TWO accords were reached a couple of weeks ago, each bearing significant importance for Pakistan. The first concerns India-Pakistan relations, which was announced at the end of the meeting of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani with Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh on July 17. The second was issued on July 19 and was the result of a four-hour long meeting between Mr Nawaz Sharif and President Asif Ali Sardari.

Both accords dealt with parallel issues but the contrast between them is quite striking. Both meetings were conducted in a cordial and a constructive atmosphere. Mr Gilani had a very difficult task to try to re-establish a composite dialogue with his counterpart which had been broken off as a result of the Mumbai attack. Its shadows are still hovering over the relations between the two countries. Both agreed, however, that dialogue was the only reasonable course of action available to the two countries. It was a definite departure from the original position of India not to reopen any talks until the threat of terrorism from Pakistan had been resolved to their satisfaction.

Given this context, the meeting did open a small window of opportunity to break the deadlock by carrying their understanding forward through their respective foreign secretaries who would meet ‘as often as necessary’ and report about their progress to the foreign ministers at the next UN meeting.

Even this ‘concession’ by Manmohan Singh, as the Indian press called it, was not welcome in his country. The explanation he offered after returning from Egypt did seem as if he was back-tracking from the original position. What has been agreed, however, seems to be a definite move forward, albeit a modest step, involving the respective foreign secretaries.

An important point in the joint statement is the reconfirmation of the need to promote regional cooperation in South Asia. There is a pressing need, especially in Pakistan to focus on its economic relations with India and other South Asian countries, as well as the disputes concerning the Indus Water Treaty.

Trade with India is a complex issue. The country has been faced with a relatively poor performance in this sector in recent years. In preparing a trajectory for improved performance of Pakistani goods in foreign markets, should Pakistan look mainly to developed countries, especially USA, as some commentaries seem to suggest, because there is not much scope in expanding regional trade? It is a controversial issue. The weights of theoretical arguments and of empirical studies seem to suggest that the possibilities of developing significant opportunities in regional trade cannot be minimised.

The potential of trade relations as against the actual situation is not a reliable guide because Saarc has never been given a chance to work according to the rules established to promote its objectives. India-Pakistan relations have been a factor. Given the history of trade policies pursued by the US and other developed countries, exports from developing countries usually face a variety of barriers, for both classification of goods, complimentary and competitive. And studies concerning US free trade agreements with developing countries do not give an assurance that this partnership would necessarily work to their advantage.

From Gilani-Manmohan Singh meeting to coming together of President Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif may seem to be a big leap from one topic to another but it is not. To build a healthy and dynamic trade sector will depend on the economy and a substantial improvement in the quality of governance in the country. Pakistan was conceived as a federation of autonomous constituent units, and through its sixty years of history has turned into what may be called the crisis of confederation, because federation is incompatible with a centralised system of government and puts strain on the economy.

The general elections of February 18, 2008 were held under the framework of General Musharraf’s legal framework order. The voters, however, gave their clear verdict in favour of democracy. When Mr Zardari took office of the president, there was expectation that the PPP government would remove military-sponsored mutilations made in the constitution, including Section 52(b). The Charter of Democracy prepared jointly by Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif had delineated the necessary steps to clean up these distortions and to move the country back to parliamentary democracy. This goal has not yet come to pass and is currently under consideration of a parliamentary committee. Mr Zardari is reported to be holding the view that any amendments to the constitution should maintain ‘a balance’ among parliament, prime minister and president and not return to the 1973 document.

In a joint statement, President Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif have reaffirmed the principles but seem to have made no progress to set a timetable for introducing the necessary changes in the constitution. Further, Mr Zardari has informed his host that ANP and MQM would not support the repeal of the 17th amendment until their demands were met e.g., renaming of the NWFP and repeal of the section dealing with the concurrent list in the constitution.

Each of these two issues is important for the country, but to tie them with the much-needed amendments is very unfortunate. The two parties are in alliance with the PPP at the centre, and the status quo resulting from this move would certainly work in favour of President Zardari.

The government at all three levels seems to be in a state of flux. The concurrent list defining shared powers between the federation and the provinces has been a controversial issue and in spite of promises made in the past nothing has ever been done to resolve it. The demand has now reappeared with a greater force. Similarly, the place of local self-government was changed in the Musharraf era through the national reconstruction bureau, to strengthen his position. There was no meaningful debate among the elements involved, especially about the no-party elections and the role of the nazims. Same haste is being used now to bring the main features of the old system back into operation.

Concerning the ANP demand, the acronym describing the frontier province is the legacy of the colonial days. When the matter was raised in parliament a few months ago, some members did not seem inclined to support the proposed change in the name from the NWFP to Pakhtunkhwa, perhaps keeping in view the concerns of the non-Pakhtun population of the province. There seems to be no reason why this matter cannot be resolved through negotiation.

The PPP-led coalition government has been in power long enough and could have established a short list of important matters and set priorities for legislative business. After all, the lawmakers do not seem to be very busy people and parliamentary sessions are short and sparsely attended. By streamlining its business it would have been prepared not only to attend to the needs of the federation but also be in a better position to handle militancy.

The real problem is that power is centralised at the top. The prime minister may be able to exercise his executive authority, but he cannot interact meaningfully with his cabinet in the usual parliamentary tradition, for the number of ministers is reaching close to one hundred. Whatever justification Mr Zardari may offer for this anomaly, other democracies seem to manage quite well with smaller cabinets. Whether planned or not, the cabinet of this size has worked in his favour, under the present circumstances.

The ‘heavy mandate’ used by Mr Nawaz Sharif in his previous stint as prime minister is often mentioned in the context of dangers to democracies, and rightly so. The present system used by Mr Zardari is more invidious and carries much greater dangers with it. To keep the political office as head of the PPP along with his position as president (appointed by party-affiliated voters in six legislatures, and within General Musharraf’s legal framework) is the worst form of concentration of power. And, as the examples of Marcos (Philippines) and Suharto (Indonesia) indicate, several times referred to in this space, the pseudo-imperial arrangement made with collaboration of ruling elite can cause tectonic upheavals in society. General Musharraf is also waiting for a second miracle.

Those who are focusing on the next general elections to resolve this issue should keep a watching brief on the situation.