The art of going wrong collectively?
February 10th, 2011
President Zardari is looking around for support among parties that have collectively or singly sought the end of his party’s rule in the recent past. He wants to discuss “important national issues” at an all-parties (or round table) conference (APC) with them because the PPP government is too weak to take decisions that the masses would reject unless their political leaders persuaded them not to do so.
There is a whole list of ‘national issues’ pertaining to the economy on which he has already had the measure of the opposition; there is also the additional issue of Raymond Davis, an American who has killed two men in Lahore, whose politically ordained acquittal from a Lahore court could mean a serious rupture of relations with the United States. What will the opposition tell him?
We have already sized up the parties opposed to the government in respect of their proposed ‘solutions’ for the ailing national economy and come to the conclusion that the solutions are either impracticable or ineffective as applied to the immediate needs of the economy. If the APC backs what political leaders and retired bureaucrats from the Foreign Office are recommending on TV, then it will be a collective blunder. And if the PPP government does not act upon its recommendations, then it will have burned another bridge to its survival in power.
The government is already in consultation with the largest party in the opposition, PML-N, about what to do with the economy. It looks like a kowtow because the consultations followed the issuance of an ultimatum by Nawaz Sharif, who is struggling to find middle ground between hawks and doves in his own party. The interim report from Mr Sharif on how the consultations are going is negative, which could mean that the results of the APC would come to nought or that it will be boycotted.
The media is somehow convinced that since the PPP government has proved to be incompetent it must be pulled down constitutionally, through a no-confidence move in parliament. This ‘verdict’ of TV anchors and hosts may be founded on the mistake of not objectively examining the country’s overall governance, under attack from terrorism and general insecurity that comes from the isolationism of Pakistan’s army-driven foreign policy. Mr Sharif is frequently accused by TV hosts of being a ‘friendly opposition’, as if the constitution allowed only a hostile opposition, its instincts honed on toppling governments.
There is a hint of indirectly revealed truth in Mr Sharif’s reluctance to topple the PPP coalition government. He may think that it would be the wrong moment to take over and run the country because of the conditions prevailing in the country, which prevent normal governance. He has had a taste of it in Punjab, where his party has not covered itself in glory after the ouster of the government of Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. His brother, Shahbaz Sharif, has been highly regarded as an administrator in the past but, this time around, he has failed to tame the province, despite an affectionate electorate.
Facts being revealed in respect of Raymond Davis tell us that, under international law, Pakistan must treat him as a diplomat and let him go. At least three TV discussions carried out with experts from Pakistan, the UK and the US reveal that the Foreign Office had accepted, without demur, a notification from the US Embassy in Islamabad designating Davis as an American diplomat. But most retired generals and diplomats want Pakistan to stand up on its hind legs and punish the American. The idea is to end the ‘American nexus’ once and for all.
Will the APC look seriously at the consequences of defying international law and then advise the government not to fly off the handle? Or will it recommend standing up to a superpower widely perceived as a bully, hanging Davis and kicking out ‘thousands of Blackwater terrorists’ that our Urdu columns keep telling us are infesting Pakistan? Alas, chances are that the APC will announce unrealistic earth-shaking decisions instead of pragmatic solutions. And if the government comes out of the APC saying it can’t execute its directives, it will look worse than it is looking now.
Shedding deadwood
February 10th, 2011
The extensive federal cabinet has held what Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has said would be its last meeting in Islamabad and its members have handed in their resignations, which will now, in line with the Constitution, be sent to the president. The decision to disband the cabinet, announced by Mr Gilani a few days ago, also falls in line with a Constitutional requirement under the Eighteenth Amendment. The Amendment stipulates that the cabinet size should be no more than 11 per cent of parliament — which makes for 49 ministers. The outgoing cabinet, with some 60 members — many times larger than the bodies that run the US, the UK, France or Germany — had been the subject of some ridicule, with the government’s own financial team also calling for austerity measures including less spending on ministers.
By dismissing the body, Mr Gilani also takes a stride towards implementing the 10-point agenda of Mian Nawaz Sharif, before the February 24 deadline runs out. The step makes it harder for Sharif to insist the agenda is being ignored, as he has been doing, given the reversal in the petrol price increase, steps to recover loans and now the cabinet cut. The measure also illustrates a commitment towards ensuring better governance. It was also becoming apparent that the government needed to make changes to ward off the heated criticism it has been facing on a number of fronts.
It is as yet unclear how many of the ministers who have resigned will be re-inducted and how many new faces may appear. Inevitably, a process of lobbying for the prestigious slots is already on in Islamabad. For the citizens of the country, what may matter significantly more than the actual size of the cabinet is the issue of what it can achieve. Competence and integrity are both vital factors in this. So is teamwork. It must be hoped that the new, smaller cabinet will do better on this front than the body that has bid farewell — and thus play a part in establishing a more efficient administration capable of taking the country out of the crisis it faces.