Politicians against politicians

[Taimoor Gondal]

Politicians against politicians

By:Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi (Political and Defence analyst)

• Their own worst enemy?

Pakistan’s political leaders are their own worst adversaries. They undermine their reputation and adversely affect the prospects of democracy by their actions. If Pakistan’s political institutions and processes are weak and not fully functional, the political leaders have to share the major blame.

The institutions are not brick walls and furniture but made up of the human beings that manage them. The non-functionality of an institution is the failure of the people that comprise it. The parliament’s performance depends on how the members behave inside and outside the house, the extent to which they honour its rules and procedures and use it for political management.

In Pakistan, the national and provincial assemblies often start their session late and suffer from the quorum problem, paying limited attention to law-making. The assembly meetings have thin attendance or, if the members are present in large number on some controversial issue, their energies are spent on heckling each other. The use of unparliamentary language is common and some leaders are known for tough and rude discourse, including bitter ad hominem criticism of rival political leaders.

The political parties find it difficult to go beyond their partisan agendas and view the two houses of the parliament and the provincial assemblies as instruments for promoting their party goals. If their partisan objectives are not achieved through these institutions, the political leaders do not mind bypassing them and adopting extra-parliamentary methods to pursue their objectives.

There is a lack of understanding of the role of the parliamentary committees. These are meant to ensure transparency in legislation and working of government, creating a linkage among the government, the parliament and the society at large and giving advice to the parliament for legislation. The effective functioning of the committees also improves the performance of the parliament. However, the opposition members view the committees as another forum to embarrass the government. The members of the committee forget that they derive power from the house and their job is to report back to the house on any issue assigned to them rather than the opposition taking on the government to serve the partisan interests.

The PML(N) has launched street protest to dislodge the federal government because it knows that it does not have enough votes in the National Assembly to move a vote-of-no-confidence. As it cannot succeed within the framework of the National Assembly, it has decided to bypass it and challenge the government in the streets.

There are no issues of public good involved in the PML(N) street protest. It is a power struggle in the tradition of the late 1980s and the 1990s when these two political parties engaged in a cut-throat struggle for power against each other. In the end, both lost to the military.

All major political parties have to share the blame for Pakistan’s internal socioeconomic and other problems because all of them are in power either at the federal level or in the provinces. If the performance of the federal coalition government led by the PPP is poor and it has mismanaged public welfare and economic issues, the PML(N) is in power in the Punjab whose performance is no less disappointing. The complaints of poor governance, troubled law and order situation and related societal problems abound in the Punjab.

The PML(N) and the PPP spend a lot of time and energy blaming each other of poor governance and corruption. The PML(N)’s top leaders are pursuing twin objectives of removing the federal government and President Zardari from power. It does not have a simple majority in the National Assembly to remove the federal government, not to speak of removing the president through constitutional means that requires two-thirds votes in the both houses of the parliament.

The PML(N) leaders know all this but want to try their luck by building enough pressure through street protest to paralyse the government that will force it to quit or such a political crisis will encourage the military or the Supreme Court or both to remove it. It seems that Chaudhry Nisar Ali, Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister, Punjab) and some other PML(N) leaders are convinced that their anti-Zardari campaign would knock Zardari out of the presidency. The PPP counteracts this campaign by highlighting what they describe as the misdeeds of the Sharif brothers, including how their financial empire building synchronised with their years in power under General Zia-ul-Haq and later.

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf of Imran Khan is projecting itself as the new and third alternative to the two major political parties. The Jamaat-e-Islami is also pursuing the same agenda. It is also attempting to bring other Islamic parties on a single platform but the question of leadership of such an arrangement and the experience of the MMA (2002-2007) deters Islamic parties from creating a new electoral alliance.

The key point missing in the ongoing political campaigning is that no political party has offered any workable plan of action to address Pakistan’s most serious problems, i.e. the troubled economy, terrorism and internal security, price hike, power and gas shortages and economic and political inequities. They want people to help them to come to power which will solve their problems.

At this stage, the chances of removal of Zardari and the PPP-led federal government through the PML(N)’s street protest are minimal. The PML(N) does not have the support of any other political party. It must build partnerships with other opposition parties but the prospects are not bright for the PML(N) to win over support from other political parties.

The political status-quo is expected to continue for the time being. However, if the idea is to seek change through extra-constitutional measures, the initiative will shift from the political circles to non-elected institutions like the military and the superior judiciary. Traditionally, the military has caused change as a consequence of nationwide protest movement. However, the military does not subscribe to any political party’s agenda. It acts on its own considerations which do not appear to favour displacement of civilian order and direct assumption of power, at least at the present time.

The cause of the political leaders and parties, including the PML(N), will be served by working together for addressing socio-economic and internal security problems through clearly articulated plans of action. They need to strengthen the political institutions and learn to look beyond their narrow partisan interests.


Source: Politicians against politicians