THE fundamental structure of the modern representative government is based on two-party system, with minor parties coexisting with it. The coalitions now are not uncommon and small parties do manage to participate more actively in them. The system, however, maintains the government with or without coalition as well as a vibrant opposition party. Otherwise it would turn into a virtual one-party state.

India, for example, has a coalition government but there is a strong opposition party, `government-in-waiting`, and actively participating in parliamentary deliberations. With the exception of the latest alliance between Conservatives and Social Democrats in Britain, the last time in recent history two main political parties in the British parliamentary system formed an alliance was between Labour and Conservatives to organise defence against Hitler. It is in this context that we must examine the suggestion that floats around from time to time about the need to have a reinvigorated government based on PPP-PML-N coalition.

The idea would be risible if it were not for the fact that it emanates from the punditocracy, seriously advocating this arrangement. What has given some boost to the matter of this possible alliance is the recent correspondence between Mr Nawaz Sharif and President Asif Zardari. In his response Mr Zardari has sought cooperation from Mr Sharif in regard to policies towards terrorism as well as the economy.

It is strange, however, that a leader of the major opposition party would write to the president (not the prime minister, of course in line with the reality about the real boss!) expressing his concerns about the state of affairs in the country, because the issue belongs to the parliament where it should be raised for an open debate. The task of the opposition party is to constantly remind the governing party of its responsibilities, through constructive criticism of its policies, mainly in parliament but also through media. As a rule, engaging in correspondence is not part of the convention.

The partnership is being mentioned as a sustainable solution to the current situation which has created a schism between the PPP and its allies. Experience tells us that coalitions are never a stable arrangement in the long run. But they do provide a strong incentive to work together on the basis of a common agenda. In the current situation it does not seem to be the case. The general impression is that Mr Zardari has managed to cobble up a working majority by offering perks and privileges to the smaller parties, and that there is nothing common among them. Also, on important subjects Mr Zardari acts as chairman of his party and does not necessarily consult the coalition partners.

Under the circumstances a possible PPP-PML-N alliance will face its own challenge. The goals of the two parties seem to differ and their leaders have distinct outlooks. And if they should be able to form a common ground about policies towards terrorism as well as the economy, they would have difficulty presenting their shared responsibilities for accountability in the eyes of the electorate. It would be against the natural grain of the two-time prime minister (‘heavy mandate’ and the Shariat Bill). He would want to fight the next general election on a separate platform.

And Mr Zardari would not be left behind, though he is already invoking judgment of history in defence of the record of his achievements, as recently reported in the media. A similar dilemma about facing the electorate concerning shared responsibility is currently confronting Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservatives and his coalition colleague, Nick Clegg of Social Democrats.

Using the above reference point of representative government, however, is somewhat theoretical in nature, because Pakistan is still in the phase of ‘democratic transition’ as it was called when it was concocted by the Bush administration in order to allow General Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto to work jointly in the US sponsored ‘war on terror’ in the AfPak region. Bhutto was to return to Pakistan from her self-exile armed with NRO — a deal that was the result of at least two years of assiduous lobbying on Capitol Hill.

As matters stood at the time, Bhutto’s mission was under a cloud. Professor Shaun Gregory of Bradford university puts it succinctly: ‘….that despite the rhetoric Bhutto’s return is much more about her desire to be rehabilitated nationally and internationally and to have corruption charges against her and her family in Pakistan dropped than about her personal desire to see democracy in Pakistan restored. Her Pakistan’s People’s Party despite its historic slogan of “bread, clothes and shelter” is not presenting a credible manifesto for economic redistribution, health and welfare for Pakistan’s poor. Rather it is engaged in the politics of patronage, a constant theme of discussion among Pakistan’s journalists and intellectuals’ (Pakistan: farewell to democracy, Open Democracy, 05/11/2007).

With her immense popularity, General Musharraf rightly feared, however, that she would sweep the polls. He was opposed to her return before the elections; he had plans about the possible outcome of the general elections, especially about the ranking of PML-Q, the king’s party. How democratic Benazir’s inclinations would have turned out to be if she had been able to pursue her objectives will never been known as a result of her tragic assassination. She was articulate, well-read, and endowed with abundance of soft power.

Her spouse, Mr Asif Ali Zardari, enjoys none of these characteristics. He became president, facilitated by the State Department and he has been bound by the understandings that Benazir Bhutto had made along with NRO. One should keep this factor in view when discussing PPP-PML-N alliance, because Mr Nawaz Sharif is reported to have concerns about the US role in Pakistan.

Democratic transition was used to underline the change-over from a military to civilian rule in Pakistan, but this process has wider implications. Democracy is a complex goal and a country, whether old or new in adopting the system, must constantly strive towards this goal. Certain crucial factors must be kept in view in order to accelerate this process. Pakistan is facing several stumbling blocks, in this context, some of which may be mentioned as follows:

First, Mr Zardari himself is part of the problem, seriously interfering in the growth of democracy. With concentration of power in his office, ignoring the distinctions between the office of the prime minister and that of the president, he has become the final authority in the government, contrary to parliamentary tradition, with a poor record of governance.

Secondly, the 2010 Constitution as based on the 18th Amendment has confirmed that political parties are personal fiefdoms, in which head of the party is the one who is ‘recognised’ as head of the party, in his case the mysterious will of Benazir. This constitution has also legitimised all the distortions introduced by General Ziaul Haq, including the innovation of Federal Shariat Court. A major consequence of this decision has been that the chances of turning Pakistan into a liberal democracy as envisaged by the Quaed-i-Azam have further receded. For a self-proclaimed progressive and secular party this is the second major surrender to religious orthodoxy, first being the massive compromises made by Z.A. Bhutto with the ‘Maulanas’ some of whom indirectly contributed to his final destiny at the hands of General Ziaul Haq.

Third, a country that prides itself on being an Islamic republic, and further confirms its identity by emphasising Islam as state religion, has such a disease of rampant corruption in all walks of life! The Maulanas become agitated about Blasphemy Law and about the archaic Hudood Ordinance but do not get much agitated about the moral decay caused by corruption. They do not seem inclined to set off a crusade against this malady.

Fourthly, Pakistan will remain in the limbo of ‘transition’ as long as foreign powers, especially USA and Saudi Arabia continue to be actively involved in the political developments of the country (as confirmed by WikiLeaks).

In the meantime, lives of those surviving below the poverty line will become more difficult, and those living above $2 a day and counting their pennies will continue to struggle not to join the other unfortunate teeming millions, notwithstanding the burden of indirect taxes. The gap between the elite and the rest will widen.