Give People A Chance Now

By Amir Zia
The News
Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Supreme Court has done its job. Now it is up to politicians and key state institutions to ensure that people can also give their verdict through elections – whether they are held early or on time.

There appears to be something for everyone in the Supreme Court verdict which ended Yousuf Raza Gilani’s stint as prime minister and disqualified him from the National Assembly. The judiciary, led by Honourable Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, established the supremacy of law in a convincing manner by removing the chief executive- the most powerful official of the government. The decision, foretold by many legal experts, will go a long way in setting the rules of the game in the murky waters of Pakistani politics.

The ruling Pakistan People’s Party, despite the setback of losing its prime minister, still remains hopeful of completing a full five-year term in the office, though many political pundits doubt its ability and capacity to do so given the mounting pressure from the opposition, leaders of the public opinion, sections within the establishment and the legal fraternity demanding early elections. The PPP’s central leadership – at least publicly – bowed to the Supreme Court decision without creating much fuss. The critical voices within its ranks including that of the national and provincial lawmakers and small protests are for the record and in no way a declaration of an all out war with the judiciary. This, too, can be taken as a positive and mature reaction – perhaps in the PPP’s own enlightened self-interest.
Gilani – the man whose innings was cut short barely a month before he was supposed breach the long-held record by the slain first premier Liaquat Ali Khan, of staying the highest number of days in the office – can also bask in his glory, for at least his party rank and file and sympathizers; for to them he proved his loyalty by sacrificing the coveted office.
He took the shot which was aimed at the PPP chairman and the country’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, giving him a chance to complete his term. But the prophets of doom and gloom say that there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip. However, Gilani’s desire to become a “political martyr” has been fulfilled. The PPP will now have a victim’s card to play when the hurly burly of the elections starts – at least to mobilise its diehard supporters, who indeed are present across the country.
The opposition – from Mian Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League to Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf to lesser players including the Jamaat-e-Islami – all got the partial satisfaction that they managed to take the all important wicket of Gilani, who shielded Zardari from the Swiss Court and reopening of corruption cases against him. They now prepare for the final push, which means forcing the government to call snap elections a few months before it is supposed to complete its term.
Many people might wonder whether all this pain was worth-taking if it slashes PPP’s term by a few months only. But the games politicians play and the rationale, or absurdities, of their actions are beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals. Already, the daggers are out to get the PPP’s next man in the Prime Minister’s House.
The media, one of the main cheerleaders of the game played on the political chess-board, is also having a whale of a time. The thirst for news, comment, analysis and conspiracy theories is as intense as it always is in troubled times, with the news channels in a race to outdo one another to attract the maximum eyeballs to their screens. Politics is being treated as a 20/20 over game of cricket with leading anchors, experts, opinion-makers, and politicians building excitement with their glib and thrilling sound bites and building expectations for instant results.
The common man – presumably at the center of universe for the government, the opposition, the judiciary and the media alike – desires change for a politically stable, economically vibrant and peaceful Pakistan. For the man on the street, the ouster of an elected prime minister through the Supreme Court verdict opens a door which might lead to a new pro-people politics that has kept eluding them for the past many decades. Their “great expectations” have been dashed many a times. Will this time be any different? While many are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping for the best, the mood of the moment at the same time is also clouded with doubt, cynicism and disillusionment. In all this political strife, discord and tussle, the common man has so far been the ultimate victim. The ordeal of the common man could end if Gilani’s departure brings to the centre-stage his issues, aspirations and dreams. He has now something to look forward to.
However, it remains a bitter fact that in the near future, Pakistan is all set to witness heightened polarisation and uncertainty. With President Zardari and his party bidding to play full innings and trying to set the stage as best as possible in their favour for the next elections and the opposition building momentum for the last push, the coming days will be testing for the country which is already reeling from countless internal and external challenges. The battered economy, the grave law and order situation, the dark specter of extremism and terrorism , the ever-weakening writ of the state, the country’s strained ties with the United States and its growing international isolation – to name only a few.
These crucial challenges will figure low on the government’s priority list as it battles for survival. But can the country afford this continued tragedy of delay? Haven’t we wasted enough time since this democratic dispensation took over in the early 2008 under what may appear ideal circumstances with parliament electing Gilani as prime minister with an unprecedented consensus? What followed is a sorry saga of mismanagement, poor governance and corruption.
Are we now at the end of the tunnel? This depends on how the key political players, the judiciary and the mighty military establishment play ball and perform the high-wire act of keeping democracy on track despite the rollercoaster ride it has been giving the country for more than four years. For best strategies and game-plans orchestrated with all the good intentions can run amok when put to test in practical politics in which there always lurks an element of surprise. When under pressure, any of the players can react in a manner that has been least anticipated.
The Supreme Court has done its job. Now it is up to politicians and key state institutions to ensure that people can also give their verdict through elections – whether they are held early or on time. The voters’ verdict can surprise our armchair analysts, who try to seal the fate of this or that political party through their predictions.

The Sensible Course

By Amir Zia
The News
Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The tense Pakistan-US relations can only be good news for Al-Qaeda, the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban and of course their cheerleaders in the country’s mainstream religious and rightwing parties opposed to Islamabad’s cooperation in the international effort against terrorism. But this bodes ill for Pakistan’s long-term geo-strategic and economic interests.


The tidings from Washington are getting ominous for Pakistan. In yet another sign of worsening ties, the Pentagon announced withdrawal of its negotiators from Pakistan after weeks of talks over the reopening of Nato supply routes into Afghanistan ended in failure. Though the Pentagon tried to give a diplomatic gloss to its decision by saying that the United States remains willing for dialogue over the issue, there are clear indications that the gridlock between the two sides is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

Earlier, Washington’s frustration with Pakistan was highlighted by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, who in hard-hitting statements made in New Delhi, Kabul and Washington in a span of less than a week, reiterated his government’s position of no letup in drone strikes on what it terms Al- Qaeda and Taliban militants hiding in Pakistan’s northern region. His warning that the United States was “losing patience” with Islamabad over its failure to eliminate safe havens for insurgents reflects the growing chasm and distrust between these two uneasy allies in more than a decade-long war on terrorism. In the words of Panetta, the United States is now at war in Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (Fata) from where militants allegedly mount cross-border attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s efforts to underplay these statements – now being echoed at the highest level of the US administration and Congress – and cliché-ridden diplomatic explanations that the country will follow its well-thought-out strategy to eradicate terrorism under its own timeline, falls too short, given the grave challenge it faces on the external and internal fronts. The point is that it’s not business as usual in Pakistan-US relations and the country’s international isolation is growing. Under the current civilian and military leadership, Pakistan has not only lost its initiative – which once it had – in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its inspired local militants, but is increasingly seen as an unwilling partner in the UN-mandated international efforts against terrorism. This lack of drive in combating terrorism stands in stark contrast to former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s days in which quick decisions were taken on crucial foreign policy issues and there was a sea-change in the way Pakistan dealt with militants.
The tense Pakistan-US relations can only be good news for Al-Qaeda, the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban and of course their cheerleaders in the country’s mainstream religious and rightwing parties opposed to Islamabad’s cooperation in the international effort against terrorism. But this bodes ill for Pakistan’s long-term geo-strategic and economic interests.
In politics, be it national or international, perceptions matters the most. And the hard fact is that today the international perception about Pakistan’s commitment in the war on terrorism remains highly questionable. The country is seen as a safe haven for terrorists from across the globe. In many high-profile terrorist incidents not just in the region, but around the world, investigation threads often lead towards Pakistan.
The Haqqani network, the Al-Qaeda operatives and the Afghan Taliban – from their lowly soldiers to their leaders – all have footprints on our soil and allegedly use it to rest, regroup and plan assaults across the porous border into Afghanistan. The response of Pakistan’s current civil and military leadership to this perception appears to be that of self-denial and their position of tackling the problem at their own sweet pace lacks the urgency which the international community demands from them. No wonder, Pakistani narrative finds few takers in important world capitals. This, indeed, is sad, given the fact that Pakistan paid a far higher price than the US and any of its Nato allies in this war, with more than 36,000 dead that include thousands of security personnel.
The recent killing of Al-Qaeda’s number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in a US drone attack in a village of North Waziristan, has come as yet another blow to Pakistan, where terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was also killed by the US Marines in May last year. These high-profile killings of Al-Qaeda leaders and operatives came against the backdrop of continued rejections of charges by top Pakistani officials about the presence of militant leadership in the country. But the killing of al-Libi again exposed these statements and undermined Islamabad’s demand for a halt to US drone attacks, which have been fairly effective in targeting militants despite concerns about civilian deaths in collateral damage.
The surge in the number of drone attacks under US President Barrack Obama’s administration – seen as one of the key stumbling blocks in Pakistan-US relations – has resulted largely because of Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to act against foreign and local militants. From the US point-of-view, the logic is simple: if you can’t act against them, we will.
Given the high-stakes in Afghanistan’s endgame in which Nato allies plan to end their combat operation sometime in 2013 and hand over security to Afghan security forces, Pakistan indeed appears an odd man out as its leadership drags its feet in going for decisive steps to combat the twin ghost of extremism and terrorism that also threaten its own stability and future.
Since Bin Laden’s killing, which embarrassed Pakistan’s military establishment, there has been a rapid deterioration in relations between the two sides as Pakistan curtailed cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The attack of US choppers on the Salala check post in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers proved to be the proverbial last straw, following which Islamabad closed the Nato supply routes.
As anti-American sentiment was drummed up in an organised manner through different shades of legal and banned religious groups, as well as rightwing leaders like Imran Khan, the mainstream political parties present in parliament got swayed away under what is being dubbed as “popular pressure,” rather than moving quickly on addressing the fundamental issues marring Pakistan-US relations. The civilian and military leadership failed to give a vision and direction to Pakistan’s foreign and geostrategic policy keeping in view the new realities and challenges. Apparently, they remain stuck with the old game of keeping a few options handy among militants on the assumptions that it will be back to the good old days of 1990s once the United States and Nato troops end combat operations in Afghanistan. But the world has changed and the old games of duplicity in the stated policy and covert action won’t take us anywhere.
The brinkmanship in relations with the United States on account of the Salala post tragedy and connecting it to unrelated issues including revision of Nato cargo tariff upwards is in no way any kind of statesmanship. Instead of trying to resolve the issue on a war footing, the government wasted precious time in emotional debate in parliament and tried to play the popular card rather than leading and moulding public opinion for a sensible and rational solution. When the United States wanted to get over Salala after issuing an apology, we jacked up stakes from where it is now difficult for the civil and military leaders to climb down without losing face.
In the US election year, Obama will be more aggressive in getting results on the Afghan warfront as he wants to be seen as a strong leader. Expecting concessions at this crucial juncture from his administration is too unrealistic. On the other hand, the Pakistani establishment’s strategy, if there is one, appears to wait for the exit of the US and Nato troops and then show its cards. Therefore, to expect a breakthrough in the impasse seems a fry cry in the coming months, which will have its negative repercussions on Pakistan especially its economy. For Islamabad, the sensible course should be to keep itself aligned with the international community, rather than going for an adventurous course. But perhaps common sense and rationality is too much to ask in the Land of the Pure.

The Challenge That Is Karachi

By Amir Zia
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
The News

The civilian leadership has had enough failures. It must now rise to the challenge. Ignore non-issues like demands for a mohajir sooba and do what is doable for the betterment of the people.

It all started a few months ago with a flood of graffiti on the major roads of Karachi, demanding a separate province for Mohajirs – the Urdu-speaking people who migrated at Partition in 1947 from India and their descendants. Then, there were a few demonstrations under the banner of the shadowy Mohajir Sooba Tehreek (Mohajir Province Movement), whose backers were little known for most people of Karachi in the initial phase.

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement – seen as the architect of ethnic “Mohajir politics” – was quick to distance itself from this demand, reiterating its official position that the party believes in the unity of the Sindh province. The MQM’s pro-Sindh stance reflected its desire to emerge as a multi-ethnic party, with roots in the other parts of the country, though many of its detractors challenge this claim.
The graffiti and the relatively small pro-mohajir province demonstrations, however, were quick to ignite a strong reaction. The Sindhi nationalists and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) were not the only ones to vent out their fury. The top leadership of major opposition parties, including the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, also strongly criticised the demand for the division of Sindh. The anger and passion demonstrated in the debate not just gave a relative non-issue the centre-stage but further polarised politics to a new, dangerous level in urban Sindh, which is already facing ethnic, sectarian and religious violence.
As the nationalist forces warned of a bloodbath, there were hardly any voices of sanity underlining the fact that the demand for a mohajir province is being made by a small fringe group, which in no way appears likely to become a major challenge for the status quo. Even with the fact that some former MQM lawmakers, based in the United States, including Arif Siddiqui, Abid Akhter, Mateen Yusuf and Farukh Saleem, threw their weight behind the mohajir province demand, it still could not be seen as a game-changer. But definitely it deepened mistrust and uncertainty among the nationalist and anti-MQM forces which saw it as an opportunity to up the ante and use the bogey of the mohajir province demand as a rallying cry for their supporters.
The attack by unidentified gunmen on the May 22 anti-mohajir province rally, in which at least a dozen people were killed, underlined the explosiveness of the situation in this restive city where all major political and ethnic groups are armed to the teeth. The rally was organised by the Sindhi nationalist Awami Tehreek and supported by several other groups, including the banned Peoples’ Amn Committee, which are already on a war-path with the MQM and trying to carve out a niche for themselves in the country’s commercial and industrial hub. As the major and minor political players blamed one another for orchestrating the attack, the most burning and pressing issue of establishing peace in Karachi, where more than 520 people have been killed in politically or religiously motivated violence and gang wars so far this year, appeared nowhere on the agenda.
For all the peace loving people of Karachi – who luckily are still in a sweeping majority regardless of their ethnic background and political affiliations – this new fissure in the body politic of their province definitely remains a bad omen.
It is an irony that most political forces, rather than trying to heal the wounds of this traumatised and violence-plagued city, remain bent upon inflicting new ones for short-term goals. Tackling lawlessness, rampant crime and violence appear nowhere on their agendas that appears to be dictated by non-issues in which the emotional pro or anti-mohajir province debate is the latest addition.
Although demands for a new Hazara province by dividing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or creation of the Seraiki or Bhawalpur provinces by truncating Punjab remain in vogue in the mainstream politics, none stir so much passion and heat as the mere mention of the division of Sindh because of its particular ethnic composition – no matter how fragile is the voice advocating this issue.
Objectively speaking, the very fact that the MQM – representing urban Sindh – remains aloof from this demand is enough to take the wind out of its sail. The very ethnic composition of urban Sindh, especially of Karachi in which the entire country has financial and commercial stakes, makes the division of Sindh highly improbable on ethnic grounds. Certain quarters may try to use this demand as a bargaining chip or express frustration over issues confronting urban Sindh, but it remains unlikely for the movement to gain a momentum without the backing of the key urban force – the MQM.
But the stronger the reaction to the demand made by a minor group, the greater are the chances that it will transform into an emotional battle-cry, which has a lot of disruptive potential, although it can be addressed easily through sensible debate or it can simply be ignored.
This in no way means that the way the federal and provincial governments and the establishment are tackling the multi-faceted problems of Karachi and the rest of urban Sindh can also be brushed under the carpet. True, that any move to divide Sindh on ethnic grounds is a recipe for disaster and would result in Balkanisation, but empowering people at the grassroots level remains a just demand and help in amicably resolving many contradictions which fester under this democratic dispensation due to the absence of local governments.
The opposition of the ruling parties to the local or district governments is indeed a sad reflection of their misjudged priorities. It remains an absurdity of our politics that elected governments always shy away from devolution of powers at the grassroots level, which is aggressively pushed by the military-led regimes. Agreed that the military rulers use it to perpetuate their rule, but the effectiveness of these district or local governments remain undeniable and are a must for any functioning democracy. Effective district governments in a megaplois like Karachi as well as in smaller cities are a must to tackle urban problems – from development, civic and social issues to even those of law and order and crime. But the ruling parties are in no mood to transfer power to the local level as it hurts their vested interest as they fear to lose control over both revenue and a big arm of bureaucracy.
The Local Body System, promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf in 2001, offers a good framework, which tragically has been scrapped. It can be revived by building a consensus among various stakeholders, but with an aim to give responsibility as well as powers including those of raising revenues and overseeing policing, to the district governments. Only such a system would help tackle the urban issues more effectively.
A strong local body system will also help in bridging the ethnic divides as it would force political parties to reach out to all the ethnic groups and communities for vote. This will result in a more egalitarian development and progress in the city. Concrete steps towards devolution and decentralisation of power will automatically defeat radical demands and pave the way for a politics in which any party aiming to be at the helm of affairs in a city will be have to woo all the ethnic groups and communities.
There are solutions to every problem. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every time. The crucial thing which we need is a little commonsense, intellectual honesty and a will to develop consensus among different stakeholders. The civilian leadership has had enough failures. It must now rise to the challenge. Ignore non-issues like demands for a mohajir sooba and do what is doable for the betterment of the people. That is our only question.