Ameer Bhutto
Mechanism of change by Ameer Bhutto
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Ameer Bhutto
What we have is not democracy but only its pale reflection thrown up by the NRO. The stability some wish to preserve is the calm of the graveyard imposed by foreign powers to achieve their own objectives. If real democracy is to be resuscitated, a deep-rooted change is unavoidable. But is such a change likely and how will it come? Mr Ayaz Amir in his article (March 5), quoting Faiz Ahmed Faiz, makes the point that nothing much will change. Given the prevalent state of complacency among the people, one can see how he might have arrived at that conclusion. However, it is one thing to say that the prospects of change are dim, but quite another to embrace the status quo as a fait accompli and be reconciled to the view that change is unnecessary. That amounts to a fateful resignation to continue stewing in this vat of stagnation without any prospect, or even desire, for improvement. That is unacceptable.
It is true that the soothsaying pundits, from politicians to journalists to armchair philosophers, have had to continuously revise their schedules for the much-yearned end to the horror show unfolding before our eyes. Their real fault is not that they got the schedule wrong, but that they based their projections on the mistaken assumptions that truth, honour and principles still hold some value in this country and that people would consider it an unalloyed aberration to be ruled by those with tainted pasts, who stand accused of heinous crimes and who, instead of clearing their names, take refuge behind immunity and use their powers to tamper with evidence against them.
Is the working class really dead and the students too confused, as Mr Amir contends in his article, to ignite any meaningful change? If they are not, they are certainly doing a good job of playing possum. Their total apathy and redirection of focus from national interests and common good to narrow selfish goals and objectives, giving those in positions of authority carte blanche to do as they please, is the prime cause of the country’s slide down the slippery slope to ruin. A television channel recently aired video clips of police officers beating people, causing outrage all over the country. But how conveniently everyone ignores the fact that many of these beatings were carried out in public places with throngs of morbid onlookers standing by as idle spectators. Let the police attempt something similar in public in New York or Paris and see what happens.
Shahid Afridi is caught munching on a cricket ball but is greeted back after serving his paltry ban with placards saying “we missed you”. Younis Khan mercilessly drags an over-enthusiastic supporter to the dressing room in the middle of a cricket match and gives him a thrashing, but he remains a national hero. Zardari’s security arrangements obstruct a woman in labour from getting to a hospital in time and she ends up giving birth in a rickshaw. But instead of being incensed, the child’s father says the baby was a blessing because it brought them five lac rupees from the government coffers (what a wonderfully effective anesthetic money is for honour!) and they name the child Asif. With a nation such as this, what do those in power need to fear? Why should they not indulge in record-breaking corruption when the people will swallow anything and do nothing about it?
The opposition too is bound by foreign sponsored deals and have its own interests to attend to. As for the judiciary, it can only go so far. It can convict but cannot be the executioner. Nor should we rush to light the torch of triumph for the much-heralded constitutional amendment package, even if it is passed. The rot permeates from the Aiwan-e-Sadar downwards. The whole system is hostage to one man’s ego. Even sans powers, Zardari will continue to exercise overbearing influence over this government as long as the Peoples Party bows to him in the interest of expediency. Gilani will not suddenly sprout wings and learn to fly with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and Article 58-2(B). What initiative has he shown thus far in matters that were not affected by these draconian laws?
A significantly altered international atmosphere characterised by political correctness notwithstanding, this being Pakistan, military intervention in its varying shades and hues can never be wholly ruled out. Yes, the troops have their hands full in the northern areas, but do not discount the crucial significance of the fact that they claim to be victors in this war, unlike 1971 when they stood defeated. If it took a defeated army no more than a few years to muscle its way back into power, what can impede a victorious army from rolling into the corridors of power in much lesser time? The reluctance on the part of the foreign powers to condone military adventurism can be dealt with. But, firstly, there is no certainty that the army would step into politics in a full-fledged coup. It could just as well affect change yet stay behind the scenes. Secondly, even if it were to take control of the government, the foreign powers, who are more concerned with their own objectives than anything else, can be convinced that their interests are better served by such a change.
Besides, Richard Holbrooke has already announced that economic and energy uplift was now the US priority vis-Ă -vis Pakistan. The United States has a history of using its allies to achieve its objectives and then dumping them. It remains to be seen how much sleep is being lost over our economic and energy crises in Washington DC, but it looks like we are in the process of being dumped again. This is proved by the fact that whereas Holbrook might feel confident that the Taliban have been hit hard enough not to pose an immediate threat to America anymore, he remains unconcerned by the danger the militants still pose for Pakistan for fighting America’s proxy war. America seems to be losing interest in Pakistan, in which case the local political scene will go through a significant overhaul.
Mr Amir says that this government’s survival may be bad for those who are frothing at the mouth for its collapse but is good for democracy and parliament. I will never understand how democracy and parliament, or even Pakistan’s image around the world for that matter, are served by being led by those with tainted reputations who stand accused in criminal cases at home and abroad. If calling for national cleansing and jettisoning bad blood amounts to frothing at the mouth, then the sooner the whole nation starts frothing at the mouth the better.
The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero.
He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.
Defending the indefensible by Ameer Bhutto
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Friday, March 05, 2010
Ameer Bhutto
Conventional wisdom dictates that whereas it might be in the interest of opposition parties to promote conflict and controversy to destabilise incumbent administrations, governments go out of their way to diffuse tensions and conflagration, even in times of great upheaval and turmoil, to present a veneer of calm and stability, if for no other reason then for their own survival. But, under the Zardari administration, where neither convention nor wisdom applies, the situation has been strangely reversed: the PML-N is preaching restraint to preserve the status quo while the government, and particularly Zardari himself, is itching to wage unnecessary foolish battles that are chipping away at the foundations of the system, inching the country towards chaos. If the currency of democracy and rule of law has lost all its value to the extent that the institutions meant to safeguard the system of representative and responsible rule can be undermined with such impunity, then is there no one to explain to Zardari that, regardless of the fate that might befall the nation, he himself is liable to become a victim of his own reckless manoeuvers?
Quite often, it becomes not only unavoidable but essential to pick a fight. But two fundamental principles apply: firstly, be on the right side to serve national interests to win public sympathy and support and, secondly, do not pick fights you cannot reasonably expect to win. And if you lose, have enough honour and integrity to admit your failure and step aside. This government continues to plod along in the quagmire of its own follies that are pushing the country to the very edge of chaos and then periodically retreats with a mere “oops!” without accepting responsibility for the harm done.
If this government must pick a fight, then why did it not pick a fight with Musharraf? Here was a man guilty of not only destroying all traces of honesty in politics, but running roughshod over the constitution for eight long years, causing immeasurable harm. The American journalist Ron Suskind in his book ‘The Way of the World’ claims to be in possession of audio tape recordings of telephone conversations between Musharraf and Benazir, in which Musharraf issued a thinly veiled threat that her security would depend on the extent of her cooperation with him. Yet, he was allowed to walk free because of a deal sponsored by foreign powers that guaranteed his safe passage. Why not fight the murderers of Benazir Bhutto, particularly since Zardari claimed that he knew who they were? Why have they been let off the hook without even an FIR being filed, while the UN inquiry commission’s work is deliberately sabotaged by denying them security clearance? Why not fight the foreign powers to whom the government pays obeisance and routinely sacrifices our national sovereignty to serve their interests? This government’s reported tacit acquiescence to drone attacks that routinely violate our airspace and kill innocent citizens as well as its meek submission to foreign envoys who act increasingly like viceroys has turned Pakistan into an imperial colony. But of course the government will not bite the hand that props it up. Why not fight to improve the economic conditions that are made worse due to difficult requirements imposed by donor agencies? Why not fight and eliminate anti-democratic laws enacted by Musharraf? Instead, all the fights and false bravado are reserved only for innocent citizens and institutions that uphold the rule of law and safeguard democracy.
Nobody harboured any illusions that the current lot would resign to clear itself of the charges that range from corruption to murder after the Supreme Court struck down the NRO. But as long as it continues to stay in power, the implementation of the NRO verdict will be quite literally impossible. How can it be expected to prosecute itself or its leader with any degree of fairness? Not only that, but the law ministry is flirting with a very obvious contempt of court by flatly refusing to reopen the Swiss cases and forbidding NAB from taking any action in this regard. But even if the law ministry condescends to approach the concerned Swiss authorities to reopen the cases, how can it be counted upon to diligently pursue the cases when the prosecutor owes allegiance to the government and functions on its instructions? And now with the former chairman of NAB out of the way, the government can appoint its handpicked man in that post ensuring his total compliance with the government’s own interests.
Instead of initiating constructive programmes of nation building, if any such programmes were ever there on its agenda at all, this government has only plunged headlong into one crisis after another. And it is no baffling mystery when you consider that instead of relying on sound political minds with well thought out agendas, it leans upon the advice of ministers who are under trial for corruption and bribery and a henchman in Punjab who can only be described as the Punjabi reincarnation of Jam Sadiq Ali. Such minders can do no better than lead the government into a dead end. What is astounding is that the government tries to peddle off its humiliating retreats and surrenders as feats of great accomplishment, such as the restoration of the judges against the backdrop of the long march or the recent appointment of judges in accordance with the chief justice’s recommendations just a day prior to the Supreme Court’s hearing on the matter.
People expect the prime minister to play a constructive role beyond repeatedly bailing Zardari out of trouble. He finds himself in the impossible position of having to defend the indefensible and is reduced to repeating promises he knows he does not have the power to fulfill. If he takes the lead to champion what is right and true, the nation will follow him. But he seems either incapable of such grand gestures or unwilling to risk his job. Instead of providing leadership, he throws the ball into parliament’s court on every count. On the issue of the restoration of the judges, he said only parliament could restore them, until forced to do so with one stroke of his pen in the middle of the night. He claims that Musharraf cannot be prosecuted until parliament so desires, a dangerous precedent to set since every criminal would henceforth demand similar action from parliament before he could be held accountable for his crimes. Recently, he said only parliament could authorise the appointment of judges on the recommendation of another judge, until forced to back down once again. Perhaps he was not familiar with Article 177 of the constitution until he gate crashed the chief justice’s dinner. It is becoming difficult to take him seriously anymore and the nation is losing faith in him.
This brings us to the role of the opposition. Democracy cannot function without a forceful, vociferous opposition. At present, there is none in Pakistan. The government is getting a free cakewalk. Did the Democrats in America hold back against Richard Nixon, even though the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation disgraced America? What did the Republicans stand to gain from impeaching Bill Clinton in the Monika Lewinsky case? It was obvious that he was not going to resign and even if he did, the vice president would take his place, not a Republican. But that is what real democratic oppositions do. They push ahead forcefully and let the chips fall where they may. That is what keeps governments in check. Friendly oppositions can only be counterproductive by giving undeserved security to corrupt, incompetent and unworthy governments despite their damaging transgressions.
The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero. He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.
Email: abbhuto@yahoo.com
This is democracy? by Ameer Bhutto
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Ameer Bhutto
Will this freak show ever end? The present situation would be hard to believe if it was not being witnessed firsthand. This is what happens when unfit and unworthy persons are elevated to positions of high authority where they are out of their depth. Zardari’s presidential order to elevate Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and to appoint Justice Saqib Nisar as acting chief justice of the Lahore High Court, against the recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan, amounts to a subversion of the due process of law.
No better could be expected from a military dictator, but people do not expect an elected civilian government to systematically destroy or undermine vital state organs on personal whims. The country is being pushed towards a political and constitutional crisis that is bound to take us down a path that we are all anxious to avoid.
It speaks volumes about the calibre of this government that it just cannot get through the day without shooting itself in the foot, even when it enjoys the unprecedented luxury of having no effective opposition. This fresh hell they have unleashed on themselves and the nation was entirely unnecessary and easily avoidable. Governments in the past have made it routine practice to appoint judges whom they might count upon to be sympathetic to them. It could be argued that the same impetus drove the government into this folly, particularly its desperation to escape the reopening of the Swiss cases.
But when Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif and Justice Saqib Nisar had already both publicly declared that they were wholly at the disposal of the chief justice of Pakistan, then how could this government expect any quarter from either of them? That being the case, it made no sense whatsoever for the government to deliberately antagonise the judiciary further by not adopting the chief justice’s recommendations, when it stood to gain nothing either way.
The government has suddenly remembered the Charter of Democracy which mandates the elevation of senior-most judges to higher posts and higher courts. Firstly, their devotion to the Charter of Democracy would have been far more believable had they done anything at all towards its implementation in the two years that they have been in power, which they have not done because they felt their commitment to do so was just a “political statement” and not an ayat of the Holy Quran, or Hadith. Secondly, if the principle of seniority is so precious to them, then why did this consideration not impede them from elevating Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Anwar Zahir Jamali of the Sindh High Court to the Supreme Court when Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani was, in fact, the senior-most judge in Sindh?
This government has defiantly flown in the face of its constitutional and legal obligations, from its failure to implement the NRO verdict to its refusal to appoint Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court, along with its refusal to appoint judges against vacancies in the Punjab and Sindh High Courts in accordance with the respective chief justices’ recommendations, that verges on subverting the Constitution, and the cumulative effect of which has landed it on the brink of contempt of court, if not worse.
Apart from its historic betrayal in the form of reneging on solemn pledges to restore the suspended judges, until being compelled to do so by the long march, implement the Charter of Democracy and repeal the 17th Amendment, its declaration of war against the judiciary demonstrates that this government is the greatest threat of all to democracy. Is this the face of democracy that the bleeding hearts who advocated tolerance of this government for the sake of preserving the system, want to save? Leading nations is the highest honour for citizens who have proven themselves to be beyond reproach on ethical, intellectual and ideological grounds. This lot has failed on all such counts.
They have even proved to be unfaithful to their assassinated leader, in whose name they rule and survive, not only letting her killers roam free but even creating obstacles in the way of the UN inquiry commission. Not only that, but they have sacrificed national sovereignty to their foreign overlords in the name of expediency to earn foreign support and prolong their own corrosive rule. Do the bleeding hearts still believe this government deserves to be allowed to continue till they reduce the country to a pile of debris?
It is no longer an issue of incompetence or negligence but rather of malicious intent against state institutions and democracy which cannot be tolerated. If the dismissal of this government produces any political or constitutional storms, then these storms must be, and can be, faced. The continuation of this government, on the other hand, is likely to throw up far worse scenarios that might defy resolution, and destroy democracy. It was clear at the time that the long march that restored the judges only partially succeeded in obtaining its objectives. To borrow Shakespeare’s phrase, it scotched the snake but did not kill it. How much longer can lunatics be allowed to run the asylum?
Every man, woman and child throughout Pakistan should be very proud of the stand our judiciary has taken against this unfit dispensation. At a time when civil society, by and large, remains in a stupor of complacency and parliamentarians continue to cater to their own selfish vested interests and have become part of the problem, the judiciary has stepped forward to enforce the writ of the Constitution. Our Supreme Court is making history. It is setting global precedents which will be a beacon to democratic forces all over the world who will expect no less from their own courts in the fight against tyranny. Instead of losing sight of the larger picture and accusing them of judicial activism, we owe their lordships a debt of gratitude.
US vice president Joe Biden recently stated that, due to Pakistan’s nuclear capability and dysfunctional democracy, the situation here is a source of greater concern for the United States than Iraq or Afghanistan. This is most peculiar, since the present situation in Pakistan is a product of American hegemonic influence which it has exercised unabated more directly and forcefully than ever before in the aftermath of 9-11. Out-of-control events in their war on terror and the gathering steam against a highly unpopular government compelled the Americans to ditch Musharraf. Similar circumstances have now surfaced once again. The present setup is by no means indispensable to its foreign masters. In 2008, Zardari was ecstatic to oust Musharraf with the backing of his American benefactors. The time may have come for him to get a taste of the same medicine.
The critical question that now arises is: while the judiciary is doing its bit, what role will the political forces in the country play? How much longer can the largest opposition party, the PML-N, possibly remain passive and tolerant of this painful status quo? It makes no sense for them to label Zardari as the biggest threat to democracy against a backdrop of their repeated assurances of coming to his rescue should his hold on power be threatened. You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The nation is in deep crisis and is desperate for a firm and honest alternative leadership. It is time to put aside expediency and fulfil obligations to the nation.
The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero. He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.
Where is the opposition? by Ameer Bhutto
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Ameer Bhutto
All traces of genuine opposition are disappearing in Pakistan. This is the consequence of mufahimat, which provides an open invitation to all and sundry to dispense with any surviving vestiges of principles and scruples and jointly bury their snouts in the trough with no questions asked. As a consequence, not only have many of Musharraf’s fellow travellers found their way back into power in the present ruling coalition, but even those left out on the opposition benches are reduced to the diluted role of only raising meek protests on some issues and then obligingly thumping their desks in the assemblies following hollow assurances from the treasury – such as repealing the 17th Amendment – which they have been repeating for nearly two fruitless years. Even in the press and media, erstwhile fire-breathing opposition members have noticeably toned down their rhetoric as if someone has pulled their reins. The opposition in the Sindh Provincial Assembly has disappeared altogether as the Peoples Party succeeded in securing a 100% result for Zardari in the presidential elections.
Being the largest opposition party in the country, the PML-N is fast losing its credibility as a viable alternative to this discredited government. Initially, Nawaz Sharif took on the government on vital issues like the restoration of the judges and implementation of the Charter of Democracy, which earned him public respect and support. He appeared to provide the much needed leadership and direction at a time when Zardari inspired only apprehensions and misgivings. A public survey conducted by the International Republican Institute in March 2009, around the same time as the long march, revealed that Nawaz Sharif enjoyed the support of 55 per cent of the people whereas Zardari could do no better than 9 per cent. 71 per cent of the people wished to see Nawaz Sharif as president with only 16 per cent preferring Zardari. When asked which party they would vote for if elections were to be held next week, 62 per cent said they would vote for the PML-N and only 17 per cent opted for the PPP. But, several months later, when the opposition settled into a more ‘friendly’ role, with fiery demands for the implementation of the Charter of Democracy giving way to occasional polite reminders, fresh public surveys showed that Nawaz Sharif’s popularity had fallen by 5 per cent. The lessons to be drawn from this could not be clearer; the people are not happy with the status quo and are desperate for change. Zardari is not a representative of the people but of the assembly members with vested interests who voted him into office. He has never commanded public support or confidence and people are anxious to find an alternative. But, due to the PML-N’s policy of appeasement, they now identify it as a part of the same blur of expediency that defines the Peoples Party.
The question that needs to be asked is why has there been such a fundamental metamorphosis in the PML-N’s approach? Only the policy makers of PML-N know the real answer, but public perceptions vary. Some believe that the royals of the Holy land, who played a key role in rescuing the Sharif brothers from imprisonment after Musharraf’s coup, intervened to ensure that the Sharifs do not rock the boat. This was allegedly a part of the deal that sprung them from prison and also part of the subsequent deal that gave Musharraf a safe passage after he quit. Hence the present silence of the PML-N on prosecuting Musharraf for crimes against the nation, following an initial flurry of such demands upon his resignation.
Others hold the view that as long as there is a ban on serving as prime minister for a third term, Nawaz Sharif stands to gain nothing from confronting and bringing down the present setup. With Shahbaz Sharif firmly ensconced as the chief minister of Punjab, arguably the most powerful post in the country after the president and prime minister, and with the added luxury of a house trained president who can be bullied into submission and an obliging prime minister, the status quo suits the Sharifs perfectly. If this is the rationale prevailing in the PML-N, it is rooted in fundamental folly. If they feel that they can simply bide their time and wait for their turn till the next general elections, they may be in for a rude shock as their already dwindling public approval ratings would seem to indicate. Public support cannot be counted upon to last ad infinitum. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, after seeing his pre-polls popularity vanish in the short span of just a few days, remarked “a week is a long time in politics”. Leaders must lead nations out of crises. Simply waiting for their turn on the merry-go-round while the nation suffers is mufahimat at its worse.
The explanation that the PML-N offers is that they are unwilling to adopt a hard line course of action that might harm the democratic system. This is highly commendable, but IRI’s public survey revealed that 81 per cent of the people believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction. The implicit plea, therefore, was for substantial change rather than faithfully towing the line. Also, 46 per cent identified inflation and another 22 per cent identified unemployment as the most important issues facing Pakistan, while only 2 per cent said democratic reforms was the most important issue. People want clean and effective governance that produces results and gives relief. One might come across discussions about the future of the system in the plush drawing rooms of the well off, but in the mud and straw huts in the heartland of this country the overwhelming concerns are being able to afford the next meal and safety of life and property. By adopting a wait-and-see approach, the PML-N appears to have misread the pulse of the nation. Besides, Nawaz Sharif has himself repeatedly stated publicly that the threat to democracy comes not from any outside forces but from the harmful policies and conduct of this government. This being the case, the mixed signals emanating from the PML-N are certainly confusing. On the one hand they accuse this government of being a threat to democracy, sabotaging the process of accountability and transparency as well as generating conflict and tension among state institutions, but on the other hand they assure the government of not demanding midterm polls and coming to their aid should its survival be threatened. Nawaz Sharif declares the NRO immoral and threatens to launch another long march if the Supreme Court verdict is not implemented, but his party assures the government that they shall not call for the resignation of Zardari, the biggest beneficiary of the NRO. The mind boggles and fails to wrap itself around such logic. If the PML-N is genuinely interested in saving democracy then the time for firm action is now, while it is still in a position to play a constructive role and while there is still something left to save.
With the opposition in contemplative hibernation, the government is getting a free run. For instance, vacating Lahore for Zardari’s visit was a mistake by the PML-N leadership. Even if their foreign engagements had been pre-arranged, they should have been rescheduled. If they could not be rescheduled, then the Sharif brothers should have turned the tables on Zardari and arrived back in Lahore to a massive public reception at the airport, while Zardari was still in town. That would have decisively stamped their authority on the political scene and given Zardari a first-hand experience of who rules the roost in Punjab. It would have been a master stroke on the part of the PML-N, whereas vacating the battlefield sent the wrong message and gave the impression that Zardari owned Lahore. Unfortunately, the battle is in danger of being lost by default at a time when the nation needs sincere leadership the most.
The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero. He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.
But is there a Sindh card?-Ameer Bhutto
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Monday, February 01, 2010
Ameer Bhutto
This government is being sustained in power by three main factors. Firstly, unbridled corruption which the parliamentarians of the ruling party and their coalition partners have been licensed to enjoy, in return for which they are expected to unquestioningly support the present setup. The government understands that the electorate have no say in their political fortunes till the next general elections and it only need to keep the assembly members happy to survive in power for now. The consequence is record-breaking corruption, including the Steel Mills scandal and the Rental Power Project fiasco, to mention but two instances. Ministers are relieved of their responsibilities and portfolios are reshuffled without adequate explanation of the reasons for doing so in the shadow of serious allegations of graft amounting to billions of rupees. The government has turned a blind eye to all this and has not taken action against a single responsible official. This is the sort of stuff that causes governments to fall in enlightened societies, but the present lot does not bat an eyelid over it.
Secondly, there is the support of the Western powers as the wages for being pawns in their proxy war on terror. It is Pakistan’s misfortune to be located at a highly sensitive geopolitical location along the fault lines of history, which has made it a target for manipulation by the superpowers. Musharraf lost his utility for his Western masters due to his reluctance to engage the fundamentalist miscreants militarily and his opposition to the US drone attacks. His replacement satrap has eagerly obliged his benefactors on both counts.
A number of US senators, the most recent being Senator Carl Levin, have revealed over the last two years that, whereas the Pakistani government makes a lot of noise for public consumption over issues like the drone attacks, it never raises such matters in private meetings with US authorities.
For its comprehensive and unconditional obedience, Senator John McCain issued this government a certificate of loyalty to the United States during his recent visit to Pakistan and for this reason they continue to prop up a highly unpopular setup, because they understand that one which genuinely represents the aspirations of the people of Pakistan would only deal with them at arm’s length.
Thirdly, there is the spin being generated about the indispensability of this government for democracy and its threat to use the Sindh card. It is mind-boggling how anyone can lap up such dribble that this government exceeds at churning out. The general principle around the world is that corrupt, inept and harmful regimes must be made to make way for new faces in whom, despite past experiences to the contrary, hope might be invested for a better outcome. But such a crucial mechanism for requisite change and adjustment does not seem to be desirable for some who prefer to cling on to the status quo and go down with the sinking boat. We have to contend with all kinds of political, constitutional and legal storms in Pakistan.
If the present system is so fragile and brittle that it cannot even withstand a mere change of faces to jettison the corrupt and unworthy and bring in at least a relatively palatable leadership, then something is very wrong with it and needs rectification. However, with the web of circumstances and law tightening around the government, claims of indispensability and threats of various cards are unlikely to save it from legal proceedings at home, fresh investigations underway in France and the Swiss cases.
The apprehension that Sindh will self-combust at the first sign of an attempt to dislodge this government is mere fantasy. The February 2008 polls produced a larger majority for the People’s Party in Sindh than ever before. Are we to deduce from this that Zardari is more popular than even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto? The very idea is insane. That result was the outcome of extraordinary events more than anything else. There is no such thing as a Sindh card.
Sindhis are burning in the same fire as the rest of the country and they are fed up. They are not taken in by the People’s Party’s opportunistic and expedient surge of Sindhi nationalism. It is not the support of Sindhis but that of the fat cats in the Assemblies, whose own vested interests are directly linked with the survival of this government, which is helping this government survive in power.
So severe has the drain of public support been since February 2008 that, after failing to produce an impressive display of strength at the party’s founding day on Nov 25 at the Quaid-e-Azam’s mazar, the People’s Party is constrained to lean on other purchasable elements in Sindh to exploit Sindhi nationalism by celebrating the Sindhi topi day and paying homage to the Indus River. However, these were entirely non-political events in which civil society as a whole, including the opponents of the People’s Party, participated en masse and cannot be construed as an indication of support for the People’s Party. It is even less likely to translate into street power should the People’s Party issue an SOS call to the people of Sindh in the event of its dismissal.
No one wants to destroy the democratic system, such as it is. But where are the people and their interests in all this wheeling and dealing? Should they not be the paramount consideration in democracy rather than the survival of a government or any leader? Should a genuine democratic government not feel obligated to interact intimately with the people rather than hide behind iron gates and concrete walls?
The practice of inaugurating new projects not on the site but by having the foundation stones brought to the safety and comfort of government palaces is a farcical innovation of this government, something which could not have been believed had it not been seen. Through its actions, it has clearly illustrated that this is not a government of the people, by the people, for the people but is, in fact, a government against the people. It used the Bhutto name and legacy to get into power and is now using the ruse of democracy to survive.
In any case, what exactly has this government done to strengthen the democratic system which it uses as a shield? While so many seem obsessively consumed by the imaginary “what ifs†associated with the collapse of this government, few pause to consider the serious harm being done to the system with the continuation of this dispensation.
Is its defiance of the judiciary, and virtually every other major institution of state, not harming the system? Is its clinging on to power despite its being thoroughly discredited not harming democracy? Is looters being allowed not only to get away with looting, but being rewarded with elevation to positions of high authority not making a mockery of democracy? Was the dismissal of the elected Punjab government and imposition of governor’s rule, just because of a personal gripe with the Sharif brothers, done in aid of democracy? What does it do for national honour and sovereignty when the president comes under investigation by French authorities for the murder of their naval personnel? How does compromising national sovereignty to earn the support of Western overlords help democracy? Does none of this matter? Is all this insubstantial, irrelevant and without grave consequences for the system and the state?
Without any tangible positive accomplishments to show after nearly two years in power, this government is reduced to issuing hollow threats against the nation of using imaginary cards to survive. If a government can do no better than this, then it must be deemed unfit to rule. By the same token, if a nation succumbs to such blackmail instead of standing up to it, it deserves no better.
The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero. He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.
Loading ...