A Criminal Delay

Amir Zia
The News
Dec 22, 2014

There is also a tiny lobby comprising pseudo-liberals and office bearers and activists of foreign-funded rights groups, who actively advocate scrapping the death penalty without taking into account Pakistan’s objective realities. They quote examples of this country and that country which abolished the death sentence, but fail to mention that none of them face the kind of terrorism and law and order challenges as does Pakistan. 

Former president Asif Ali Zardari must have been greatly anguished to see the first two terror convicts being sent to the gallows on Dec 19. After all, he and his party went out of the way to place the controversial unconstitutional de-facto moratorium on the death penalty in 2008 to protect the lives of convicts found guilty of heinous crimes such as terrorism, mass killings, murders, child rape and abductions. 
Zardari’s soft corner for the jail inmates is perhaps understandable because he himself spent a long time in prison on charges of corruption before managing to get off the hook as a result of a deal with the former military-led government. 
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who continued with Zardari’s policy, also seemed to be reluctant to remove this dichotomy in the legal system, which on paper authorises the judiciary to hand down death sentences but the executive blocks its implementation. Sharif, for reasons best known to him, continued with the ban on the implementation of the death penalty till the harrowing Dec 16 carnage at the Army Public School in Peshawar left him with no option but to partially surrender to the long-pending demand of the security forces and the majority of Pakistanis to allow the hanging of at least terror convicts. 
Both the PPP and the PML-N failed to formally abolish the death sentence by amending the constitution for three reasons; first, public opinion overwhelmingly remains against any such move. Second, most top legal minds, including judges of the supreme and high courts, senior police officials and the armed forces firmly oppose any such change in the constitution. And third, because of fear of a backlash from the powerful religious forces, which see any such step against the tenets of Islam. Therefore, the past and present ruling parties just chose to live with this contradiction, which benefited the terrorists and the killers at the cost of victims and their families.
There is also a tiny lobby comprising pseudo-liberals and office bearers and activists of foreign-funded rights groups, who actively advocate scrapping the death penalty without taking into account Pakistan’s objective realities. They quote examples of this country and that country which abolished the death sentence, but fail to mention that none of them face the kind of terrorism and law and order challenges as does Pakistan. 
In none of these countries have nearly 60,000 people lost their lives in terrorism-related incidents since 2002. None of them have bands of religious extremists, politically sponsored terror groups and criminal mafias forcing their citizens to live virtually on a knife’s edge. They also do not take into account the soaring crime rate and incidents of lawlessness in this land of the pure, which calls for tough measures on a war-footing. They also seem to be oblivious of the wide gap between social and economic development, literacy rate and income between us and them.
But how can these pseudo-liberals and so-called rights advocates see and comprehend the stark reality of Pakistan? They see Pakistan through the rose- tinted glasses of their small bubble where they queue up for foreign visas to attend international conferences for free, eye fat consultancy contracts and jobs in various NGOs or are content with the clout they can have in the right quarters here and abroad to advocate the agenda handed down to them by donors.
Even after the Peshawar school attack, many of them are out to confuse the issue of death penalty with their ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. In doing this they fail to mention that, despite its many flaws, Pakistan’s judicial system provides multiple opportunities to the accused and convicts to go for appeals at various stages of the trial. 
The weakness of our judicial and prosecution system is not that it convicts an innocent, but that it allows hardened criminals and terrorists get away scot-free because of its many loopholes. Our higher and superior judiciary remains extra-vigilant in awarding death penalty, demonstrated by the small number of such decisions and which in fact remains one of the key complaints of the bosses in the police and the other law-enforcement agencies.
The government’s decision to partially lift the moratorium on the death penalty has come after a criminal delay of almost six years. During this period only one hanging occurred in 2012 and that too on the military’s insistence. The decision to reinstate the death penalty – a small step in the right direction – seems a knee-jerk government reaction to pacify public anger rather than a well-thought out strategy to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
The pertinent question remains: why did the respective governments of the PPP and the PML-N drag their feet on this important issue all these years? Was the threat of terrorism any less in the past than it is today? Was the blood of children and men, women, young and old not being shed in those bad old days? Were high-value sensitive defence and military organisations not being targeted and our soldiers and officers not being martyred? 
From the beheading of our soldiers in Taliban captivity to all the killing sprees as a result of unrelenting suicide attacks and bombings at our places of worships, schools, markets, passenger buses across the country, there has been one barbaric atrocity after another. So many that we have lost count. And when all this was happening, our civilian leadership remained in the grip of senseless inaction.
The Taliban apologists within their ranks argued and pleaded for so-called – and futile – peace talks which only gave more time to the Al-Qaeda-inspired-and-linked foreign and local militants including the Taliban to rest, regroup and reorganise to carry out more such attacks. How can one forget and forgive Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan’s passionate performance on the floor of parliament after the killing of terrorist kingpin Hakeemullah Mehsud? If one believes his words at the time, Pakistan lost its only hope for peace with the killing of Mehsud. Many government stalwarts, Imran Khan and his PTI, the Jamaat-e-Islami, various factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam – they all stand guilty of acting as Taliban apologists rather than unconditionally supporting the armed forces and creating a counter ideological narrative to defeat the extremist mindset.
It is ironic to see the way the civilian leadership is attempting to take credit for the launch of Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan, for which the push came from Army Chief General Raheel Sharif and his top military leadership. Many of these civilian leaders reluctantly owned this operation, while others like Imran Khan chose to stay silent.
It was the force of circumstances which made them fall in line when Operation Zarb-e-Azb was launched and yet again the dictates of time made them partially scrap the death penalty. We have yet to see the vision, initiative, determination and sense of purpose from the civil leadership in confronting the twin ghost of religious extremism and terrorism – the gravest existentialist internal challenge faced by the country. 
It is only the armed forces that stand as our first and the last line of defence against the terrorist forces, which are trying to dismantle and wreck the state called Pakistan. All the rest remains a boring side-show full of clichéd statements, hollow claims and empty words.
The December 16 massacre of our children is our day of reckoning. Barren words fall short when we try to describe this tragedy. Mere statements offer no balm, no healing touch to the wounded souls of those parents, siblings and families who lost their loved ones at the hands of these barbarians. Many other similar, big and small, tragedies got erased from our collective conscience, but let’s keep this one alive and turn our grief into long-term sustained action. Let each of us play our role to defeat the extremist mindset – just as the armed forces are intensifying efforts against the terrorists. Pakistan is at war. Let’s make it win.

Hard Choices

Amir Zia
The News
Monday, December 08, 2014

Pakistan’s political divide is no longer based on the PPP versus the rest, but Imran Khan versus the rest. The traditional political forces can ignore the power of a determined ‘one’ only at their own cost. However, one important link that seems to be missing in this divide or is at least not playing its cards openly is the establishment, which is allowing political players to slog it out among themselves. 

For the beleaguered PML-N government, the worst phase of Imran Khan’s challenge of sit-ins and protests is apparently over – at least for now. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif looks relaxed and so are his close aides. They have concrete reasons to claim that they managed to ride out the storm that seemed to threaten the government and the system in mid-August and all through the month of September and the early days of October.
Allama Tahirul Qadri and his PAT have packed up their Islamabad sit-ins and now wait for some signal to fight another day. The elusive umpire did not raise the finger, leaving these political adventurists high and dry. All the traditional political and religious parties joined hands to save the country’s wobbling and dysfunctional democratic order. They acted with maturity and none of them tried to exploit the PML-N government’s moment of vulnerability.
The PML-N’s relations with the military establishment also seem to have found some uneasy equilibrium on the key geo-strategic and security issues. Barring the thorny issue of the trial of former president Pervez Musharraf on treason charges for imposing the November 2007 emergency, the civilian government has managed to survive by conceding space and allowing the military establishment to call the shots – whether it is on the war against terrorism or relations with neighbours and foreign powers. On the Musharraf issue, however, Sharif and the hawks in his cabinet remain adamant that the show must go on.
Imran Khan – despite the enthusiastic and swelling crowds at his rallies – appears increasingly politically isolated. Notwithstanding the PTI chairman’s frequent verbal tirades against the government and his threats to bring the major cities and then the country to a standstill – on which he and his team are having second thoughts, and appear unclear as to what they really want to do – for all practical purposes, the PTI has scaled down its set of demands. Imran Khan has given up his demand of Sharif’s resignation and wants negotiations with the government to pave the way for a judicial commission to probe the allegations of rigging in the 2013 general elections.
All these are good tidings for the PML-N. It means that Sharif has managed to get hold of valuable time in which he can attempt to reach a settlement with the PTI, quicken the pace of reforms – especially electoral changes which are needed and have been demanded by all the major political stakeholders – improve governance and address those pressing socio-economic issues that are fanning public discontent and anger.
But will that really happen? Will Sharif avail this window to do what needs to be done, showing vision, flexibility, political acumen and sagacity? Ironically, the signals from the Sharif camp are not too encouraging.
Background interviews with some key cabinet members give the impression that the ruling party is in no hurry for a deal with the PTI and wants to carry out reforms at its own snail’s pace as has been done for the past 17 months. The general idea appears to be to let Imran Khan and his rallies lose steam in their due course rather than to concede to any of the PTI’s demands – reasonable or unreasonable – in a hurry. The perception of handing over even a whiff of victory to Imran Khan or a face-saving exit does not appear a prudent strategy to the PML-N hawks.
One of the key federal ministers in the Sharif cabinet told the scribe in a lighter tone that ‘dharnas’ (sit-ins) suit the government as they have sidetracked many of those pressing issues on which the major opposition parties, including the PPP, won’t like to spare the government. “Now every political and economic ill in the country can be attributed to Imran Khan and his sit-ins. It is a perfect excuse to distract the people from the real issues – from the lingering energy crisis to the economic challenges which of course will take time to get resolved.”
The argument may make sense in the near-term but in the longer-term it reflects poor political choices. The prolonged uncertainty, turmoil and tensions are a bad omen not just for the government – underlining its inability to resolve these contradictions – but also for the democratic order which has many detractors who want to overhaul and reset the system.
In a strange twist of events, Pakistan’s political divide is no longer based on the PPP versus the rest, but Imran Khan versus the rest. The traditional political forces can ignore the power of a determined ‘one’ only at their own cost. However, one important link that seems to be missing in this divide or is at least not playing its cards openly is the establishment, which is allowing political players to slog it out among themselves. 
As the matter stands now, there appear to be little chances of a negotiated-settlement between the PML-N and the PTI as each side thinks that it will lose more in the public eye in case of any give-and-take. Imran Khan, who wants to settle for nothing less than a fresh poll as a result of any judicial commission probe or his politics of sit-ins, rallies and protests, perhaps sees it as a make-or-break decision for his political career.
Imran Khan’s demand that the government accept his terms of reference for the judicial commission in which he wants ISI and MI officials to help complete the probe from four to six weeks is seen by many legal minds as impossible to accept. The reason: the Supreme Court cannot be dictated how to conduct an inquiry or whom to call for assistance. Even the four- to six-week timeframe proposed by Imran Khan for the completion of the inquiry is too short. According to legal experts, a massive exercise of this nature – to find out whether there was widespread rigging in the elections – needs a longer period.
Given these pitfalls, the question is whether the PML-N and PTI will hold talks sincerely or sit across the table only for public consumption. The indications are that like the past, any fresh round of talks will lack seriousness from both the sides. But for the PML-N, perhaps a bigger challenge compared to Imran Khan is managing its relations with the military establishment, which so far has been constant in its support for the democratic setup. However, a lack of trust on both sides haunts this relationship. If one scratches the surface a little and talks to politicians – be they from the PML-N or any other major parliamentary party – one finds them blaming the ‘hidden hands’ or at least a section of the military establishment for the current political mess. In doing this, they fail to critically evaluate their poor governance and ignore the concerns of major stakeholders on the need to take them on board on important policy decisions. In a nutshell, it is the ‘us versus they’ mentality which also remains the root cause of imaginary or real problems between these two major state institutions. 
The civilian leadership will serve the cause of democracy better if it concentrates on providing clean, transparent and efficient governance, taking democracy to the grassroots level by holding the local bodies elections and building national and institutional consensus on vital policy issues.
On these three fronts, the scorecard of the civilian leaders is dismal. They have to improve their game if they are serious about strengthening democracy, which goes beyond the mere exercise of holding elections. The people of Pakistan deserve the fruits of democracy rather than just its tag.
Will Prime Minister Sharif transform himself into the leader the country wants him to be or will he remain hostage to the fears and enmities of the past? This is a make or break decision for him. Sharif’s frame of mind will keep him afloat or force him to commit the same old mistakes - which he must avoid in his own enlightened self-interest.

All About Handshakes

Amir Zia 
The News
Monday, December 01, 2014 

The persistent Pakistan-India deadlock does not mean that the top leaders of the two countries should also abandon basic courtesies and diplomatic norms. There can always be a symbolic handshake and a fake smile, which means nothing and says little if the paths of Sharif and Modi cross again in the near or distant future

You don’t have to be the best of friends to shake hands. It is really just a kind of courtesy that has been in vogue in many cultures and regions for more than two millennia now. Who should know this better than the two veteran politicians of South Asia – Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif – holding the destiny of the more than 1.4 billion people of India and Pakistan in their hands?
You shake hands often with complete strangers, knowing well that your paths are unlikely to cross again. Time and again, you shake hands with your rivals and even enemies – wearing a hypocritical smile on your face. In many cultures, deals are sealed and bets are placed with a mere handshake. With friends, of course, a warm handshake is a sign of affection.
Yes, in the modern world a handshake has long become a custom, at least in most formal interactions – no matter that the skin-to-skin contact often results in the spread of countless germs. Still, my dear readers, most of us take the risk of the germ exposure and shake hands. For it is the demand of our age and times.
It is only people devoid of basic manners or with conceited and immature minds who display their uncivilised emotions – of dislike, hatred and anger – by refusing to shake hands with rivals. This sort of behaviour is fairly common and even considered acceptable among school children, emotional teenagers, small-time neighbourhood goons and many self-absorbed men and women who lack cultivated and educated minds.
And of course the prime ministers of Pakistan and India do not fall into this category. They are among the best and savvy politicians on both sides of the great divide.
They must be aware that in the practical world, even all the ‘good’ and ‘charming’ villains posses the ability to conquer emotions and offer their hands to shake – with a smile. As Shakespeare aptly wrote in Hamlet; “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”
The brief or extended up and down movement of the clasped hands of two individuals may mean nothing but just a display of manners, which certainly “are of more importance than morals’’ if one takes the advice of the great Irish writer, poet and master wit Oscar Wilde seriously and literally.
Many of the high mighty, and those in the making, act on this advice without even reading Wilde. It comes to them naturally, just by instinct. One finds this trait – of having good manners without morals – also among all social climbers.
Yet, at the inaugural session of the 18th Saarc Summit in Kathmandu, these two veteran leaders failed to do the basic doable, casting a shadow on the entire event. The Indian and Pakistani premiers refused even eye contact let alone shaking hands or exchanging courtesies with one another, though they shared the dais for nearly three hours. 
Sharif and Modi – sitting two seats away from one another – did not bother looking at each other. Their glum and serious faces and their deliberate efforts to avoid each other brought perhaps all the bad and the ugly of South Asian diplomacy in full public glare.
Agreed, Pakistan and India have shelved the bilateral talks’ process – courtesy Modi Sarkar’s obstinate and aggressive stance in which it wants to dictate the terms of engagement and even how to proceed on mere talks aimed to resume talks. (New Delhi cancelled the secretary-level talks scheduled in August because the Pakistani high commissioner met leaders of occupied Kashmir, which has otherwise been a long-time convention).
Agreed, that the two countries are far from breaking the deadlock as the troops of both countries frequently exchange fire at the Working Boundary in the disputed Kashmir region. 
But a brief handshake, which Sharif and Modi eventually did at the close of the Saarc Summit, was also possible at the inaugural session without all those unnecessary gestures bordering on farcical melodrama. Just a symbolic handshake, committing or meaning nothing, is common courtesy which heads of government should never hesitate to extend to their foes. 
Credit should go to the Pakistani leaders that, despite all the provocations, they have never said for once that they are not willing to come on the table for talks – even for the sake of talks. However, Islamabad remains justified in its demand that any future initiative for talks should come from New Delhi which alone is responsible for scuttling this process. 
It is indeed ironic that Saarc remains hostage to the tensions between its two largest nuclear-armed member states. It was just in the last hours of the summit that a symbolic Nawaz-Modi handshake saved the day much to the relief of other member nations and resulted at least in one agreement on electricity sharing and a common grid. The other two agreements on road and railways networks in the South Asian region were put on hold because of Pakistan’s objections. 
There should be no illusion that the impasse between Pakistan and India will end any time soon.
The Modi government’s domestic agenda, in which it aims to scrap the special status of occupied Kashmir as guaranteed in the Indian constitution, will prevent it from lowering tensions with Pakistan. Anti-Pakistan rhetoric and allegations of terrorism sell well in Modi’s hawkish India and are likely to yield fruits during state elections in India.
The Modi government’s hostile stance towards Pakistan and its efforts to isolate it in the region is indeed a personal setback for Sharif, who made improving relations with New Delhi one of the pillars of his foreign policy objectives. Sharif has to reconcile with the fact that the time for his ‘great idea’ has not come yet. His subjective desires of friendship with India and expanding trade and economic relations stand shattered due tos the harsh objective realties.
The Sharif government needs to have a holistic review of its policy towards India in which the initiative for the resumption or suspension of the talks seems to be in New Delhi’s hands. Islamabad appears to be only belatedly reacting to the aggressive Indian diplomatic and military posturing and practical steps. This makes it all the more necessary for Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership to work in tandem to counter the Modi challenge.
Prime Minister Sharif’s act of highlighting the Kashmir dispute to the world, including the United Nations, is a step in the right direction. There should be more aggressive efforts to make the world capitals aware of the Pakistani position since sticking to bilateralism – an Indian demand – is taking us nowhere.
The hawks and doves in Pakistan should both brace at best for a prolonged period of bad peace with their eastern neighbour – which is now a stark reality. The civilian and military leadership should agree to disagree with the Indian position.
But the persistent Pakistan-India deadlock does not mean that the top leaders of the two countries should also abandon basic courtesies and diplomatic norms. There can always be a symbolic handshake and a fake smile, which means nothing and says little if the paths of Sharif and Modi cross again in the near or distant future.

Mood Of The Moment

Amir Zia
The News 
Monday, November 24, 2014

Many Pakistanis, who celebrated the country’s return to democracy in 2008, now stand frustrated because of the miserable performance of the two successive governments on most fronts. Whether it is managing the pressing energy crisis, the inability to implement the broader socio-economic reform agenda or providing efficient governance, the scorecard of both the PPP and then the PML-N remains poor

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his dream team may not like to acknowledge and face the writing on the wall, but today’s Pakistan craves for sweeping changes in its political, social and economic power structure. 
One may differ and argue against the tactics of Imran Khan and Allama Tahirul Qadri, but what all they are saying is not completely nonsensical. A number of their demands and critical views on the state of affairs in our Islamic Republic resonates in the hearts and minds of a vast number of Pakistanis who dream of an equitable distribution of resources, justice, peace, political stability, development and modernity in their country.
Several major political parties – from the Jamaat-e-Islami to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and from Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists to other smaller secular, religious and ethnic forces – are also articulating the call for change in one way or another. Some are chanting this mantra in anger and aiming to turn the system upside down, while others do so with restraint and are trying to achieve the goal without upsetting the applecart.
In their own way all these parties represent segments – big and small – of the politically conscious Pakistan. The common thread that runs through all these segments is that the present state of affairs is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
And, indeed, there appears to be a broad consensus on at least some of the issues among these ideologically and politically diverse forces despite all the apparent confusion, sharp divisions and lack of direction on how to move forward. This is yet another indication of a society that is on the tipping point of a major transformation – for good or for worse. 
For instance, all the political parties – whether demanding for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s resignation or wanting him to complete his term – at least on paper want electoral reforms to ensure that the next elections are held in a free, fair and transparent manner.
Yet, the ruling PML-N and the main friendly opposition in parliament, the PPP, have been dragging their feet on this vital issue. How these two major parties are out of sync with the mood of the moment and the pressing urgency to go ahead with the electoral reform agenda is reflected in their deliberate and unpardonable delay in filling the vacant position of the chief election commissioner, which should have otherwise been an automatic process in a functioning democracy. But even after the passage of more than 15 months, the PML-N and the PPP have failed to do the doable, thereby forcing the Supreme Court to intervene. And through this tragedy of delay, they have made the entire process controversial.
Similarly, most political forces want the devolution of power to the grassroots level in the form of a strong local bodies system. Here again, both the PML-N and the PPP are the main stumbling block in their bid to keep powers and resources in the hands of the provincial governments.
The aversion of these two parties to the devolution of power – a must in a democratic order – is resulting in calls for the creation of new administrative units and even the extreme demand for new provinces by various disgruntled political parties. This is further polarising Pakistan’s already explosive politics.
However, holding local elections seem nowhere on the PML-N and the PPP’s agenda as they appear bent upon running 21st century Pakistan through the tried, tested and failed tactics of the past century.
What these forces and the present parliament offer is the democracy of the elite – the old big landowning families, tribal chiefs and the neo-rich representing commercial and business interests. The middle and lower middle classes have a token representation in parliament while peasants and workers – which form the majority – have none. The local bodies system, like the one introduced by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, offers a more inclusive form of democracy compared to the one our so-called champions of democracy want to practise by keeping all the powers in their hands at the provincial level at the cost of the district and union level.
Imran Khan – though flanked by many of the scions of the old traditional powerful feudal families – and Allama Tahirul Qadri are at least putting the issue of devolution of power at the forefront in the national discourse. They can find many allies if they choose to broaden their anti-government campaign on this point alone.poor governance
The Imran-Qadri duo also reflects the sentiment of many Pakistanis when they attack , rampant corruption and inaccessibility of quick justice. Who can argue against their demands for reforms in the police force, giving it operational autonomy and freeing it from political interference?
Similarly, any politician highlighting the dismissal state of the education sector and healthcare facilities is championing the cause of the masses. Pakistanis have only witnessed deterioration on both these fronts despite the passage of the much-celebrated 18th Amendment and the NFC Award which have left provincial governments flush with money. The political parties – especially the PPP at the Sindh provincial level – have failed to build capacity and the ability to judicially utilise these resources for the benefit of the people.
Another life and death issue for the state of Pakistan is the challenge of religious extremism and terrorism. The civilian leadership, barring a few exceptions, unfortunately has been found wanting on this front. The entire responsibility of spearheading this effort has been left to the military leadership, which has forced the government to at least offer some lip-service to this cause. But in the ideological battle, the civilian leadership has failed to take ownership of this war or develop a counter-narrative. The successful Operation Zarb-e-Azb has created space for the civilian leaders to take on the extremist mindset, but this task hardly features on their agenda.
No wonder that many Pakistanis, who celebrated the country’s return to democracy in 2008, now stand frustrated because of the miserable performance of the two successive governments on most fronts. Whether it is managing the pressing energy crisis, the inability to implement the broader socio-economic reform agenda or providing efficient governance, the scorecard of both the PPP and then the PML-N remains poor.
Prime Minister Sharif may be justified when he says that it is too early to give a verdict on his government’s performance which has not even completed two years in office, but the problem is that the dark genie of public discontentment is out of the bag. The people’s expectations are huge, while the deliverables seem to be in short supply. There is growing impatience and restlessness among the people, but one sees no sense of urgency on the part of the rulers to right the wrongs. Sharif’s attempts to govern 21st century Pakistan by staying in the bubble of 1990s politics won’t work. 
The huge turnout at opposition rallies is a manifestation of the bad public mood. Imran Khan, Tahirul Qadri or any other politician have loads of issues at their disposal to whip up the sentiments of the people. In the cold, cruel and pragmatic world of power politics the end justifies the means.
Sharif has a choice… One is to prolong this state of misery for his government where it is unable to deliver against the backdrop of the country’s political instability and mounting opposition. This means more testing times not just for him but also for the country.
The second option: try making a sincere effort to strike a deal with the Imran-Qadri duo, which means a lot of give-and-take. Given the sharp political divide and inflexibility of both the sides this appears an unlikely scenario.
The third – perhaps a more daring – option is to grab the initiative and announce early polls to break the impasse. In this option, Sharif will gain a high moral ground to take on his opponents in the electoral battlefield in a bid to return to power. In the coming days, Sharif will have tough choices to make. The question is: will he be able to rise to the challenge?