May 17, 2012
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais

As two major political parties, the PPP and the PML-N prepare for the next elections, they see a greater need for building larger alliances with other parties and groups than ever before. Why? Because neither party can gather enough popular and electoral support to form a government of its own at the centre.

Any pragmatic political leader will find it difficult to ignore two political facts regarding Pakistan today. The first is that the era of strong national parties with nationwide support appears to be over, at least, for now. This is also a trend that we are witnessing in India. There are many reasons for the fall of national parties but chief among them are strident local voices, weaker consensus on how to address national issues and general distrust of old political parties and leaders.

The second reason is that political factions, groups and parties with regional bases have used localism and regionalism to strengthen their base. The ANP and the MQM are two such parties, along with nationalist groups in Sindh and Balochistan. Factionalism takes a different shape when we factor in the individual base of a large number of elected members of legislatures from Balochistan, Fata, interior Sindh and southern Punjab. The divide and fragmentation of Pakistan’s political landscape require the two major parties to build larger, wider and stronger coalitions across the four provinces, Gilgit-Baltistan and Fata for better chances of forming the next government.

The PPP has greater advantage of incumbency, state resources for political patronage and a network of alliances of parties and groups that have stood with it through many difficult situations that the party has faced in the past four years. The coalition, led by the PPP, clearly sees a greater benefit in staying together instead of parting their ways. The same logic will apply to their election strategy next year.

The PPP’s image, due to the poor performance of the Gilani government, has suffered a great deal but what impact it will have on the constituency-driven politics is yet unclear. Provincial and federal legislators will receive greater resources in the next budget, which is a time-tested instrument for keeping the supportive constituencies intact. Also, the PPP has already used a new province card in southern Punjab to bring itself closer to the ethos of the Seraiki populations.

The PML-N leadership, on the other hand, has considerable territory to cover. Its decade-long absence from Pakistan allowed its rivals greater political and social space than it could achieve due to limiting circumstances created by General Pervez Musharraf and his political strategy of fragmenting the national parties. While trying to retain its hold in Punjab, its true political base, it attempted to reach out to the Sindhi nationalists and will do the same in the case of the Baloch nationalists. Its attempts to do so have bore some fruit through the merger of the Sindh National Front led by Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, but to what extent is this likely to affect the constituency of the PPP is unknown. My gut feeling is very little or none. The PPP continues to retain its Sindhi base. An ordinary Sindhi is emotionally attached to the Bhuttos — a legacy that Asif Ali Zardari has skilfully acquired and sustained. He is not banking on emotions alone; he has worked hard on retaining his network of alliances among the Sindhi landowning families.

At the moment, no change in Pakistan’s political pattern is visible. However, it is a political necessity for the PML-N to show that it is not a Punjab-based party and an alliance with Sindhi nationalists may just carry that symbolic message.

The Express Tribune

May 18, 2012
Ayaz Amir

We were making a point and we’ve made it: this from Ms Hina Khar, our winsome foreign minister, putting a paint brush job on our blocking of Nato supply routes after the American gunship attacks on our Salala check-posts. Fair point but making the point for six months and dawdling over it and then entrusting the matter to parliament, a sure recipe for turning even the moderately simple into a running farce.

I say this with the utmost seriousness: if you want to make anything look silly send it to a joint session of parliament. It’s not our fault; we are just made this way. Shouting and poetry are our forte, sensible debate and discussion, heaven forbid, is not. And not for us the foolish dictum that brevity is the soul of wit. The man who said it – Shakespeare in this instance – deserves a public hanging. Our idea of wit, played out regularly in the National Assembly, is a two-hour harangue recycling a list of numbing inanities. Driven to pulling out your hair…that’s what the NA does.

Not one memorable debate in that august house for four years: this has to be some kind of an international record. The Chinese could revise their definition of refined torture. Sitting through what passes for debate in this assembly would yield fascinating insights into this subject.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security: behind the pompous title an empty parking lot. If we had to confuse the issue there was no better tactic than to ask the committee to set guidelines on Pak-US relations. Only problem is we ended up confusing ourselves, taking our endless rant about sovereignty and national dignity a bit too far for our own good.

The next step in spreading confusion was to send the committee’s mishmash of a report – overly long and in places downright stupid – to a joint session of parliament. Whether in a stage drama or a political matter making a point should be a neat affair: short and sharp. But we dragged out the point for six months and then when we saw the tide and American anger rising, we did a quick shuffle – make way Fred Astaire – swallowing our menacing talk of national dignity and pressing the panic button.

We wanted an invite to Chicago – by God, we wanted one – and who said Nato supplies were to be blocked forever? Fetching Ms Khar says this was our way of making a point: “I did it my way”. If our American friends are not impressed, they are hard to please.

But nagging thought: making a point or making an ass of ourselves? Take your pick. All at the altar of national dignity…the next time I hear this phrase I’ll seriously think of taking up bazooka training.

And, as ever, pulling the strings from behind, fine-tuning the musical score…our keepers of the flame, guardians of national ideology, traumatised by the Abbottabad raid and wanting to get their own back at the perfidy of our American friends. Fair enough, nothing could be more embarrassing than the smoking out of Sheikh Osama, a benefactor who was a problem for us as long as he lived but nothing short of a catastrophe in the manner of his death.

With Gen Kayani and Lt Gen Pasha – then leading national ideologue now, alas, put out to pasture – looking as if they had been struck by lightning, and brutally-violated national sovereignty very much the flavour of that dramatic season, the civilians were soon performing the gymnastic steps Kayani and Shuja, the corps commanders glaring at the back, wanted them to perform.

The entire nation went into national sovereignty overdrive, fearless knights and ladies of the media round table included. Chorus backup of course was provided by that other band of fearless champions, the holy stewards of the National Defence Council, dubbed unfairly by uncharitable souls as Gen Pasha’s own fusiliers.

What a heady time it was, swept on the tide of our own emotions, basking in the glory of our own illusions. What to talk of Nato and our American friends, we were ready to defy the furies, ready to take on the elements. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, that most subtle of gymnasts, got up to speak in the National Assembly and denounced everything connected with America in Afghanistan. So infectious was his example that when I got up next I too made heavy weather of American denunciation.

If only good things could last forever. We should have brought a closure to national outrage some time ago but we stretched the point too much until American patience, almost saintly up to that point, was pushed to breaking point. La Clinton (this is a Robert Fisk mannerism but please forgive me) while on a visit to India spoke of terrorism and Pakistan in the same breath, the US Congress started making threatening noises about money and assistance to Pakistan as the Nato summit in Chicago loomed nearer with no clear invite to us. We panicked and national dignity and sovereignty were seen floating out of the window.

Let’s have no fear: the heavens are not about to fall and matters will be settled but, sadly, not on the terms we had fondly envisioned. We should have kept our point-making a bit short. But then brevity with us not being the soul of wit, it had to be like this. We not only lost our audience but started irritating it.

Some shocks we never get over. Abbottabad is one such shock for the present military command. The national response they fashioned after Salala was in fact a delayed response, emerging from the sub-conscious, to Abbottabad…their moment to get even with the Americans. But they failed to take into account what Soviet communists used to call the balance of forces.

We are just we, not the Viet Cong or the armies of Ho Chi Minh. So there are limits to our defiance. And while Nato supply routes are important they are not the trump card we had imagined them to be. In effect, therefore, we have compromised with reality. A good thing too but if only we had done this a bit sooner than wait for weakness and helplessness to dictate our choices.

Some lessons in all this. No more judicial commissions, please, we’ve had enough of them. We have seen the Abbottabad and the Memo commissions functioning, if functioning is the right word. Lesser mortals would be embarrassed. Aren’t their lordships embarrassed? It is time this pantomime ended. And no more joint parliament sessions on matters beyond the reach – let me not say the comprehension – of parliament. For drumbeating, a recourse to parliament certainly, but for anything a shade more subtle, some other course please.

Much of the problem stems from our dysfunctional government. Its leading lights do all they can to keep their heads above the swirling political waters around them. They just don’t have time for other things. Defence and foreign policy they outsourced to Gen Kayani soon after coming to office. Kayani was doing a fine job until Abbottabad hit him. He is not the same man since.

So with a traumatised army command yet to exorcise the demons of the past, a dysfunctional government and a panting opposition, perpetually on the warpath, what choice do we have except to pray that between now and the elections the God-gifted talent which has kept us afloat for so long should not desert us, the talent of somehow managing to muddle through?

Email: winlust@yahoo.com

-The News

May 20, 2012
By Farhan Bokhari

As Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari prepares to join other global leaders attending the Nato summit in Chicago today, the country’s ruling elite and opposition leaders all live in danger of miscalculating the significance of this event.

Zardari has travelled to the summit on a last-minute invitation that he received with the backing of his American hosts, as the two sides struggled to overcome one of the worst periods of discord in their relations.

To the extent that Pakistan will be present on the high table, this is probably a positive outcome for the country. In sharp contrast, leaving Pakistan’s slot vacant at the Chicago event ran the risk of opening further opportunities for yet another round of Pakistan bashing.

But the ruling elite suffer from a danger that may well undermine some of the country’s best interests. For long Pakistan’s leaders have assumed that their ability to reach out to foreign leaders and governments can be a vehicle to stabilise not just their own positions but also the future of their increasingly dysfunctional country. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth.
Events leading to the latest breakdown of Pakistan’s relations with the United States emanated from circumstances surrounding the November 2011 helicopter attack from Afghanistan which targeted two of Pakistan’s army posts near the Afghan border. The subsequent killing of 26 Pakistani soldiers in that attack prompted Islamabad to shut down a crucial land-based supply route for western troops in Afghanistan.

In the past six months, the western forces in Afghanistan have indeed stood the test by bringing in supplies through alternative routes. In the short term, they have clearly withstood the pressure though sustaining this in the long term may not be feasible

As the western world loses appetite for the Afghan war and prepares to draw down contingents of US-led troops by 2014, a new phase in this conflict will likely emerge. Going forward, the world will have to rely increasingly on key western allies in the region surrounding Afghanistan.

This is where Pakistan’s position will become vital. It is probably in consideration of this fact of the coming future, more than anything else, that the US and other western powers eventually brought Pakistan back to the decision-making table.

Disarray

As for Pakistan’s ruling elite itself, the less said the better. Zardari’s trip to Chicago comes at a time of the worst possible breakdown of fundamentally vital elements of daily life across Pakistan. Ordinary Pakistanis have neither enough electricity nor sufficient gas for cooking or adequate water supply for daily use. In the four years since Zardari became Pakistan’s president, the country’s economic outlook has sharply deteriorated while its ability to overcome the growing number of challenges has only weakened.

For any Pakistani political figure, the writing on the wall of a country increasingly in disarray must be far more worrying than the influence they gain on the world stage. Zardari may indeed get the chance to rub shoulders with some of the world’s most prominent leaders but that just does not hold the key to unlocking the challenges which engulf Pakistan.

Once the summit in Chicago is over, Pakistan’s president will return home, likely without the assurance of being anywhere close to dealing with challenges faced by his country’s mainstream population, than before the summit.

In the past 18 months, Pakistan’s relations with the United States have gone from one period of disarray to another. Matters ranging from the activities of Raymond Davis, the CIA operative arrested in Pakistan for the killing of two Pakistanis, to the US raid which targeted Osama Bin Laden in May 2011, have only dragged this relationship downwards.

Indeed, Pakistan’s reaction to the western helicopter attack which targeted two of its army posts in November 2011, amply illustrates the degree to which it has run out of patience in the face of repeated provocations. And the subsequent public outrage on this matter is evident from the growing degree of discontent.

In returning to the negotiating table, the US must understand the futility of pushing Pakistan endlessly. However, Zardari and his cronies must also appreciate an all too visible fact: their failure to respond to the outcries from ordinary Pakistanis will only further undermine their ability to rule the country.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political and economic matters.
Source: Gulf News

May 22, 2012
Aqdas Afzal

National elections in Pakistan are around the corner and if certain polls are to be believed, Pakistan may have a new prime minister in 2013, if not sooner. In order to deliver the Pakistani nation from the economic doldrums, the next prime minister will have to learn quickly and act even faster. The spectacular success of the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pronounced: Er-do-ahn), in pulling Turkey back from the economic brink and placing his country on the road towards economic prosperity offers an instructive case in point.

Recently, Pakistani politicians and policymakers seem to have rediscovered Turkey. ‘All things Turkish’ has become the new fad judging by the endless references to that country on primetime television. Shahbaz Sharif, the Chief Minister of Punjab, has been a regular visitor to Turkey, where, according to sources, he has been tirelessly working towards bringing Turkish investment to Pakistan. A few months back, Imran Khan visited Turkey from where he tweeted about his appreciation for that country’s successful development model, particularly since Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (known in Turkey by the acronym AKP) came to power in 2002. In other words, it seems Turkey is now going to be our role model on the road to development.

Turkey has made tremendous economic progress since the AKP took over in 2002. Data obtained from the World Bank shows that during the nine years preceding AKP’s arrival at the helm (1993-2001), the average gross domestic product (GDP) growth per year was three percent. However, in the nine years under AKP (2002-2010), the GDP growth increased at an impressive five percent per year — at five percent annual growth, it would take about 14 years for the present Turkish real GDP to double, as opposed to 23 years at three percent. During the same period, inflation amounted to an average annual increase of 76 percent in prices before AKP. Since the AKP has taken over, the average annual inflation has come down to 15 percent in the nine years from 2002-2010. In 2002, the Turkish per capita income was $ 3,553. It has now increased to $ 10,094 (2010) — almost triple.

Turkey’s economic performance has been so impressive by international standards that Jim O’Neill, who coined the acronym BRICs in order to categorise Brazil, Russia, India and China as the most attractive emerging economies in 2001, has recently come up with a new list of promising emerging economies. O’Neill’s new list is denoted by the acronym MIST that now includes Turkey besides Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea.

This economic turnaround in Turkey in the last 10 years could not have been possible without the transformative leadership offered by Erdogan. In reality, Erdogan’s humble beginnings, his political experience as well as his political struggles have actually enabled him to become the transformative leader that he is today.

Erdogan grew up in Istanbul’s working-class neighbourhood of Kasimpasha. Unlike previous Turkish prime ministers (including Ecevit, Ciller, etc) who went to the very prestigious Robert College, Erdogan graduated from a quasi-conservative Imam Hatip school (Imam Khatib), where he socialised with the children of other working-class families. At times, in order to make ends meet, Erdogan even had to sell lemonade in some of the tougher districts of Istanbul. By virtue of his humble beginnings, Erdogan thus developed a realistic ‘feel’ about the concerns of the common working-class Turkish people. This is one reason why he squarely focused on economic prosperity after becoming prime minister in 2003. Perhaps one reason why Pakistan has, to date, not been able to produce a transformative leader in the same league as Erdogan is that a majority of Pakistan’s political leaders hail from traditionally privileged sections of society. As a result, Pakistani politicians fail to develop the level of empathy that is required to obtain a better purchase about the challenges a common Pakistani goes through in a daily cycle of 24 hours.

Erdogan’s good governance after becoming prime minister did not materialise out of thin air; his good governance is born of hands-on political experience. He has learned the ropes of governance as the mayor of Istanbul from 1994-1998. He worked very hard in successfully addressing Istanbul’s entrenched problems: water shortage; poor waste management; pollution and empty coffers. A majority of Pakistani leaders, however, lack hands-on political experience, as a vast majority has never really participated in the political process at the local government level. The Pakistani people’s representatives can only be found waxing eloquent at the highest political forums of the national and provincial assemblies, while ignoring basic governance issues like municipal services.

Erdogan’s political struggles in emancipating the Turkish people from the clutches of the Turkish ‘deep state’ (the Turkish version of the Pakistani ‘establishment’) are the stuff of legend. Like a true transformative leader, rather than leave the political arena, Erdogan chose to stay inside and fight the deep state with his stellar performance. After becoming prime minister, as Erdogan’s governance delivered year after year, he gained popularity, winning three successive elections. At the same time, he tightened the noose, inch after inch, around the elements of the deep state, especially in the military and the judiciary. At this moment, General Kenan Everin is undergoing trial for staging a military coup in 1980. Throughout his political struggles, Erdogan’s focus and dedication on improving the quality of life of the average Turk has been unflinching. Struggling and then winning against the deep state, most likely, has given Erdogan the strength of character necessary to take tough decisions in putting Turkey on the road to economic prosperity. In contrast, the struggles of Pakistani politicians, more often than not, are confined to bolstering their parliamentary strength through backdoor lobbying with rival members of parliament.

The ‘perfect storm’ of challenges Pakistan faces today beckons for a Pakistani Erdogan, who possesses Erdogan-like qualities in order to tackle these challenges. Though Pakistan does not have an Erdogan-like transformative leader at the moment, sincere Pakistani political leaders can improve exponentially from investigating, analysing and finally copying the real drivers behind Erdogan’s stellar performance, as opposed to concealing their Swiss bank accounts and foreign assets from the prying eyes of the media.

Even if the current lot of Pakistani political leaders cannot claim to have had humble beginnings, they can make amends by reaching out to the Pakistani ‘street’. A street-level education will show the would-be Pakistani Erdogan that the concerns of the average Pakistani could not be further from the grandiloquent terms of national honour and national security. The street yearns for jobs, electricity and stable prices.

There is no alternative to real, hands-on political experience either. The would-be Pakistani Erdogan should try to obtain political experience, preferably as a local mayor, before making a dash for the prime ministerial slot, only to be frustrated by the endless machinations of the state bureaucracy.

Finally, an unflinching strength of character and personal integrity is required to stake a claim as a Pakistani Erdogan. Only a handful of Pakistani politicians have legitimately engaged in a genuine political struggle — the rest still dream of riding to power on the establishment’s horse. This will not do. A would-be Pakistani Erdogan must politically struggle and win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people through stellar governance. We are all waiting for a Pakistani Erdogan!

The writer has taught economics at Lahore University of Management Sciences and presently works for the development sector in Islamabad. He can be reached at aqdas.afzal@gmail.com
-Daily Times

May 27, 2012
Najmul Hasan Rizvi

Long March has become a fashion in Pakistan’s politics today. Since Nawaz Sharif did his ‘catwalk’ to win restoration of the supreme judge, ‘long march’ has become a ‘battle cry’ of every leader, Mr Right said, commenting on a threat by a group of people to stage a ‘long march’ to prevent Nato trucks from rolling into Afghanistan, if the government decided to resume supplies.

“In fact, I support it,” I said. “A long march is badly needed by many of our political ‘heavy-weights’ who do nothing except eating, sleeping and collecting funds and fat. A long march might help them trim their bodies.”

“You may be right,” Mr Right replied. “But this so-called long march is not a march at all, because nobody there is seen walking on foot. You will be disappointed to know that it’s a mobile march with marchers riding on motor cars.”

“Then we should call it a ‘drive to plunder petrol’, which would lead nowhere and only aggravate our fuel shortage,” I said. “The government must take steps to stop these ‘fashion parades’.

“On the contrary, I think that the government should never try to stop any long march,“ Mr Right argued. “It should rather facilitate the long march by setting up food and water stalls for participants, provided they go on marching on foot from Karachi to the border of Afghanistan.”

“The same principle should be applied to protest rallies in big cities. People should be asked to go on foot to public meetings,” I pointed out. “Political parties have developed a trick to bring their supporters to public meetings from distant places in hired and sometimes ‘seized’ vehicles choking city streets and causing ugly traffic jams.”

“The impending long march by the group of people calling themselves ‘protectors’ of the country is the latest in a series of long marches announced by leaders belonging to all parties represented by lions, bulls and zebras,” Mr Right observed.

“Well, lions have threatened to stalk Islamabad, I know, if the ‘convicted prime minister’ does not give up his seat,” I said. “But who are the Zebras?” I asked. “What they are up to?”

“They have striped flags, representing a confused lot,” Mr Right said. “They like nobody and nobody likes them. And they think a long march will take them to the doors of a wonderland where there will be no infidels and no flying bombs.”

“Do you mean, it’s a game of playing with the destiny of a confused people?” I looked at him.

“In reality we are a confused people and the most confused among us find them fit to rule the country,” Mr Right said. “That’s why they believe that the only purpose of being in power is to complete the five-year term.”

“But the irony is that if they complete the five-year term, they would consider it a feat and expect their voters to elect them for another five years of utter confusion,” I laughed.

“For the ruling party, democracy is a form of government which is by a confused people, of a confused people, and for a confused people,” Mr Right said.

“They never mind if the line between right and wrong is so blurred that they are unable to differentiate between a law-maker and a law-breaker,” I said.

“Who knows the future planners who are less confused might propose to build the city’s largest prison next to parliament,” Mr Right grinned.
Najmul Hasan Rizvi is a former Assistant Editor of Khaleej Times
Source: Khaleej Times

May 28, 2012
Yasser Latif Hamdani

The late Z H Zaidi, who edited the Jinnah Papers, had edited an earlier volume a few decades ago, which was called Jinnah-Ispahani Correspondence. This volume contains the correspondence between Mohammad Ali Jinnah and M A H Ispahani, spanning over a decade. In Pakistan, we are so disconnected from our history that nine out of 10 Pakistanis are not likely to know who M A H Ispahani was and why the founding father of this country was corresponding with him. I do not wish to give my readers a history lesson, therefore suffice it to say, Ispahani was Jinnah’s foremost lieutenant in Calcutta. He was one of the biggest financiers of the Muslim League and the moving spirit behind many key steps, such as the Muslim Chamber of Commerce and the Orient Airways, which later became PIA, which Jinnah and the League initiated to improve the lot of Muslims in British India. After Pakistan was created, Isphahani served as Pakistan’s first ambassador in Washington and did so with distinction.

What prompts this writer to remember Ispahani is the recent suspension of Farahnaz Ispahani, who is the granddaughter of M A H Ispahani, as an MNA by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The suspension itself is justified because no country accepts dual nationals as members of its legislature. However, what is striking about the Supreme Court’s decision are the remarks that the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan chose to give on why such a suspension may be necessary. According to media reports, it was stated by the court that Ms Ispahani might be a spy and “might have collected secret information regarding sensitive matters, particularly on defence and foreign affairs. After seeing this oath of allegiance to the US, one cannot say that such a person can be loyal to any other country.” With all due respect, reverence and regard to the august office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, these comments, if made, are a little hard to digest even for diehard supporters of the Supreme Court, rule of law and everything nice like this writer. They impugn the reputation of a lady who has always forwarded the best interest of the country on the face of it and who has very good reason to be loyal and patriotic to Pakistan. Furthermore, the Pakistani Diaspora on the hill in the US is very active in the aid of Pakistan. Are we saying that all Pakistani-Americans are disloyal to their country of birth and origin? Is the Supreme Court then considering discontinuing the issuance of overseas Pakistanis NICs to those who are also US citizens? As a lawyer and a citizen, I for one believe that our Supreme Court being infallible can do no wrong, but outsiders might not always interpret the actions of our infallible Supreme Court in the way we do. They might well be led into believing that our infallible Supreme Court has become partisan and vindictive and that a new cycle of a civil-military-bureaucratic alliance is out to get a democratically elected government. Ah, the horror. Impressions are truly hard to dispel. Our eldest is convinced her mother loves her younger sister more than her. Democracy in Pakistan is like a child. It has never been allowed to grow in Pakistan.

Of course, they, the outsiders, are already spreading scurrilous rumours against our Supreme Court. It is said that by taking up non-justiciable (justiciability is a doctrine of constitutional law) political questions, the honourable justices of our superior judiciary are undermining the democratic process. I suppose the litmus test will be whether the Supreme Court will interfere now that the Speaker of the National Assembly has ruled that the prime minister’s conviction in the contempt case is not enough for a reference under Article 63(2). The Speaker’s ruling is technically unimpeachable, relying on the precedent of Makhdoom Javed Hashmi’s case. There, too, disqualification for bringing an unelected institution into controversy was moved and overruled by the then Speaker. Therefore, the Speaker, who is not merely a post office, was well within her rights to refuse the reference. To this end, she quoted Kanwar Intizar Muhammad Khan v Federation of Pakistan 1995 MLD Lahore 1903. It is a past and closed transaction and constitutionally protected by the doctrine of the separation of powers. In democracies, the judiciary does not interfere in political questions, period. Nixon v United States 506 US 224 (1993) comes to mind, which stated in clear terms that impeachment was a political question and could not be resolved in the courts. The House of Lords in Great Britain ruled similarly in Buttes Gas v Hammer [1981] 3 All ER 616 (HL), which is based on the doctrine of non-justiciability.

Precious years have been wasted in this futile struggle for supremacy by all sides. Five years of the current government are near completion and there has not been even a single day when there has not been an undeclared war between the institutions. The impact on our economy is terrible. The uncertainty created time and again in this tug of war has hurt this country fundamentally. The only honourable way out is for the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is the repository of people’s confidence and hopes, to stay out of political questions and concern itself with its primary role — dispensing justice and equity to the people of Pakistan. Let political questions be decided in the court of public opinion instead.

The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalorum.blogspot and his twitter handle is therealylh

May 29, 2012
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais

On issues like corruption, incompetence, flagrant violation of rules, defiance of the Supreme Court and standing firm against a contempt of court conviction, the polity of Pakistan is divided between those who are in support of the Gilani government and those who are against it. One specific trait of our social and political culture is partisanship — a cleric, a feudal lord, a tribal chief or a caste leader is never wrong, he is always right. Similarly, we see some prominent lawyers and commentators in the media, linked through a system of visible and invisible patronage of the state, waxing eloquent to prove that the prime minister is right and that the Supreme Court is overstepping its mandate. On the other hand, opponents of the regime, mainly the PML-N and the PTI stridently argue that he is a convict and he doesn’t have any legal standing anymore to continue as prime minister.

Before I explain why Gilani must go, I would like to concur with two arguments presented by his supporters. Firstly and politically, I think it was not possible for the prime minister to write a letter to the Swiss courts, whatever the merits of the case may be. President Asif Ali Zardari handpicked him purely on the same grounds that his predecessor appointed prime ministers, that is, being political lightweights. There was an additional quality that President Zardari was looking for and this was absolute loyalty towards him. Mr Gilani has proved his loyalty, honouring the time-honoured code of the feudal world — personal commitments are stronger than matters of public interest or law.

True, the prime minister is now a convicted person but in my view, he may continue to stay in the job until there is a decision on his appeal against the conviction. We have heard that he is not planning to appeal but who knows if the government may yet change its mind on that? Even his opponents, who want to see him return to Multan immediately, don’t present any valid argument against his right of appeal. They talk about moral legitimacy which, in an immoral political world of ours doesn’t carry any weight. If morality — that which is considered public conduct according to the accepted social norms of honour, decency, fair play and merit — were the value to judge our leaders; we may not find any in this part of the world, or elsewhere for that matter.

Morality is a good stick to beat opponents up with but a poor judge of the conduct of power-oriented politics. Politics is, therefore, governed by law alone. There is another source to judge politics, the opinion and support — or lack thereof — of the general population. Sadly, our tradition of rule of law remains weak and public opinion, if judged by electoral results, is polarised along a partisan party system based on strong social networks. Having said this, I believe Mr Gilani must go home.

First, never in our history have we seen such an incompetent government and perhaps, never will we see such a disastrous composition of actors again. There are only a handful of sane voices in his cabinet, the rest being incompetent and unable to run their ministries efficiently and for the greater public good. Second, Pakistan has done better under other regimes and could do better in terms of development, resource generation and governance. Also, the prime minister’s reputation is not all that clean, not least because of the serious allegations of favouritism and nepotism in the so-called ephedrine scandal allegedly involving one of his sons.

Finally, with a heavy burden of perceived corruption, poor governance and now standing in the middle of a political controversy, his carrying on in office may cost the PPP dearly. He is a political liability and the sooner he is sent packing the better off the PPP will be, as well as the rest of the country.

The Express Tribune

June 3, 2012
Byr Hasan Askari Rizvi

The decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly on May 24 that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not create the basis for disqualification of the prime minister has saved him from being disqualified as the member of the National Assembly. However, given the ongoing confrontation between the major political parties the PML(N) has decided to challenge the speaker’s ruling in the Supreme Court. This will reopen the disqualification case against the prime minister, giving an opportunity to the Supreme Court to be more categorical in disqualifying him, causing the collapse of the federal cabinet.

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution. It may succeed against the civilian government in narrow legal and constitutional sense. However, the current federal government has a decisive edge in the political domain. As the federal coalition created by President Asif Ali Zardari remains intact, the disqualification of the prime minister, if the Supreme Court decides to do that, would not shift the locus of power. The PPP-led coalition can bring forward another leader of their choice as the prime minister who will carry on with the legacy of Yousaf Raza Gilani.

The legal experts are debating the merits and demerits of the Supreme Court judgment and what the Court can do after the ruling of the Speaker of the National Assembly. This debates fits into the existing political polarisation. As a matter of fact, the political fallout of the judgment has accentuated political divisions. The PPP and its allies and supporters are unhappy over the judgment and think that the Supreme Court could not insist on writing a letter to the Swiss authorities because of the presidential immunity laid down in Article 248 (2) of the Constitution. Had the Supreme Court not been protected by the contempt of court law, this criticism would have been sharper than what we read and hear now-a-days.

The opposition parties and others are projecting themselves as the champions of independent judiciary and that the judgment of the Supreme Court should be implemented fully, implying that Prime Minister Gilani is automatically disqualified and that he could not stay on as the prime minister. The legal community is also divided on the same line.

What matters most is the political agenda. As it is not possible for the opposition, especially the PMLN, to remove the federal government through a vote-of-no-confidence in the National Assembly because it does not have the required parliamentary support, it views the Supreme Court’s judicial activism as an opportunity to pursue its political agenda. If the Army removes the Gilani-Zardari government, the opposition will be willing to welcome it provided such a removal opens the way for their assumption of power within a couple of months. If they realize that any removal of government by the judiciary or the military results in denial of power to them for the next couple of years they will oppose such a change.

The federal government led by Yousaf Raza Gilani has so far managed to survive different pressures from the military, superior judiciary and the opposition since October-November 2011. It was in November-December 2011 that some political analysts talked about the collapse of the federal government in weeks because in their view either the Supreme Court’s pressure would cause the collapse of the federal government or the military would do that or both would join to get rid of the prime minister.

A civil-military confrontation broke out on the memo issue, and by the end of December, the Supreme Court appointed a special commission to inquire into the memo issue. When in January 2012 the defence secretary, a retired Lt-General, was removed by the Prime Minister, many analysts thought that the federal government had reached the end of the road and that the military would knock it out. This did not happen.

The federal coalition was able to take part in the Senate elections in March and the PPP and its allies improved their position in the upper house. Now, only one item of the federal government’s current agenda is left, that is, the national budget, that will be presented in the first week of June. Though the PML(N) will bitterly oppose it, the federal government will have no serious problem in getting the budget approved because the ruling coalition is expected to stick together.

Any move by the opposition to challenge the decision of the speaker in the High Court or the Supreme Court is not going to be settled before the approval of the national budget because the federal government will contest such a move in the court of law.

Once the budget is approved, the federal government can review the situation to decide the timing of the next general elections, i.e. before the end of this year or in the second quarter of 2013. Once the general elections are announced the constitutional battle may continue as an academic exercise but it will lose political significance.

The most serious challenge for the federal coalition is not the threat of disqualification of the prime minister but the faltering economy and growing internal disorder. The new budget is likely to run into serious problems within six months if the government is unable to obtain international financial support that depends on reopening of NATO supply line though Pakistan.

The military authorities appear to be in favour of resuming the supply of NATO goods through Pakistan. But, the civilian government and the military lack the courage to say this in categorical terms because their own policies strengthened anti-Americanism and pro-Taliban sentiments in Pakistan to such an extent that both have become hostage to their own policies. Economic crisis is coupled with increased internal disorder and violence that is now spreading to the areas that were generally stable.

The PPP should hold the general elections not later than December, that is, before the economy starts unravelling. The opposition may be happy that the problems of the federal government are increasing. What the government and the opposition do not realise that the current polarisation, faltering economy and growing internal insecurity are pushing the country towards internal chaos. Pakistan is becoming a dysfunctional state. A large part of its territory will be ruled by competing local power brokers, gun wielders and chaos rather than by a civilian government or a government that meets the criterion set up by the military or the Supreme Court.

The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.

June 3, 2012
By Farhan Bokhari

Pakistan’s ruling coalition lived up to its reputation of seemingly avoiding tough solutions to tough challenges. This was once again evident in the country’s annual budget on Friday.

The event, though not necessarily of a milestone character for Pakistan’s economic outlook, was celebrated by some as the first ever moment when an elected civilian government successfully delivered its fifth straight budget in setting the pace for the completion of its five-year tenure.

Yet, the ugly acrimony surrounding Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh’s speech in parliament said much about the prevailing condition in Pakistan. Shaikh chose to plug himself with a set of earphones while delivering the speech, as a convenient ploy to disregard protests by members of the main opposition party in the parliament — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

However, along with the speech came the most rowdy protests in parliament, ever seen on budget day. Amid fisticuffs and the use of crude language, Shaikh chose to present the budget, which later saw more criticism than approval across the country.

For some, the moment of glory for the ruling coalition, led by Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was quickly lost in the controversy generated by this years’ budget. Ironically, Shaikh’s use of ear plugs worked as a powerful reminder of the character of Pakistan’s present-day regime — notorious for disregarding the voices from across the country.

In sharp contrast to the affluent lifestyles of Pakistan’s elite, the dismal conditions across the country are all too obvious to those who fear bloody consequences of a deepening divide. The case of frequent electricity shortages, backed by disruptions in gas supplies and shortages of water in many parts of Pakistan, point towards a deepening failure by the state to care for the bulk of its population.

With regard to power shortages, while Pakistan reportedly has the installed capacity to generate enough electricity to meet the demands of its people, the supply cuts are indeed a consequence of prevailing financial conditions. The government says, rising global oil prices have had a crippling effect on many economies around the world, including that of Pakistan’s, making it unaffordable for the regime to import enough oil to run oil-fired power generation plants to their full capacity.

However, deeper below, lies a two-pronged set of challenges. First, Pakistan’s ruling structure, led by president Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, has emerged one of the most controversial of its kinds in the country’s history. Stories of corruption at high places have made it virtually impossible for the regime to mobilise a new wave of popular support to take the country through fresh reforms — all in the interest of improving the quality of daily living conditions.

The other point worth noting is the utter disregard shown by the leaders towards the serious challenges faced by the people on a daily basis. Notwithstanding the frequent promises made by the officials to create a state where the quality of life will improve dramatically, most Pakistanis still find themselves paying more than what they should. The inability of Pakistan’s rulers to end the crises — ranging from shortage of electricity and gas to curbing widespread breakdown of governance — must eventually return to haunt the current regime.

In the days ahead, Pakistanis, however, will be presented with an important opportunity. With elections due by the first quarter of 2013, the people of Pakistan must make it a point to turn out in large numbers to vote for a cause — the cause of changing the nation’s future direction. At the same time, the PML-N must also rise to the occasion in presenting an alternative formula to create a vision for change.

Finally, in seeking to press for change, Pakistanis must also clearly search for political alternatives. In the past year, Imran Khan, the former cricket star-turned-politician has struck a receptive chord wherever he has travelled across Pakistan, as the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Pakistan Justice Party).

It is too early to tell if Imran is indeed the rising star of Pakistan’s political future. But receptive and ever-swelling crowds of supporters of Imran point to an emerging trend — that Pakistanis are just too tired of the way their country is being run today.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political and economic matters.

source: Gulf News

Nasim Ahmed


It was not unexpected. For many, NA Speaker Dr. Fehmida Mirza's ruling on the Supreme Court's reference on the disqualification of PM Gillani was a foregone conclusion. And yet many had hoped that as an impartial referee she would rise above party loyalty and act in the true spirit of the Constitution - send the SC reference to the Election Commission for a final decision. But, in the end, she proved herself a hardcore PPP stalwart. Not only did she exonerate PM Gillani of any charges of wrongdoing, but she also pre-empted any possibility of the EC starting proceedings for the disqualification of the prime minister as a sequel to the Supreme Court's order in the contempt of court case.

In her 5-page ruling issued two days before the expiry of the 30-day deadline to decide the fate of the prime minister convicted by the Supreme Court on contempt of court charges, Dr. Fehmida Mirza wrote: "No question of disqualification of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani from being a member arises under clause (2) of Article 63 of the Constitution. I am of the view that the charges against Yousaf Raza Gillani are not relatable to the grounds mentioned in paragraph (g) or (h) of clause (1) of the Article 63. The letters of the Assistant Registrar (IMP) for Registrar of the Supreme Court stands answered accordingly.

Furthermore, the petition of Maulvi Iqbal Haider, Advocate being without any merit, is not maintainable and accordingly rejected."

The NA Speaker's decision has set off a new political, constitutional and legal controversy in the country.

PM Gillani has termed the decision a victory for democracy: "Today, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, democracy has won and the Speaker ruled in my favour."

On the other hand, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Ch. Nisar Ali Khan has dismissed the ruling as partial and biased: "It's quite sad that Speaker National Assembly Dr. Fehmida Mirza has also become a part of the lobby which is bent upon disobeying the Supreme Court's verdict against Prime Minister Gillani. The Speaker has misused her position and has just moved to save a single person.

Seven judges have convicted Gillani of contempt of court while the NA Speaker says that there is no question of disqualification." Nisar added that as per law, the case should have been sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan because "ECP officials are neutral and the case should be reviewed by them."

Legal opinion in the country also seems divided over the issue. While some experts are of the view that the Speaker's ruling is not open to question, respected judicial opinion holds that Dr. Fehmida Mirza has acted beyond her authority because under the Article 63 (3) of the Constitution the authority to determine the substantive question of whether a member should be disqualified is vested in the Election Commission. Justice (R) Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui has said that no one can challenge the Supreme Court, whose judgment is final and binding. Similar views have been expressed by other retired judges of the superior courts.

What lies ahead? Already the PTI has decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court for adjudication. If Ch. Nisar Ali Khan's outburst against the Speaker's ruling is any indication, the PML-N will surely consider keeping the issue alive as a way to pressurise the government and nudge it towards early elections. According to another interpretation, the Election Commission may also intervene in the matter and declare that the Speaker has no constitutional powers to overrule the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In case the matter goes to the court as announced by both the PML-N and the PTI, the country will be in for another battle royal pitting the judiciary against the legislature. This is what various government spokesmen, including the prime minister, have been hinting at for quite some time - the theme of Parliament's supremacy over other state institutions. The NA Speaker's ruling in the contempt of court case has come as a practical demonstration of how the government intends to proceed in dealing with the judiciary and impede its efforts to curb corruption, promote accountability of public officials and establish the rule of law and constitution in the country.

Under this approach, the stand-off between the judiciary and the executive will be given a new twist and turned into one between the Supreme Court and Parliament, which the government says is the supreme body in the country representing the will of the people. In the light of the continued defiance of the judiciary by the government in the last four years, it is easy to see that it will be a new ruse in its hands to obstruct the working of the Supreme Court.
The government's delaying tactics have served it well so far. Its future strategy will be to further politicize the process of justice and thus keep buying time until the next elections.

-cuttingedge