Ruling The Airwaves

By Amir Zia
September 29, 2014
The News

The power and reach of the media has transformed many paper tigers and political lightweights into screen giants who manage to set the narrative. What is important becomes unimportant while the unimportant assumes importance
 
A few days ago, the BBC Urdu website carried an interesting news report that gave details of the number of exclusive interviews of various front-line politicians carried by Pakistan’s 24/7 private news channels over nearly a 10-month period – prior to the August 14 ‘revolutionary’ and ‘freedom’ marches and sit-ins by PTI and the PAT supporters.
According to the report, the PTI’s Imran Khan, the PAT’s Allama Tahirul Qadri and their ally, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed – who heads his own small Awami Muslim League – dominated the airwaves in hundreds of special interviews telecast by various news channels.
The entire focus of the cameras remained glued on these leaders once they formally launched their anti-government campaigns on August 14 as they addressed their supporters several times everyday – getting unprecedented live coverage.
The statistics about the pre-marches and pre-sit-ins coverage offer an interesting read, which has already been discussed in some detail by the section of the local media. For instance, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed appeared on exclusive talk-shows and interviews 170 times between November 1, 2013-August 12, 2014. Imran Khan stood second with 75 interviews and Qadri third with 60 interviews. In a nutshell, these three leaders gave more than 300 interviews in the build-up to their marches and sit-ins.
In comparison, leaders belonging to the ruling PML-N, including Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, share between them around 100 such interviews. The rest of the political parties including leaders and representatives belonging to the PPP, the MQM, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the ANP also appeared in around 100 such exclusive interviews.
This means that the PTI, the PAT and the AML of Sheikh Rashid managed to get more television appearances compared to the combined total of the government and rest of the opposition parties.
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who has just one seat of his own in the National Assembly, undoubtedly appeared as the darling of the electronic media as he alone got 170 exclusive appearances during the 10-month period – before the hurly-burly of marches and sit-in started in the country.
In comments Sheikh Rashid Ahmed made recently when he appeared in a talk-show on Geo Tez, he admitted that after Almighty Allah, it is the media that has kept him alive on Pakistan’s political scene. And this statement rings true for many other politicians as well.
Sheikh Rashid’s popularity on television shows perhaps stems from the fact that he gives entertaining one-liners, sharp and scathingly candid statements against rivals and makes doomsday predictions and prophecies about the system and the government. Ironically, all this makes ‘good TV’ at least when it comes to catching eyeballs and fabulous ratings in an over-politicised and deeply polarised society.
The BBC news report indeed offers a fascinating glimpse into the kind of journalism prevalent in the Pakistani media – which continues to remain overwhelmingly statement rather than issue-oriented. By and large, our electronic media has followed the trend set by our newspapers – especially the Urdu-language ones, which proudly carry statements of politicians from all hues on their main pages, including the front page.
These statements or ‘exclusive’ interviews, unlike the ones in the international media, may not necessarily fall into the category of ‘news-makers’, which focus on some key development, revelation or exposure, but in most cases on mere often reiterated points of view, unsubstantiated claims and allegations. Many of these ‘sensational’ statements would fall straight into the category of libel, defamation and slander in any other civilised country where freedom of speech and free media come along with responsibility. But this is not so in Pakistan.
Our vibrant electronic media, which has explored many new grounds and highlighted issues and subjects that were once taboo in mainstream discourse, has unfortunately failed to break away from the trend of statement-oriented journalism – for better or for worse. In fact, 24/7 live coverage has intensified the impact of this statement-oriented journalism as, unlike in print, in electronic media all that is said goes unfiltered and unedited to the viewer.
A newspaper may usually give a single, a double or a triple column news report out of most press conferences, interviews or speeches, but the same would get over-played during live coverage on TV. Such is the nature of the beast called 24/7 television in Pakistan. As a result politicians manage to disseminate their message effortlessly and free of cost. Both politicians and the media tend to feed each other – one getting free publicity, the other content, no matter whether it is newsworthy and of journalistic standards or not. 
The question of why these three politicians – Qadri, Imran and Sheikh Rashid – managed to so-effectively dominate the airwaves, however, is a pertinent one. Some media analysts and political rivals see an organised anti-government conspiracy, which allowed these politicians to set the narrative – in league with some media houses.
This may or may not be the case and falls into the realm of speculation, though a couple of media houses went all the way to champion the cause of the PAT, the PTI and their allies, who want to bring down Prime Minister Sharif just as a couple of others supported the government and the continuation of the existing ‘democratic order.’ This division among the media houses also reflects the deep chasms in our politics in which no issue seems to be settled yet and remains open for intense debate and a possible change. 
But it is a fact that the opposition is always a star for the media compared to the government. Therefore, when politicians are in opposition they have usually better ties with journalists rather than when in government. The opposition is always available to highlight issues, and go on the front-foot to expose the real, imaginary or perceived wrongdoings and policy flaws of the rulers. Government stalwarts in many cases try to evade tough questions about their decisions, policies and things done or not done. 
Had it been any other politicians attacking the government as is being done by Qadri, Imran and Rashid, they would have probably got the same amount of coverage, given the fact that the government and its supporters started reacting slowly to this challenge.
But that does not sweep away the fact that the lopsided coverage of the leaders of the revolutionary and freedom marches exposed the gullibility of the media which remains in love with the proverbial ‘bad news’ and tend to lean more on sensational journalism. 
In their own way, all channels imitate their competition or react to their coverage. As a result, every screen appears to follow the same pattern, highlighting the same leader, his opinion and his statements. And in doing this it often compromises the core values of this profession which calls for fairness, objectivity, balance and sticking to facts. 
Since private TV channels exploded on the scene in 2002, we have seen this kind of sensational and opinionated journalism a number of times – be it on issues as grave as covering terrorism and extremism to political crises of which we have no dearth in this Islamic Republic. 
We have seen the distinction between news and opinion getting more and more blurred over the past decade or so in Pakistani journalism. Objective and independent analysis has been surely taken over by subjectivity in which many media persons unashamedly paddle this or that point of view. Professional journalists have to either fall in line with the dictates of policies of media houses or be ready to be sidelined.
The power and reach of the media has transformed many paper tigers and political lightweights into screen giants who manage to set the narrative. What is important becomes unimportant while the unimportant assumes importance.
This calls for a close self-scrutiny by the media itself about its role and journalistic practices. The answer to this problem is both simple and complex. Simple if we stick to the core values of journalism and complex given the current state of political polarisation, financial stakes, weak regulatory framework and absence of an agreed code of ethics.

Sharif’s Test

By Amir Zia
Monday, September 22
The News

The best guarantee for the continuation of democracy, however, remain the democrats themselves. And for this good, clean and efficient governance, and devolution of power to the local bodies’ level remains the key. Unfortunately, on these fronts, the central and the provincial governments are lacking the most
 
In the camp of our ‘democratic forces’, perhaps it is the time for some celebrations if not declaration of an outright victory. Most of our parliamentarians – barring those belonging to Imran Khan’s PTI and his few allies – managed to close ranks around the besieged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and provided him the much-needed shield against the onslaught of those ‘visible and not-so invisible’ forces orchestrating plans for his resignation. 
Traditional political rivalries were kept in check. Ideological differences were set aside. Many of Pakistan’s key traditional political forces perhaps have come of age as they managed to bury the hatchet for once and work together to save the system – no matter how dysfunctional, oppressive and anti-people it may seem to its critics.
As Imran Khan and Allam Tahirul Qadri’s freedom and revolutionary marchers continue to lurk outside parliament in the longest ever sit-ins in the country’s history demanding the ouster of the Sharif government, our lawmakers also held an historic, and longest ever, joint parliamentary session. Luckily, Prime Minister Sharif and many of his cabinet members were not found wanting from this crucial session and did grace it with their on-and-off presence. In the words of PPP Senator Aitzaz Ahsan, credit must go to Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadiri that at least they managed to make Prime Minister Sharif realise the importance of parliament.
The joint session concluded on Friday with a unanimously passed resolution calling for the supremacy of the constitution, democracy and parliament. Apparently this is a good omen for the country’s troubled and fragile democratic order.
But does this mean that now Sharif and his team are set for a smooth flight for the remainder of their five-year term? One does not necessarily need to be a born pessimist to say that the days of political instability and turmoil in Pakistan are far from over.
Sharif seems to have prevailed for now, but this latest round of politics of confrontation and brinkmanship – which continues to smoulder – has exposed the inherent contradictions and weaknesses of the system and highlighted the prevailing tensions and distrust among the key institutions and political players. This situation calls for serious debate and discussion among the centres of power, adjustments and readjustments within the political order and swift and extensive reforms.
It also needs a lot of serious soul-searching and self-criticism within the government camp to identify factors which wore the sheen out of Sharif’s comfortable majority in parliament, and the goodwill with which he started his third term, barely one-and-a-half-year into the office.
The sit-ins may end with or without a face-saving deal for the freedom and the revolutionary marchers. There is also equal possibility that the protesters dig in their heels, change tactics and try to get a fresh lease of life if their leaders manage to mobilise supporters in greater numbers, transform this movement into a countrywide agitation, somehow end their apparent political isolation and build renewed pressure on the government. 
The point is that the entire political scene remains loaded with many ifs and buts and the risk of the unexpected – some bolt from the blue.
There has been no agreement, no deal among the squabbling forces – which compared to the protesting leaders remains more vital for the government if it aims to deliver on its electoral promises. What Sharif can offer to the duo of Imran Khan and Allama Tahirul Qadri to get them off his back even for a short period is anybody’s guess.
The expectations that Sharif would use his concluding speech at the joint session to announce any new proposal or strategy to end the political crisis and break the impasse came to naught. A defiant and slightly more confident Sharif used this opportunity only to reassert what he and his team members have been saying all along. Yes, in the prime minister’s own words he allowed FIRs to be lodged against him and his close aides for Lahore’s Model Town firing as well as the Islamabad violence that claimed 14 and three lives respectively. But there has been no deal on any of the other demands – even those five that the government says it has accepted, while rejecting the main that calls for Sharif’s resignation.
Should the government move ahead on its own on the five demands that can be accepted to show its sincerity and disarm at least Imran Khan, who has greater stake in the system compared to Allama Tahirul Qadri? It could be an option.
Imran Khan’s rigid and brash attitude may not get him to his desired goal and win him the coveted slot of the prime minister, but it certainly has all the potential of keeping the Sharif government on the edge. Winding down these tensions should be the government’s goal and preferred option rather than prolonging this deadlock.
On a more important note, the government and its backers in parliament must try to fix the perceived discord in the civil-military relations that has been so intensely discussed and debated both on the floor of the house and outside in metaphors as well as in a direct manner.
A number of lawmakers raised questions about the role of the armed forces in the current political turmoil and questioned its stance of neutrality notwithstanding the military’s assertion that it is a political problem and be solved politically.
Given the country’s long history of military’s overt and covert interventions in political matters and coups, the scepticism of the civilian leaders regarding its role in the present crisis is understandable. The actions and role of many of the politicians that led to such interventions can also not be ignored. But these are different times as a broad-based consensus seems to have emerged even within all the power players that, despite its many challenges and weakenesses, democracy must go on. Therefore, the commitment of the armed forces toward the supremacy of the constitution and continuation of democracy must be taken at its face-value.
This, however, should not deter the civilian and military leaders to iron-out their differences, if any, on all the issues of national security and importance. Given the country’s perilous economic, security and political situation, what we cannot afford at present is any real or imaginary conflicts and tensions within the key institutions. A grand consensus is the need of the hour so that all players can push the country in one direction to achieve the goal of peace, stability and economic progress.
Our civil and military leaders need to be on the same page on crucial issues – from fighting militancy and trial of former president Pervez Musharraf to relations with India and Afghanistan.
The best guarantee for the continuation of democracy, however, remain the democrats themselves. And for this good, clean and efficient governance, and devolution of power to the local bodies’ level remains the key. Unfortunately, on these fronts, the central and the provincial governments are lacking the most.
The apathy of the civilian ruling elite toward these issues is the permanent source of friction and discord within political parties, various interest groups and fuels anger among various sections of the population.
Sharif can rise to the challenge or squander the opportunity provided to him by the near-consensus support from parliament. It would depend on the choices he makes in the coming weeks and months. 
The pressure will be on him – on how he wades his way out of this crisis, which is far from over. But parliament has certainly provided him the much needed breather.

No Other Option

By Amir Zia

Monthly Hilal

June 2014

The lingering economic crunch has been manifesting itself on all the key fronts, including the defence allocations, which are on a steady decline in relation to the GDP and the total current expenditure since fiscal 2000 

At a time when Pakistan remains stuck in a low-to-modest growth and relatively high-inflationary cycle since fiscal 2008, allocation of resources for the country's vital needs – from development to defence – remains a challenging task. The proposed budget for 2014/15 (July-June), with a total outlay of 3.936 trillion rupees, reflects this harsh reality.

In the coming fiscal, the government has earmarked almost one-third of the total proposed expenditure of 1.325 trillion rupees just to pay interest on foreign and domestic loans. This allocation alone is enough to highlight the battered state of economy and constraints in the budget making exercise. No wonder, the combined allocations for the two other important heads -- the Public Sector Development Programme at 525 billion rupees (federal share) and Defence at 700 billion rupees -- are lower than what Pakistan spends on its interest payments alone. 

Pakistan's crippling energy crisis, the continued political instability, poor security environment, terrorism, and rampant crime in major cities, including the commercial hub of Karachi, have emerged as the biggest impediments in luring foreign and domestic investments that remain vital to boost economic growth and increase the size of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The lingering economic crunch has been manifesting itself on all the key fronts, including the defence allocations, which are on a steady decline in relation to the GDP and the total current expenditure since fiscal 2000.

In real terms, Pakistan's defence allocations remain more or less capped since early 2000-01 despite the traditional security challenges vis-à-vis India on the eastern front and the new unprecedented internal security threat in the form of the Al-Qaeda-linked-and-inspired foreign and local militants, who want to bring down the state and see the armed forces as their number one enemy as it is the main obstacle that can thwart their designs.

According to the latest Economic Survey of Pakistan, all through the 2000s, Pakistan defence budget has remained pegged at 3.1 percent of the GDP, compared with 5.6 percent during the decade of 1990s and 6.5 percent during the 1980s. 

If in the fiscal 1992-93 – during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's first stint in power – the defence allocations were at the 6.3 percent of GDP, they are now hovering at around 3.0 percent. The pattern of this downward slide in defence spending started during the former military-led government of Pervez Musharraf, who slashed it to 3.9 percent of the GDP during the initial years in power and later to 3.3 percent. By the time he resigned from the office, Pakistan's defence budget was 2.9 percent of the GDP in fiscal 2008. This was done during the times of robust economic growth which was hovering at 7.0 percent on an average for five consecutive years from 2003-07. 

In terms of the current expenditure, the defence budget has been around 15 to 16 percent since fiscal 2009, though in the proposed budget for the coming financial year, it is at 20 percent.  

“It is a myth that the defence gets the lion's share… the fact is that it has been on the decline both in relation to the country's GDP and the current expenditure,” said Dr. Ishrat Husain, former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan. “It is the debt servicing which devours the bulk of the country's resources, leaving little for development, and other important sectors including health and education,” said Husain, who is now the dean and director of the prestigious Institute of Business Administration, Karachi.

In the rupee term, the annual increase in defence allocations only offsets the impact of the double-digit inflation and the rupee's decline against the dollar. This annual increase aims to sustain and maintain the existing level of the armed forces' operational capacity, leaving little to modernize its weapons or invest on the strategic development.

However, defence spending remains at the centre of intense public debate and scrutiny with many analysts questioning whether a cash-strapped country like Pakistan be spending that much on its armed forces. There is no dearth of those academics, civil right activists and politicians who advocate slashing the defence budget and diverting resources to the development and social sectors even when the country is in a state of war with the extremist forces.

One can empathize with this view, but unfortunately the campaigners for defence budget cuts miss the overall security challenge, which Pakistan faces both on its external and internal fronts.

On the external front, while the desire for peace with neighbours, including India, is the cornerstone of Pakistan's foreign policy, the state has to maintain a minimum deterrence to safeguard its frontiers against any possible aggression. Unilateral lowering of guards by slashing defence budget is not an option when the country's traditional rival is spending a seven times higher amount to modernize and equip its armed forces with a focus on Pakistan. The challenge has become graver with the victory of Hindu hardliner Narendra Modi in the recent Indian elections.

It is not the question of taking a plunge into a never-ending conventional arms race with its big neighbour, which is also responsible for introducing nuclear weapons in South Asia. Rather, Pakistan has been forced to respond to these extreme external security threats in a measured manner. Indeed, India, with its sheer size of the economy and high growth rate in recent years, remains better placed in its bid to modernize and equip its armed forces, but Pakistan even in these difficult economic times has to maintain the delicate balance, which is fast titling in New Delhi's favour.

The answer to this predicament in the mid to long-term is in fixing the economy, increasing the size of the GDP, boosting growth by creating an environment conducive for foreign and domestic investment, developing the human resource and thus making more resources available for development and the social uplift as well as for defence. This also requires controlling the staggering transmission and distribution losses of the electricity worth nearly 300 billion rupees alongwith stopping the financial hemorrhage in the loss-making state-run institutions including the PIA, Steel Mills and Pakistan Railways.

The government also needs to improve the country's tax-to-GDP ratio, which remains at a dismal nine percent ; the lowest in the region.

However, the goal of economic turnaround will remain unattainable if the government fails to tackle the unprecedented internal threat of terrorism and extremism on a war-footing. This issue is directly linked to the security and has a heavy price tag – not just in the form of operational expenses needed to fight the elusive terrorists from the rugged mountainous region up in the north to the major cities and towns, but also in the form of the lost economic, business and investment opportunities and damage to the infrastructure. The latest economic survey quantifies these direct and indirect losses suffered during the last 13 years at the staggering figure of $102.51 billion.

Pakistan remains unable to exploit its economic potential and huge reservoir of human resource to the maximum mainly because of the grave law and order crisis. When foreign and local investors and business – people feel insecure even travelling to, or within, Pakistan, all the talk of pushing the economy in the realm of high growth trajectory remains nothing but a pipe-dream. Incidents such as terror attacks on vital defence installations, security personnel or the latest one on the country's largest airport in Karachi, have indeed tarnished the brand Pakistan and transformed it into one of the World's most dangerous places.

To restore the 'brand Pakistan,' and make it attractive for investment and business, Pakistan has to defeat the scourge of terrorism and extremism at every cost. And in this make-or-break fight to defend Pakistan, restore peace, establish the writ of the state and the rule of law, security forces remain not just our main stay, but the real vanguard.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, considered a pro-business leader, should know it best that peace and stability are the prerequisite for economic revival, growth and the overall prosperity of the nation. How his government manages to support the armed forces and the other security agencies in this war for Pakistan is the question. Pakistan needs to invest on its defence if it wants to win this internal war, guard against the possible external threats and revive its economy. There is no choice other than to make our defence impregnable.

The Script We Need

By Amir Zia
Monday, Sept 15, 2014
The News

Pakistan certainly needs a revolution – one that is pro-people and pro-poor. In that sense Pakistan’s turmoil is far from over. The sit-in may drag on or fizzle out for the time being; the real point is that Pakistan yearns for a change. 


So Pakistan’s most powerful and organised institution – the army – has finally spoken in unambiguous terms yet again that it believes in the supremacy of the constitution and continuation of the democratic process.
The rare press briefing by Director General Inter-Services Public Relations Maj General Asim Saleem Bajwa in which he categorically stated that the armed forces have nothing to do with the lingering political crisis, should help calm nerves in the pro-government camp. It should also put an end to the swirling speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories about the alleged ghost ‘script-writer’ masterminding these month-long protests in the federal capital in an attempt to force Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif quit power. 
The message from the army came out loud and clear: this is a political problem and it should be resolved politically. This stance is in line with the army’s policy, which it has been following since the country’s return to democracy in 2008 that the democratic process must go on despite its flaws, contradictions and allegations of widespread corruption and misrule.
The on-and-off straining of ties between the civil and the military leadership on key strategic security and political issues is an irritant, but if the past is any guide then the army has the capacity to nudge politicians to take into account its concerns through patient negotiations, restrained nudging and at times by issuing subtle or candid messages rather than any direct intervention.
This formula has so far worked. It was tried successfully during the previous PPP-led government when it wanted to put the Inter-Services Intelligence under the interior ministry’s control in 2008. Again when Nawaz Sharif and his allies planned to lead a ‘long march’ into Islamabad in 2009 to get the sacked Supreme Court judges including Iftikhar Chaudhry restored. And yet again during the Memogate scandal in 2011-12 which resulted in the resignation of Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Hussain Haqqani.
Under the current government, the army managed to coax the civilian leaders to at least take ownership of Operation Zarb-e-Azb against the Al-Qaeda linked foreign and local militants after peace talks led to nowhere in the wake of the mounting terrorist attacks across the country.
The ‘selective’ trial of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf proved to be another issue that continues to cast its dark shadows on the civil-military relations. The pace of normalisation of relations with India also remains a concern for the army given its Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hard-line stance against Pakistan. 
New Delhi’s recent decision to call-off the secretary-level talks with Pakistan on the flimsy excuse that the Pakistani high commissioner met a Hurriyat leader – an otherwise routine practice – helped to drive the point home that India is uninterested in holding even talks for the sake of talks, let alone starting the stalled composite dialogue process between the two countries.
Against this context, the DG ISPR’s press briefing gave words to the actions of the army that the current political turmoil is not of its making, though on the prime minister’s request Army Chief General Raheel Sharif acted as a facilitator to help bring temperatures down. Prime Minister Sharif squandered this chance by his ill-chosen words on the floor of parliament when he said the army’s role as a facilitator was sought by the protesting leaders – Imran Khan and Allama Tahirul Qadri. 
Nevertheless, it remains the responsibility of the main political players on how best they manage to resolve the crisis. The onus to end this political impasse lies primarily with the government and its parliamentary allies and the elements determined to force Sharif to resign.
Our politicians and the media made a mess of the situation by unwarrantedly dragging the army into the political fray by repeated symbolic assertions about the alleged ‘scriptwriter’ or the ‘umpire’ and fanning all sorts of rumours. It, indeed, appears to be an effort – by design or default – to malign the army, which compounded the political uncertainty.
The key question, however, remains whether the definite message from the armed forces will help put an end to this political crisis. Will it bring the much-needed political stability and ward off pressure from the besieged Sharif government? Will it force Tahirul Qadri and Imran Khan to abandon their campaign aimed to dislodge the government through agitation?
The pressure to resolve the crisis and reach face-saving deal is not just on the PAT and the PTI, but also on the government. As the sit-ins drag on this pressure will intensify on both sides, though a lot more on Qadri and Imran who failed to put on a grand street show in Islamabad. The floods also divided the focus, if not shifted it altogether, from their protests.
The deadlock could result in desperate moves by the two sides. It means that the element of uncertainty will continue to haunt the political scene. If the protesting leaders maintain their current rigid position without injecting fresh vigour and muscle to their campaign or trying new tactics, it is bound to fizzle out. This will be a blow to their politics in the short- to midterm. A sensible course for Imran and Qadri would be to take a temporary breather in the wake of the flood calamity, reorganise, go back to the masses, try to find new political allies and get back to fight another day.
Sharif and his parliamentary allies should facilitate the protesters to take this course, which will also provide the government some space to improve performance and correct its course. Government stalwarts must resist the temptation of acting like the opposition. Therefore, provocative statements and point-scoring won’t help. A restrained posture both in words and actions is likely to help the government more in offsetting this challenge rather than escalating tensions.
But the failure of the protesting leaders to bring a million supporters to Islamabad or get a favourable verdict from the elusive umpire does not denote that the government is out of troubled waters.
The unique and first of its kind protest movements in Pakistan’s history by Imran and Qadri helped expose many issues, underlining the fragility of the current system and the dysfunctional state of our civilian institutions. Their criticism – from the flawed election process to the insensitive and anti-people approach of the rulers – touches many hearts.
The pressure will be on Sharif to improve his game. The first 16 months of his government has been marked with slow decision-making, getting bogged down by issues which could easily be averted including the Musharraf trial, and ruling like a ‘monarch’ through his hand-picked kitchen cabinet. Even many PML-N lawmakers feel alienated the way the two Sharif brothers run their affairs at the centre and the Punjab province. 
The prime minister should also get out of his fixation of grand projects like motorways and new railway tracks and try to first fix the broken system, ensuring rule of law and bringing peace and stability in the country by defeating the forces of extremism and terrorism against which the army alone is in the forefront.
Pakistan’s democracy of the elite and of the privileged few needs to democratise. It needs to be more sensitive toward the plight of the people. It must concentrate on providing better and clean governance rather than seen as the fountainhead of corruption and all that is rotten in this Islamic republic. Dynastic politics must give way to real democracy in which the middle and lower classes can also have representation in the highest corridors of power.
Pakistan certainly needs a revolution – one that is pro-people and pro-poor. In that sense Pakistan’s turmoil is far from over. The sit-in may drag on or fizzle out for the time being; the real point is that Pakistan yearns for a change. The current lot of parliamentarians can read the writing on the wall and be its catalyst or there will be forces that will challenge the system. The present state of affairs cannot go on endlessly. The army, too, will have to adjust and readjust its position in line with the aspirations of the masses. There should be no doubt about this.

Playing With Words

By Amir Zia
Monday, Sept 8, 2014
The News

Sharif’s recent outings at the National Assembly failed to boost the morale of his supporters. This task was done by the opposition lawmakers, who extended unconditional support to democracy

It seems that the much-trumpeted revolution of Allama Tahirul Qadri will have to wait for now and the freedom sought by Imran Khan will also have to remain on the hold because the ‘umpire’ ignored their initial bout of appeals. But let’s admit that this ‘odd couple’ succeeded in involving the nation in debate and discussion the likes of which has never been witnessed before – thanks to the 24/7 live television coverage and a vibrant social media.
Oratory – good as well as bad – is at the centre stage. Be it the speeches outside parliament or on the floor of the house, they are attracting listeners. While veteran parliamentarians such as Aitzaz Ahsan, Raza Rabbani, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Mushahid Hussain Syed have yet again made their mark during the ongoing parliamentary debate, there are many who stand exposed because of the barrenness of their style, thought and content.
When it comes to the party chiefs, it is Qadri who steals the show. One may differ with his agenda and tactics, but let’s give him credit for keeping the PAT’s die-hard supporters as well as many ordinary Pakistanis spell-bound with his oratory. He has a vast treasure of words which he weaves and spins with grace and ease. He knows the intricacies of the art of public speaking – demonstrated through all the right pauses and well-timed stresses.
Hardly any of Pakistan’s top politicians today – from our grim-faced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to the self-proclaimed premier-in-waiting Imran Khan to the wily and ever-beaming former president Asif Ali Zardari – can match Qadri when it comes to the effective use of words.
Oration – the heart and soul of politics – is indeed used by both heroes and villains of history to motivate and galvanise the people, to fight or commit injustices, stoke passions or frenzy and trigger just or unjust wars and revolutions. A well-knit tapestry of words makes people shed tears, get hope and confidence and leap into action. It is the magic of words that makes people feel patriotic, and sacrifice or take lives in the name of religion, ethnicity or nationalism.
Qadri is definitely not in the league of the mighty greats who changed the course of history. To his critics, he remains just another smooth-talking cleric, an alleged ‘confidence man’, holding his followers at his whim. But in our barren political landscape dotted mostly with mumbling politicians, Qadri is among the few best.
He is able to connect not just with religious-minded people, but also with many ‘not-so’ religious, ordinary Pakistanis. His passionate attacks on the extremist mindset and condemnation of religiously-motivated violence and terrorism are music to the ears of all those who stand against the misuse of the sacred name of Islam in politics or fanning sectarian and religious hatred. This is the kind of message one likes to hear from a cleric.
There are many other firebrand religious leaders who sway the hearts and minds of listeners, but their message is confined to the narrow set of their sectarian followers. Qadri seems to be trying to make a broader appeal and sell a dream which his critics find half-baked, impractical and a threat to the fragile democratic system.
If we believe Qadri’s critics, his ‘innocent followers’ are chasing a mirage. Yet, there is no denying the fact that his attacks on Pakistan’s dysfunctional democracy, rampant corruption, nepotism and the greed and indifference of our ruling elite towards the plight of the masses echo the sentiment of many Pakistanis. However, when he is seen with some of the very symbols of the political mafia he attacks one questions his choice and motives.
PTI chairman Imran Khan – also trying hard to stir the passions of his followers – is monotonous. The ‘entertainment value’ of his frequent addresses at the sit-in comes from the harsh language and below-the-belt remarks he makes against rivals, the media, judiciary and what not. It seems that the entire universe conspired to snatch the election victory from him.
His political message is vague, convoluted and floats around narrow ideas. It begins and ends with allegations – mostly about election rigging – rather than vision. The challenge of extremism and terrorism is conveniently ignored in his sit-in speeches, which fail to support or oppose the ongoing military operation.
Attempts to make a ‘new Pakistan’ along with scions of the old ruling elite, a handful of pseudo-intellectuals, apolitical former corporate gurus, socialites and fan-club members appear difficult to digest. His repetitive megalomaniac assertions that he remains a gift of God for this wretched nation has began to appear comical.
Yes, we all know by heart now that the Great Khan does not need to be in politics. He has all the fame and fortune and can cool his heels for the rest of his life on the basis of his past feats. He is spending nights in the container and dirtying hands in politics for people like you and me. But isn’t it time for some new lines? Imran’s frequent use of cricket terms as a metaphor in politics has also been overdone. It underlines his lack of imagination and simplistic mindset. Politics is no game of cricket – 20/20, One-Day, or Test. It is a subtle art and requires more brain than brawn. Toe-crushing Yorkers and piercing bouncers can do the trick in cricket, but not in the game of chess called politics. Imran needs to grow up.
Prime Minister Sharif has always been seen as an uninspiring speaker. Experience and three decades of being in politics failed to sharpen his public speaking skills. At his best, he can sell tangibles like the yellow cab scheme, metro buses, motorways and trade etc. But expecting a businessman like him to paint a grand dream or sell an idea is perhaps asking for too much.
Sharif’s recent outings at the National Assembly failed to boost the morale of his supporters. This task was done by the opposition lawmakers, who extended unconditional support to democracy. Sharif’s initial remarks in parliament that the government did not ask the army chief to mediate in the crisis shows how carelessness with words backfires and create a controversy where there should be room for none. 
The snowball effect of Sharif’s statement led the military spokesman to tell the world that it was the government that had asked Army Chief Raheel Sharif to play a “facilitative role" to resolve the impasse. These contradictory statements led to some wild speculations, which the government later tried to gloss over saying that they meant more or less the same thing.
Some of our top politicians of yesteryears fared much better. How can one forget Benazir Bhutto’s last speech on the floor of parliament before she went into self-imposed exile in 1999? The house with Sharif’s two-third majority listened in pin-drop silence as she roared and thundered, shredding government policies into pieces. Yet, she was articulate, to-the-point and logical.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s fiery speeches are a classic in Pakistan’s populist oratory. It was not just slogans of bread, clothing and shelter he could sell with ease to the downtrodden but also the finer points of foreign policy to win support for his seemingly unpopular decisions like Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh. He changed the political culture of Pakistan the way he connected with the people through the power of words.
Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, too, had his high points. His presentation of Pakistan’s case on Kashmir during his meeting with Indian journalists during the 2001 Agra Summit is just one example of his golden moments. He spoke with conviction, candour and passion while fighting the Kashmir case. I can recall some of the grim and sour Indian faces in the lobby of an Agra hotel where we listened to this interaction. The Indians blame Musharraf’s bluntness for the failure of those talks, but he made us all proud that day.
Getting back to the present, Pakistan’s political stage has all the room for a leader who can again mesmerise us and make us dream big as a nation. Can the present lot of politicians improve their game? So far the tidings remain bleak.