Thailand on the brink
Tuesday, 14 Apr, 2009
POLITICAL showdown on the streets of Thailand is nothing new. Since 2006 when its populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra was eased out by an army coup, the country has been in the grip of upheaval. But the latest round of unrest could have more serious repercussions. On Saturday demonstrators forced the Asean summit to be cancelled. A state of emergency has been imposed and Mr Thaksin, who is in exile, is calling for a “revolution”. It seems unlikely that a constitutional solution can be found to the crisis. It is plain that Mr Thaksin cannot be wished away as his supporters’ electoral victory in 2007 clearly established. Abhisit Vejjajiva, the present prime minister, had to be installed by resort to dubious tactics. The battle lines have now been drawn.
While the prime minister is supported by the palace, army, bureaucracy and big business, he has been facing the wrath of the people. Mr Thaksin, who emerged as the hero of the masses in the years he ruled Thailand, continues to be popular with the downtrodden. His democratic credentials are not impeccable and his financial integrity is not above board either. But he enjoys the support of the oppressed whose cause he espouses. When in office he adopted pro-poor populist policies that provided for low-cost healthcare and improved education for the common man. The tussle has now translated into a colour-coded battle between Mr Thaksin’s “Red Shirts” and the “Yellow Shirts” of the ruling party.
Thailand’s political crisis is taking the country to the brink. Its economy is being destabilised and the value of the baht is falling as investors shy away. At the root of Thailand’s political chaos is the socio-economic chasm that has divided the privileged elite minority and the disadvantaged and marginalised majority which can never hope for social justice in a system heavily weighted in favour of the rich. Though the contenders for power adopt similar political styles — both swear by democracy and look towards the army for help in their power struggle — the determining factor will be their ability to actually deliver the goods to the poor.
************************************************** ********
Nizam-i-Adl regulation
Tuesday, 14 Apr, 2009
DID the federal government do the right thing by placing the Nizam-i-Adl regulation before parliament for debate? We believe it did. With a matter as complex as Swat, there are inevitably many aspects to consider. Begin with the ANP. The party threatened to pull out of the federal government if President Zardari did not sign the Nizam-i-Adl regulation immediately. But this was not the kind of politics the country needed. Granted the constitution gives the president the authority to make “regulations for the peace and good government of a Provincially Administered Tribal Area”, and the Sharia deal was struck on the understanding that the president was on board. But what the ANP and TNSM agreed to implement in the Malakand Division is no ordinary change — it effectively cedes judicial control of a part of Pakistan to a band of militants who have been waging a savage war against the state.
Surely the correct approach politically was to bring parliament into the loop on such a dramatic change to the state’s writ. However, President Zardari must shoulder some of the blame for the mess. If the pact with the TNSM was unacceptable, then why did the president originally give his approval, tacit or otherwise? And if parliament was the right forum to debate the issue, then why wait for two months to do so?
The fact is that both the ANP and the president painted themselves into corner over the Nizam-i-Adl. The ANP perhaps calculated that in caving in to the militants’ demand in Swat, the party would at least be able to govern the rest of the province and consolidate support among the electorate. Having relied on the president for backing, the ANP found itself in an awkward position vis-à-vis the militants to whom they promised much. As for President Zardari, he tried to appease all sides — an impossible contortion act always destined to leave both allies and enemies fuming.
The Nizam-i-Adl has been approved by parliament and promulgated by the president. But the debate in parliament was yet another missed opportunity. The bigger point is that the politicians still need to reach a consensus on how to counter militancy. When force is used some segments in the political spectrum erupt in anger and indignation. When peace deals are pursued, other segments denounce them as appeasement. Yet, no one seems serious about devising a credible strategy to fight militancy. The time for platitudes has passed. If Swat and the Nizam-i-Adl were a test case, then the politicians have not done justice to finding that credible strategy. Already the militants have spread to Buner. Mardan and Swabi seem to be the next likely districts. Simply endorsing the Nizam-i-Adl in a bid to bring peace to the Malakand Division may be too little and have come too late.
************************************************** ********
Desperate times
Tuesday, 14 Apr, 2009
BUFFETED by ill winds beyond their control, people are often left with no option but to protest in the hope of publicising their cause and attracting the intervention of either the state or influential individuals. Viewed from this perspective, it becomes clear that in a large number of cases, what is seen as a ‘protest’ is actually a call for help. Yet all too often in Pakistan, many such appeals go unheeded — even in the most desperate cases. The lack of response deepens societal despondency and strengthens the increasingly common construction of the state as an entity divorced from the concerns of the citizens. Matters are worsened by the immense disparities of power and privilege between the rich and the poor, and the fact that the elected representatives of the people show few signs of looking out for the electorate’s concerns.
The most basic function of the state and its institutions lies in providing an environment in which citizens can flourish, and in setting up an effective justice system where complaints can be heard and quickly adjudicated upon. Notwithstanding the success of the movement for the independence of the judiciary, this is an area where Pakistan continues to have a poor track record. So, in cases where citizens perceive themselves as having no option but to try and bring attention to their plight through desperate means, it is incumbent upon the state and its functionaries to, at the very least, provide a response. If this is not forthcoming, there is a danger of the aggrieved parties or persons resorting to violence, either against the state or in terms of taking the law into their own hands.
For this reason the plight of people like 70-year-old Wali Dad, who died in Karachi on Sunday after a 20-day hunger strike against the excesses of his landlord in interior Sindh, must be taken very seriously indeed. No doubt he leaves behind friends and family whose disillusionment with the state apparatus will only have grown, with the added lesson that peaceful protest harvests no dividends. In a country where armed insurgencies are under way, it is of vital importance that the state refrain from giving cause for further loss of faith in its effectiveness, which only provides more cannon fodder to the militants who continue to make inroads. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is abundantly clear that times are getting desperate for average Pakistanis, howsoever peace-loving they may be.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press Nawaz Sharif should take a clear stand
Tuesday, 14 Apr, 2009
EVER since the democratic government came to power, the relationship of the two major political parties of the country namely the PPP and PML-N has been in a constant state of flux. While sometimes they are on good terms, confrontation has often led to a deadlock on various issues. Following the restoration of the judges, the people hoped that both parties would have cordial relations.
The PPP took the lead and filed a review petition regarding the disqualification of the Sharif brothers which led to the restoration of Shahbaz Sharif as chief minister of Punjab. It was expected that the PML-N would opt for reconciliation after this. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
The PML-N does not plan to join the PPP-led federal government. The apparent reasons behind this decision seem to be the deepening economic crisis, load-shedding, lawlessness, unemployment and other pressing problems. At this juncture whoever will rule the country is likely to lose popular support.
Nawaz Sharif does have conditions for joining the federal government: implement the Charter of Democracy and repeal the 17th Amendment. In retaliation the PPP wants to be in opposition in Punjab. It has indicated that it would join the Punjab government if the Sharifs’ party agreed to join the cabinet at the centre.
President Asif Ali Zardari has directed Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to make a last-ditch effort to coax the PML-N into joining the federal cabinet; otherwise the PPP will sit on the opposition benches of the Punjab Assembly. For the PPP leadership it would be ideal if the PPP joins the PML-N-led Punjab government, and the PML-N joins the cabinet at the centre. Furthermore, there were differences between the central and provincial government over the Swat agreement.
Ibrat
How else is one supposed to reconcile? President Zardari has complained about the aggressive position taken by the PML-N which has endangered democracy in the country. A few weeks back speculations led to great uncertainty.
We think that it is Nawaz Sharif’s responsibility to adopt a path of reconciliation. Especially now that he has his government in Punjab. There are various pressing issues such as drone attacks, terrorism, which need attention. At present it is only the PPP which has to deal with all these issues. Cooperation is essential for the welfare of the country. The ANP is a coalition partner at the centre but its influence is limited to the provincial level.
These problems facing Pakistan cannot be solved unless there is cooperation between the PPP and PML-N. Strangely, Nawaz Sharif despite understanding this critical situation faced by the country is unwilling to do so. He may advocate reconciliation but is not taking concrete measures to forge a working relationship with the PPP. The PML-N which claims to be a well-wisher of the country should come forward and instead of using rhetorical devices take some practical steps in the greater interest of the people and the country. — (April 11)
— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi