Elected members’ constituency supporters (let alone opponents) constantly complain of the indifference of the members to the problems and plight of the people who voted them in. These members are only available when the next polls roll round. In between, the people are abandoned to their own devices. Even within the paradigm of a parliamentary democracy, there are steps that can be taken to improve the situation and accelerate the march towards a functional, participatory and dynamic democracy. For example, a change of the rules should allow a majority of voters in a particular constituency to recall their elected representative if he or she fails to respond to their needs. The first-past-the-post system could be modified partly to allow party list-based elections on the basis of the overall percentage of votes garnered by a party (an indirect application of this principle is already in use for reserved seats for women, minorities, etc). This would bring people into the assemblies who cannot otherwise challenge the monopoly in the electoral field of landowning clout or money. The disappointment with the hard-earned democracy we have threatens to turn opinion in the direction (once again) of authoritarian or even praetorian dispensations, which have more than been proved disasters for the country. Reform must be undertaken before we reach that point of no return.
Makhdoom Javed Hashmi delivered his farewell speech to the National Assembly the other day, having resigned his seat (along with his daughter) after leaving the PML-N and joining the PTI. A parliamentary veteran of almost three decades (he began in the partyless 1985 Majlis-e-Shoora of General Ziaul Haq and served the dictator as a minister), Hashmi was given his head by the speaker to say what was in his heart. Hashmi’s speech was of course first and foremost a litany of complaints against the leadership of his erstwhile party, the PML-N. It may be recalled that after the Sharifs opted to accept the offer of going into exile in Saudi Arabia and the PML-N virtually collapsed into a rump party, with the majority of its leaders and members trooping lemming-like into Musharraf’s King’s party, the newly formed PML-Q, it was Hashmi who held the remains of the PML-N together. His defiance of Musharraf landed him in jail on a spurious charge of defaming the military, but he never compromised on his opposition to military rule. Since 2007, when the Sharifs finally returned to the country, he had been sidelined by Nawaz Sharif and company. His departure was therefore the recognisable writing on the wall for some time, the rise of the PTI merely providing the opportunity. But Hashmi did not confine himself to criticism of the PML-N. He delivered a wake-up call to the lawmakers to change their attitude and conduct, which had miserably disappointed the entire nation. He argued that the ruling PPP should concentrate on saving the country rather than the democratic system, although he conceded the right of the incumbents to serve out their full term. However, he advised the prime minister to seek a fresh mandate at the earliest as the present drift had led to the country dying economically and the people deeply disappointed with the demonstrated tendency of the elected members to fill their own pockets instead of serving the electorate. He pleaded for a new Pakistan, for which the sine qua non was the evolution of a new system. An early election, he held, had the potential to bring forth a trustworthy leadership.
Javed Hashmi was echoing what a lot of people have been saying of late. The words ‘change’ and even ‘revolution’ have been ringing out in the political space, particularly since the momentum associated with the rise of the PTI. Unfortunately, though, such is the deterioration in the level of our political discourse (media pundits included) that no one has any clear idea what ‘change’, let alone ‘revolution’ means or entails. First and foremost, it would be instructive to remember that Pakistan’s political energies throughout the 64 years of its existence have been consumed in the struggle for democracy. The resistance to military rule and authoritarian civilian dispensations defines the political history of the country and colours its politics like nothing else. Since 2008, an elected government is in power, but this by now no longer seems enough. The performance of the government on the political, economic and social fronts leaves much to be desired, to put it mildly. Parliament’s performance has been no better, perhaps even worse, bright spots on the legislative horizon such as the 18th Amendment notwithstanding. Taking Hashmi’s nostrums as a starting point, the functionality or otherwise of our assemblies could do with some revisiting. Democracy does not end with free and fair elections. They are only the starting point of the democratic process, whose test lies even more than the polls on the performance of the elected representatives in the assemblies. If these assemblies merely reinforce the notion of ‘parliamentary cretinism’ without answering the expectations and aspirations of their electorate, disillusionment cannot but be the logical outcome. The limited experience of democracy we have points to some ugly features of our political structure and culture. Elected members’ constituency supporters (let alone opponents) constantly complain of the indifference of the members to the problems and plight of the people who voted them in. These members are only available when the next polls roll round. In between, the people are abandoned to their own devices. Even within the paradigm of a parliamentary democracy, there are steps that can be taken to improve the situation and accelerate the march towards a functional, participatory and dynamic democracy. For example, a change of the rules should allow a majority of voters in a particular constituency to recall their elected representative if he or she fails to respond to their needs. The first-past-the-post system could be modified partly to allow party list-based elections on the basis of the overall percentage of votes garnered by a party (an indirect application of this principle is already in use for reserved seats for women, minorities, etc). This would bring people into the assemblies who cannot otherwise challenge the monopoly in the electoral field of landowning clout or money. The disappointment with the hard-earned democracy we have threatens to turn opinion in the direction (once again) of authoritarian or even praetorian dispensations, which have more than been proved disasters for the country. Reform must be undertaken before we reach that point of no return.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Daily Times editorial Dec 29, 2011
Zardari’s address
Benazir Bhutto’s fourth death anniversary was commemorated by a mammoth, emotionally charged rally in Garhi Khuda Buksh, with the imposing Bhutto family mausoleum as a backdrop. President Asif Zardari’s address on the occasion had been eagerly anticipated, with some observers convinced it would be explosive. As it turned out, however, the hype may have been exaggerated. That is not to say the speech did not have incendiary remarks and references littered through it, but it was basically a reiteration of the ruling PPP’s concerns and claims. Poignantly, it reminded many throughout the land of the late leader’s loss and the seeming inability of the government to bring justice and closure to the issue. Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani separately stated that the murderers were by now known since the investigation into the murder was complete. Further than this he could not be drawn. Intriguingly, the president during his speech at the rally hinted that the names of the perpetrators (by which it can be presumed he meant not those ostensibly charged and in prison, but others) had not been revealed on the request of someone unnamed, and would be revealed at the proper time. Four years on, during which the PPP has been in power almost throughout, that ‘proper’ time is still not visible on the horizon. PML-N and its chief Nawaz Sharif also delivered themselves of their thoughts on the occasion, the former by circulating a questionnaire of 15 intriguing questions related to the affair, the latter by vowing to punish the murders of BB whenever his party came to power.
Moving on to the content of the president’s speech, he made the following points. Zardari vowed to foil conspiracies against democracy, defend the constitution, and, as a son of the soil, not allow any damage to the federation. All this would be pursued through democratic struggle a la Aung San Suu Kyi. He warned against “tailor-made” democracies being promoted, presumably, by the usual cast of suspects. He was dismissive of those jumping fences as those having no significant achievements to their credit.
The president questioned the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan regarding the slow pace in BB’s case. Ironically, on the same day, the CJ asked the same question of the government. All this is of questionable merit, since it does not help advance the cause of getting to the bottom of BB’s assassination one wit. The president implied that the Supreme Court was taking up cases out of turn that put the government in the dock, while ignoring its concerns re the BB and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto cases. This is a reflection of the present state of ‘estrangement’ between the executive and the judiciary, a dangerous divide that needs to be bridged rationally at the earliest.
The president took pains to praise and support his (seemingly) embattled PM, reiterating once again that all ‘forces’ were under parliament, the PM represents the federation and the people and all powers have been delegated and rest with the PM and parliament. Democracy, the president argued, needed time to flourish. Meantime he claimed he had given the Pashtuns and the Baloch their rights, advising the latter to struggle along the lines of his party within the ambit of the federation (advice that is subverted by the repressive policy of the military). He also supported the idea of a separate province in southern Punjab as the right of the people of the region to demand their due from Takht Lahore (the seat of power).
On foreign policy, the president expressed the new, assertive tone adopted by the government since the Salala incident. He asserted Pakistan would no longer be part of any international war game, trade with who it pleased (an oblique reference to Iran, particularly the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline) and expand the ambit of trade to China, Russia and Central Asia.
For those who consider the president and the government embattled in the light of the ‘stand-off’ with the judiciary and strains in relations with the military, Asif Zardari’s speech was defiant, hard hitting without being offensive, and an attempt to rally the troops of the PPP for the challenges ahead. Interestingly, the prominence and importance given to hitherto estranged PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan at the rally has set off a new round of speculations regarding a critical role for the redoubtable Chaudhry in days to come. A space to watch, this…
Benazir Bhutto’s fourth death anniversary was commemorated by a mammoth, emotionally charged rally in Garhi Khuda Buksh, with the imposing Bhutto family mausoleum as a backdrop. President Asif Zardari’s address on the occasion had been eagerly anticipated, with some observers convinced it would be explosive. As it turned out, however, the hype may have been exaggerated. That is not to say the speech did not have incendiary remarks and references littered through it, but it was basically a reiteration of the ruling PPP’s concerns and claims. Poignantly, it reminded many throughout the land of the late leader’s loss and the seeming inability of the government to bring justice and closure to the issue. Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani separately stated that the murderers were by now known since the investigation into the murder was complete. Further than this he could not be drawn. Intriguingly, the president during his speech at the rally hinted that the names of the perpetrators (by which it can be presumed he meant not those ostensibly charged and in prison, but others) had not been revealed on the request of someone unnamed, and would be revealed at the proper time. Four years on, during which the PPP has been in power almost throughout, that ‘proper’ time is still not visible on the horizon. PML-N and its chief Nawaz Sharif also delivered themselves of their thoughts on the occasion, the former by circulating a questionnaire of 15 intriguing questions related to the affair, the latter by vowing to punish the murders of BB whenever his party came to power.
Moving on to the content of the president’s speech, he made the following points. Zardari vowed to foil conspiracies against democracy, defend the constitution, and, as a son of the soil, not allow any damage to the federation. All this would be pursued through democratic struggle a la Aung San Suu Kyi. He warned against “tailor-made” democracies being promoted, presumably, by the usual cast of suspects. He was dismissive of those jumping fences as those having no significant achievements to their credit.
The president questioned the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan regarding the slow pace in BB’s case. Ironically, on the same day, the CJ asked the same question of the government. All this is of questionable merit, since it does not help advance the cause of getting to the bottom of BB’s assassination one wit. The president implied that the Supreme Court was taking up cases out of turn that put the government in the dock, while ignoring its concerns re the BB and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto cases. This is a reflection of the present state of ‘estrangement’ between the executive and the judiciary, a dangerous divide that needs to be bridged rationally at the earliest.
The president took pains to praise and support his (seemingly) embattled PM, reiterating once again that all ‘forces’ were under parliament, the PM represents the federation and the people and all powers have been delegated and rest with the PM and parliament. Democracy, the president argued, needed time to flourish. Meantime he claimed he had given the Pashtuns and the Baloch their rights, advising the latter to struggle along the lines of his party within the ambit of the federation (advice that is subverted by the repressive policy of the military). He also supported the idea of a separate province in southern Punjab as the right of the people of the region to demand their due from Takht Lahore (the seat of power).
On foreign policy, the president expressed the new, assertive tone adopted by the government since the Salala incident. He asserted Pakistan would no longer be part of any international war game, trade with who it pleased (an oblique reference to Iran, particularly the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline) and expand the ambit of trade to China, Russia and Central Asia.
For those who consider the president and the government embattled in the light of the ‘stand-off’ with the judiciary and strains in relations with the military, Asif Zardari’s speech was defiant, hard hitting without being offensive, and an attempt to rally the troops of the PPP for the challenges ahead. Interestingly, the prominence and importance given to hitherto estranged PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan at the rally has set off a new round of speculations regarding a critical role for the redoubtable Chaudhry in days to come. A space to watch, this…
Friday, December 23, 2011
Daily Times editorial Dec 24, 2011
On the cusp of a defining moment?
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s unusually blunt remarks the other day about moves to oust his government implied that the usual cast of suspects were once again up to their tricks. This candour sent alarm bells ringing throughout the country. The received wisdom was that the prime minister, known for his soft demeanour and reconciliatory manner, had come out swinging against the military establishment and this inevitably meant that the latter would retaliate in customary style. While some were convinced of the possibility of a coup, others regarded that as too risky in the present concatenation of circumstances and thought the intervention (by now considered inevitable) would be indirect. For all the alarmist prognoses therefore, it must have come as a bit of a dampener to learn that the COAS, General Kayani, had categorically refuted all such speculations, stating that the military had no intentions of staging any intervention, direct or indirect, and that it respected democracy and the mandate of the people. Sceptics and cynics may still not be convinced, and they can hardly be blamed, given the dark history of the country where military domination of national life has become a seemingly irreversible fact since the late 1950s.
However, this may not be a 1958, 1969, 1977 or 1999 moment. A tectonic shift below the surface of things, albeit still embryonic and halting, appears to be emerging. Whereas there is no dearth of critics and opponents of the present incumbents, starting with President Asif Ali Zardari and encompassing the PPP-led coalition government, there are few takers for the idea of another military intervention to remove the incumbents. Some are apprehensive whether our hard-won democracy, warts and all, would survive such a development. In this regard, the case of the PML-N appears the most interesting. Having been the victim of a military coup that overthrew its elected government in 1999, its leader, Nawaz Sharif, even when he blows alternatively hot and cold against the government, has been exceedingly careful to distance himself from any notion that he or his party support any intervention by the military, a la the 1990s. Even his hawkish Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar, rose to the occasion on the floor of the house to state that his party would oppose any praetorian move. The parties allied to the PPP and part of the coalition also have closed ranks with the PPP in defence of a continuance of the democratic system. Those outside the present parliamentary setup, for example Imran Khan and Jamaat-i-Islami (both boycotted the 2008 elections), are finding it difficult to make the case for the removal of the incumbent dispensation they love to hate without making the obligatory genuflection towards democratic principles. What does this seeming ‘consensus’ portend?
Without trying to read too much into this (admittedly weak and subject to sudden opportunist shifts) ‘consensus’ of the political class on the need for the continuance of democracy and opposition to all manner of praetorian gambits, one is tempted to venture that we may be on the cusp of a defining historic moment, one in which the legacy of military domination can no longer as confidently call upon the services of one section of the political class to topple a sitting democratically elected government. In the civil-military relationship, badly skewed in favour of Rawalpindi in our history, is there a shift in perception and thinking? Only time will tell. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that only if the political class unites against military domination can the latter be rolled back. The key to our civil-military conundrum lies in two critical areas. One, the political class, whatever its internal rivalries and differences (normal in any polity), must unite against praetorian adventurism and Bonapartism. Two, political party governments must learn to govern in a manner and with a set of policies that bring relief and inspiration to the people. With the democratic consensus on top amongst the political class for democracy strengthened and reinforced by a similar consensus at the base amongst the people that only democracy offers any hope of the redress of their problems and future prosperity and progress, the ground will have been laid for changing Pakistan into a country conforming to the principles of any modern, democratic state and society: the supremacy of the will of the people, reflected in their chosen representatives, subject always to recall if they do not perform.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s unusually blunt remarks the other day about moves to oust his government implied that the usual cast of suspects were once again up to their tricks. This candour sent alarm bells ringing throughout the country. The received wisdom was that the prime minister, known for his soft demeanour and reconciliatory manner, had come out swinging against the military establishment and this inevitably meant that the latter would retaliate in customary style. While some were convinced of the possibility of a coup, others regarded that as too risky in the present concatenation of circumstances and thought the intervention (by now considered inevitable) would be indirect. For all the alarmist prognoses therefore, it must have come as a bit of a dampener to learn that the COAS, General Kayani, had categorically refuted all such speculations, stating that the military had no intentions of staging any intervention, direct or indirect, and that it respected democracy and the mandate of the people. Sceptics and cynics may still not be convinced, and they can hardly be blamed, given the dark history of the country where military domination of national life has become a seemingly irreversible fact since the late 1950s.
However, this may not be a 1958, 1969, 1977 or 1999 moment. A tectonic shift below the surface of things, albeit still embryonic and halting, appears to be emerging. Whereas there is no dearth of critics and opponents of the present incumbents, starting with President Asif Ali Zardari and encompassing the PPP-led coalition government, there are few takers for the idea of another military intervention to remove the incumbents. Some are apprehensive whether our hard-won democracy, warts and all, would survive such a development. In this regard, the case of the PML-N appears the most interesting. Having been the victim of a military coup that overthrew its elected government in 1999, its leader, Nawaz Sharif, even when he blows alternatively hot and cold against the government, has been exceedingly careful to distance himself from any notion that he or his party support any intervention by the military, a la the 1990s. Even his hawkish Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar, rose to the occasion on the floor of the house to state that his party would oppose any praetorian move. The parties allied to the PPP and part of the coalition also have closed ranks with the PPP in defence of a continuance of the democratic system. Those outside the present parliamentary setup, for example Imran Khan and Jamaat-i-Islami (both boycotted the 2008 elections), are finding it difficult to make the case for the removal of the incumbent dispensation they love to hate without making the obligatory genuflection towards democratic principles. What does this seeming ‘consensus’ portend?
Without trying to read too much into this (admittedly weak and subject to sudden opportunist shifts) ‘consensus’ of the political class on the need for the continuance of democracy and opposition to all manner of praetorian gambits, one is tempted to venture that we may be on the cusp of a defining historic moment, one in which the legacy of military domination can no longer as confidently call upon the services of one section of the political class to topple a sitting democratically elected government. In the civil-military relationship, badly skewed in favour of Rawalpindi in our history, is there a shift in perception and thinking? Only time will tell. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that only if the political class unites against military domination can the latter be rolled back. The key to our civil-military conundrum lies in two critical areas. One, the political class, whatever its internal rivalries and differences (normal in any polity), must unite against praetorian adventurism and Bonapartism. Two, political party governments must learn to govern in a manner and with a set of policies that bring relief and inspiration to the people. With the democratic consensus on top amongst the political class for democracy strengthened and reinforced by a similar consensus at the base amongst the people that only democracy offers any hope of the redress of their problems and future prosperity and progress, the ground will have been laid for changing Pakistan into a country conforming to the principles of any modern, democratic state and society: the supremacy of the will of the people, reflected in their chosen representatives, subject always to recall if they do not perform.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Daily Times editorial Dec 20, 2011
A sorry looking lot
President Asif Ali Zardari’s return to the country and declared intention to get back into harness at the earliest possible has left his detractors with egg on their face. All manner of rumour, gossip and speculation had been unleashed as soon as the news of the president’s illness became known. Every flight of fancy was considered fair game, from the allegation that the president was no longer able to discharge his duties and should therefore, in accordance with Article 47 of the constitution, be removed from office, to the impending departure of the government. The fact that the presidential spokespeople were consistently conveying that the president had recovered and would soon return cut no ice with those whose visceral hatred of the president and the PPP-led government has blinded them repeatedly to the ground realities and plunged them into folly after folly. No nuance, real or imagined, was overlooked by our hyperactive media in prophesying doom for the incumbent president and government. The wish list of the forces that could, in overheated imagination, be mobilised to unseat the incumbents included the military and the judiciary. Why has this phenomenon of forecasting doom and gloom repeatedly become the leitmotif of large parts of the media and political players?
There are perhaps three sets of actors tilting at these windmills ever since the PPP government came to power almost four years ago. They comprise: 1) Those with an unflagging visceral hatred of the president and the PPP government for ideological, political, and vested interest reasons. 2) Those who may not have begun life in the first category but have become increasingly disappointed and disillusioned with the performance of the government since it assumed power in 2008. 3) Our permanent establishment and their satraps that may still harbour suspicions about the PPP despite the latter’s bending over backwards to keep the former sweet. Taken in order, there seems little hope of rescue for the first category, blinkered as its vision is. The second offers at least the possibility of being persuaded that whatever their view of the present incumbents and their performance in office, efforts to see the back of the incumbents must not stray into territory where along with the bathwater (the government) the baby (democracy) also gets thrown out. To those who pooh-pooh democracy because they feel it has failed to deliver, there is only one counsel: patience. Democracy does not offer guarantees for the solution of problems per se. What it does offer is a participatory political process under the umbrella of the freedoms that are an inherent core of any democratic system worth the name. What use are these freedoms, the detractors ask? Freedom to organise, express opinions and exercise the right to oppose through peaceful and constitutional means offer the possibility of putting forth a new, or amending/changing the existing national political agenda. In other words, the struggle for solutions and rights can be waged openly and without fear. The more democratic a system, the better able are all the diverse forces in society to advocate and ‘fight’ for their special or even general concerns. Since we in Pakistan have little or no experience of genuine democracy and true freedom, and far too much than is good for our health of autocracy and dictatorship, we soon lose patience with the seemingly slow pace or non-existence of desirable change under democracy and reflexively start harking back to strongman rule of one kind or another. Nothing has been learnt by such minds from the history of damage done to state and society by such non-representative dispensations littered through our relatively brief history as an independent country.
Prime Minister Gilani, in a relaxed mood at a private wedding in Lahore on Sunday reiterated what some analysts (and this paper) have been arguing since the (now) pricked balloon of memogate and other fulminations have been trying to portray. The ‘crisis’ is more overheated imagination than ground reality. The institutions of state that these agitated minds have ‘clashing’, seem wiser and maturer than those who have been egging them on to bare their knuckles against each other. The meeting between General Kayani and Prime Minister Gilani cleared the air considerably and saw them arriving on the same page. The honourable Supreme Court Chief Justice (and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif) is clearly committed to opposing any extra-constitutional intervention to upset the applecart of the present democratic dispensation. Those with axes to grind will therefore have to take a deep breath and relax. And those in our ‘free’ media who have been proved wrong and way over the top in recent days should take time out to reflect on the ethics and sense of responsibility of a truly free media that intends to stay that way.
President Asif Ali Zardari’s return to the country and declared intention to get back into harness at the earliest possible has left his detractors with egg on their face. All manner of rumour, gossip and speculation had been unleashed as soon as the news of the president’s illness became known. Every flight of fancy was considered fair game, from the allegation that the president was no longer able to discharge his duties and should therefore, in accordance with Article 47 of the constitution, be removed from office, to the impending departure of the government. The fact that the presidential spokespeople were consistently conveying that the president had recovered and would soon return cut no ice with those whose visceral hatred of the president and the PPP-led government has blinded them repeatedly to the ground realities and plunged them into folly after folly. No nuance, real or imagined, was overlooked by our hyperactive media in prophesying doom for the incumbent president and government. The wish list of the forces that could, in overheated imagination, be mobilised to unseat the incumbents included the military and the judiciary. Why has this phenomenon of forecasting doom and gloom repeatedly become the leitmotif of large parts of the media and political players?
There are perhaps three sets of actors tilting at these windmills ever since the PPP government came to power almost four years ago. They comprise: 1) Those with an unflagging visceral hatred of the president and the PPP government for ideological, political, and vested interest reasons. 2) Those who may not have begun life in the first category but have become increasingly disappointed and disillusioned with the performance of the government since it assumed power in 2008. 3) Our permanent establishment and their satraps that may still harbour suspicions about the PPP despite the latter’s bending over backwards to keep the former sweet. Taken in order, there seems little hope of rescue for the first category, blinkered as its vision is. The second offers at least the possibility of being persuaded that whatever their view of the present incumbents and their performance in office, efforts to see the back of the incumbents must not stray into territory where along with the bathwater (the government) the baby (democracy) also gets thrown out. To those who pooh-pooh democracy because they feel it has failed to deliver, there is only one counsel: patience. Democracy does not offer guarantees for the solution of problems per se. What it does offer is a participatory political process under the umbrella of the freedoms that are an inherent core of any democratic system worth the name. What use are these freedoms, the detractors ask? Freedom to organise, express opinions and exercise the right to oppose through peaceful and constitutional means offer the possibility of putting forth a new, or amending/changing the existing national political agenda. In other words, the struggle for solutions and rights can be waged openly and without fear. The more democratic a system, the better able are all the diverse forces in society to advocate and ‘fight’ for their special or even general concerns. Since we in Pakistan have little or no experience of genuine democracy and true freedom, and far too much than is good for our health of autocracy and dictatorship, we soon lose patience with the seemingly slow pace or non-existence of desirable change under democracy and reflexively start harking back to strongman rule of one kind or another. Nothing has been learnt by such minds from the history of damage done to state and society by such non-representative dispensations littered through our relatively brief history as an independent country.
Prime Minister Gilani, in a relaxed mood at a private wedding in Lahore on Sunday reiterated what some analysts (and this paper) have been arguing since the (now) pricked balloon of memogate and other fulminations have been trying to portray. The ‘crisis’ is more overheated imagination than ground reality. The institutions of state that these agitated minds have ‘clashing’, seem wiser and maturer than those who have been egging them on to bare their knuckles against each other. The meeting between General Kayani and Prime Minister Gilani cleared the air considerably and saw them arriving on the same page. The honourable Supreme Court Chief Justice (and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif) is clearly committed to opposing any extra-constitutional intervention to upset the applecart of the present democratic dispensation. Those with axes to grind will therefore have to take a deep breath and relax. And those in our ‘free’ media who have been proved wrong and way over the top in recent days should take time out to reflect on the ethics and sense of responsibility of a truly free media that intends to stay that way.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Daily Times editorial Dec 15, 2011
Fertilising a troubled relationship
The envoys’ conference, even though its recommendations have not been officially revealed, seems to have spun out a ‘wish list’ of how it would like the relationship with the US to go. It must be conceded that the wish list is a compendium of belated but correct principles that should govern relations between states, as well as the usual practice in official policy formulation to ignore the elephant in the room. When the recommendations reportedly speak of their desire that Pakistan’s external relations should be based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, who would disagree? Unfortunately, these are the very principles that have been conspicuous by their absence in the conduct of our foreign policy since independence. Not only have we continued (periods of estrangement notwithstanding) to serve the US’s and the west’s interests as a client state for most of our history, in our zeal to defeat communism on Afghan soil after the Soviet invasion, we surrendered large parts of our sovereignty in offering our territory to foreign jihadi fighters recruited from across the Muslim world to wage resistance in Afghanistan. Right or wrong, these fateful decisions in the past have had the unintended consequences of threatening the whole world, including Pakistan, with the destructive activities and mindset of the terrorist brigades.
Now, as a result of the Salala incident acting as a trigger, if our foreign office mandarins have woken up to these time honoured principles for the conduct of any self-respecting state, so be it and better late than never. The new ‘red lines’ reportedly under discussion with the US and NATO even as we continue to fulminate in public against the attack on November 26, include no more attacks across the border a la Salala, no more raids a la Abbottabad, and arguably, no more drone attacks without a Pakistani ok (the latter are at a standstill since November 26 and one airbase, Shamsi, has been ‘recovered’). What should have been said in this context is the need to revisit all the secret and not-so-secret agreements Musharraf made with the US without any mandate or a nod in the direction of the citizens of this country. Airbases, overflight and land-based logistics support (which today is charged with causing Rs 40 billion damage to our highway network, is clogging up our ports because of no onward movement, and may end up being taxed if and when reopened), a free run for American spooks and others, all these concessions Musharraf made to his ‘tight buddy’ George Bush Jr. A sovereign, self-respecting country would have acted differently, at the very least negotiating the terms on an equal basis. In return for an acceptance by the US of the new terms of engagement, presumably we would continue to enjoy the critical aid from the US and the west for our ailing economy.
What is not in this discussion so far, and which the prime minister camouflaged in the diplomatic phrase “our legitimate interests”, is the Pakistani military establishment’s support for a proxy war through the Afghan Taliban ensconced on our soil. Arguably, this is the fundamental problem, from which flow almost all the related issues surrounding the Afghanistan-Pakistan imbroglio. And it this unstated reality that informs the Obama administration and the US Congress’ approach to Pakistan. Our civilian government not only does not make this policy, arguably it is by now firmly hitched to the wagon of the military establishment’s strategic depth folly. One immediate result of this ‘consensus’ of all the players in Pakistan’s state and society is the cut-off of $ 700 million owed as compensation for war on terror expenditures. The thought cannot be ignored whether this is the first drop of rain, presaging the deluge? While Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar is at pains to emphasise that Pakistan is not only not responsible for all the ills of Afghanistan (does that imply we are responsible for some of those ills?), it is part of the solution, not part of the problem. This thesis is wearing thin in Washington and other western coalition capitals. Already there are signs that the coalition is seeking to bypass Pakistan in its attempts at a negotiated settlement with the Afghan Taliban. And as though all this were not troubling enough, the US/NATO are now on our case regarding the ammonium nitrate fertiliser used in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that have inflicted so much damage on the US/NATO and Afghan forces, which is said to originate from our two factories. There seems no end to this interminable saga except an all out struggle for influence and power in Afghanistan between regional players and their proxies once the foreign forces withdraw. A sobering prospect indeed.
The envoys’ conference, even though its recommendations have not been officially revealed, seems to have spun out a ‘wish list’ of how it would like the relationship with the US to go. It must be conceded that the wish list is a compendium of belated but correct principles that should govern relations between states, as well as the usual practice in official policy formulation to ignore the elephant in the room. When the recommendations reportedly speak of their desire that Pakistan’s external relations should be based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, who would disagree? Unfortunately, these are the very principles that have been conspicuous by their absence in the conduct of our foreign policy since independence. Not only have we continued (periods of estrangement notwithstanding) to serve the US’s and the west’s interests as a client state for most of our history, in our zeal to defeat communism on Afghan soil after the Soviet invasion, we surrendered large parts of our sovereignty in offering our territory to foreign jihadi fighters recruited from across the Muslim world to wage resistance in Afghanistan. Right or wrong, these fateful decisions in the past have had the unintended consequences of threatening the whole world, including Pakistan, with the destructive activities and mindset of the terrorist brigades.
Now, as a result of the Salala incident acting as a trigger, if our foreign office mandarins have woken up to these time honoured principles for the conduct of any self-respecting state, so be it and better late than never. The new ‘red lines’ reportedly under discussion with the US and NATO even as we continue to fulminate in public against the attack on November 26, include no more attacks across the border a la Salala, no more raids a la Abbottabad, and arguably, no more drone attacks without a Pakistani ok (the latter are at a standstill since November 26 and one airbase, Shamsi, has been ‘recovered’). What should have been said in this context is the need to revisit all the secret and not-so-secret agreements Musharraf made with the US without any mandate or a nod in the direction of the citizens of this country. Airbases, overflight and land-based logistics support (which today is charged with causing Rs 40 billion damage to our highway network, is clogging up our ports because of no onward movement, and may end up being taxed if and when reopened), a free run for American spooks and others, all these concessions Musharraf made to his ‘tight buddy’ George Bush Jr. A sovereign, self-respecting country would have acted differently, at the very least negotiating the terms on an equal basis. In return for an acceptance by the US of the new terms of engagement, presumably we would continue to enjoy the critical aid from the US and the west for our ailing economy.
What is not in this discussion so far, and which the prime minister camouflaged in the diplomatic phrase “our legitimate interests”, is the Pakistani military establishment’s support for a proxy war through the Afghan Taliban ensconced on our soil. Arguably, this is the fundamental problem, from which flow almost all the related issues surrounding the Afghanistan-Pakistan imbroglio. And it this unstated reality that informs the Obama administration and the US Congress’ approach to Pakistan. Our civilian government not only does not make this policy, arguably it is by now firmly hitched to the wagon of the military establishment’s strategic depth folly. One immediate result of this ‘consensus’ of all the players in Pakistan’s state and society is the cut-off of $ 700 million owed as compensation for war on terror expenditures. The thought cannot be ignored whether this is the first drop of rain, presaging the deluge? While Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar is at pains to emphasise that Pakistan is not only not responsible for all the ills of Afghanistan (does that imply we are responsible for some of those ills?), it is part of the solution, not part of the problem. This thesis is wearing thin in Washington and other western coalition capitals. Already there are signs that the coalition is seeking to bypass Pakistan in its attempts at a negotiated settlement with the Afghan Taliban. And as though all this were not troubling enough, the US/NATO are now on our case regarding the ammonium nitrate fertiliser used in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that have inflicted so much damage on the US/NATO and Afghan forces, which is said to originate from our two factories. There seems no end to this interminable saga except an all out struggle for influence and power in Afghanistan between regional players and their proxies once the foreign forces withdraw. A sobering prospect indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)