Crisis defused
A RAPIDLY deteriorating situation has been salvaged — for now. It should not have taken direct intervention by the Supreme Court to defuse a grave crisis and have the PML-N and PTI behave like responsible national political parties once again, but in troubled times all sensible inputs ought to be welcomed. There is further reason to welcome the Supreme Court intervention: a substantive, independent inquiry into the Panama Papers revelations is now imminent, with the government and PTI given a chance first to present mutually acceptable terms of reference, failing which the court itself will impose the ToR for a prospective judicial commission. That is how it should be. At the intersection of the law and politics, all political actors must submit to the authority of the law and its final interpreters. If wrongdoing has been committed, it must be legally established and legally punished. If the country seeks a different political direction, it must come through the ballot box. A democratic system based on the rule of law is the only way forward.
The correct way, however, will necessarily depend on some introspection by the protagonists in the latest crisis. The PML-N governments in Punjab and at the centre are led by a coterie of vastly experienced politicians. A three-term prime minister, a four-term chief minister, senior federal ministers who have won multiple constituency elections — in terms of electoral, democratic experience, the PML-N’s leadership is second to none. And yet there is a strain of authoritarianism and anti-democratic sentiment in the PML-N leadership that is visible all too often. The PTI’s threat to lock down the federal capital may have been illegal and undemocratic, but nothing can justify the coercive and rough measures the PML-N took to try and thwart the PTI’s plan. Using the might of the executive and the blunt force of civilian law-enforcement against political opponents campaigning essentially for action against perceived corruption is not the kind of democratic rule this country needs or can find acceptable. As the chief custodians of the democratic project in this parliament, the PML-N needs to uphold systemic values that go beyond parochial interests.
The failings of the PML-N, however, are mirrored, perhaps exceeded, by the PTI. Unacceptable as the government’s response has been, the PTI has implicitly — and on some occasions, explicitly — used the threat of violence and anti-democratic intervention to try to bend the government to its will. That needs to stop. The PTI must make it clear to the public, to the Supreme Court and to the government that it intends to respect the judicial process that is to unfold and that it will accept a verdict from the highest court in the land. There should be no street protests and agitation while the court and an inquiry commission carry out their work. Democracy means accepting due process too.
Media under fire
DURING the last few decades, journalists have been at the receiving end of the most egregious kind of violence in Pakistan. Today is the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, an occasion to once again highlight the danger, indeed sometimes the mortal peril, that media persons here have to contend with — and the sheer indifference by the state that ensures its perpetuation. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 56 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 2000 for reasons confirmed as being related to their work; that is, either in direct reprisal, during the course of an assignment, or in crossfire while covering combat situations. The most recent to fall in the line of duty were TV cameramen Shehzad Ahmed and Mehmood Khan, killed in the devastating bomb blast at the Quetta Civil Hospital on Aug 8 which also claimed the lives of some 70 lawyers. The manner of their deaths in a terrorist attack is unfortunately one that many journalists in today’s Pakistan have to risk on a regular basis, with their job — almost by default — putting them in harm’s way even when safety precautions are taken.
But what to say of the targeted killings — murders that have silenced journalists investigating crime and corruption, or singled out those perceived as being ‘biased’ against one or other competing power centres — that go virtually uninvestigated, let alone punished? To date, only in three such murders, those of Daniel Pearl, Wali Babar and Ayub Khattak, has anyone been held accountable. It is a fact undeniable that this country is a minefield for journalists. They are menaced by a number of actors, both state and non-state, and in ways that can be unmistakably direct or subtly coercive. Either way, these tactics have led to far too many deadly consequences among the journalist community. A pernicious effect of the government doing little more than mouthing platitudes every time a media person is killed, is the pall that descends upon the profession as a whole. Stories that should be investigated — those that define the media’s oversight role — fall by the wayside; the shackles of self-censorship curb important critiques of the state’s actions and embolden obscurantist elements. Notwithstanding the many problems that beset the practice of journalism in Pakistan today and the raucous free-for-all that often characterises news coverage, an independent media that is secure in its role, is critical to a democratic polity.
Credit rating upgrade
IN the midst of the sound and fury of Pakistan’s politics, the news that a major credit rating agency has upgraded the country’s rating, and given it a stable outlook comes as a breath of fresh air. The action is in recognition of the country’s growing fiscal and external buffers. Clearly, the noise and chaos on the streets have not made much of an impression on foreign creditors, which is the way it should be. Pakistan’s ratings have been on a slow upward climb since 2008 when they hit rock-bottom, and the upgrade from Standard and Poor’s is the third since then, with the last one coming in 2015. Moody’s also upgraded Pakistan last year in two quick actions taken between March and June, reflecting the pace of improvement in the underlying macroeconomic fundamentals.
The acknowledgement of such an improvement is now largely ubiquitous. The fiscal deficit has shrunk and reserves have risen. But whatever the outside creditors might say, it is important to look beyond this to the real economy for signs that the progress is stirring movement in the right places. And on this point, which is of not much importance to external creditors who are only interested in the country’s capacity to service its debt in the medium term, the economy’s scorecard remains bleak. Savings and investment are not picking up, and whatever acceleration in growth that we see is coming largely from short-term sectors like construction. Exports continue their downward slide while non-oil imports have picked up to eat away any breathing room created by falling oil prices. Meanwhile, the country’s debt burden has increased and its outflows connected with its debt-service obligations are expected to rise steeply by almost 60pc by 2020, according to IMF data. These are not encouraging signs. The verdict of the ratings agencies, also reflected in the IMF’s assessment, needs to be tempered keeping these realities in mind.
Published in Dawn November 2nd, 2016