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.

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? 

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.

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.

Aping The March

By Amir Zia
August 18, 2014
The News

The Pakistani idea of revolution or revolutionary struggle falls in the category of the theatre of the absurd. Amidst all the glare and racket of 24/7 television, clever one-liners in the new media, our politicians and many of their innocent followers think that staging revolution remains akin to going to a dinner party or playing an exciting 20/20 cricket match which guarantees instant results. 

Most of our current set of politicians attempt to sell clichéd slogans, borrowed ideas and half-baked truths to their followers. Originality and creativity is certainly not their forte. The very symbolism of their campaigns, protests and sometimes even manifestos are no more than poor-quality, third-rate aping of great concepts and mighty struggles.
Take for instance the concept of the ‘long march’ which has been lingering in our politics for the past several decades and has been rechristened – once again – as the ‘Azadi March’ by Imran Khan and the ‘Revolutionary March’ by Dr Allama Tahirul Qadri. 
Before these two gentlemen, some of our frontline politicians including Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Qazi Hussain Ahmed all tried to stage this or that kind of march – including the Train March, the Million March etc. But the Pakistani versions of ‘long marches’ proved to be not even a passing shadow of the historical Chinese ‘Long March’ carried out by the communist forces under Chairman Mao Zedong’s command in 1934-35. This march spanned nearly 370 days and covered 9,000 kilometres, passing through some of the most difficult terrain.
The Chinese Long March was a retreat undertaken by the Red Army to dodge the counter-revolutionary forces of Chiang Kai-shek and marked Chairman Mao’s steep climb to the power.
The Chinese Long March is seen as one of the greatest physical feats of the 20th Century in which barely 10,000 of the Red Army soldiers survived – out of a total of around 87,000. Mao himself remained in the forefront with his soldiers, never abandoning them for rest or recreation.
Compare Mao with the political pygmies of the world of Pakistani politicians, who in their ‘revolutionary’ zeal travel in first class or plush bullet-proof vehicles and rest in sprawling homes after every few hours. Indeed, even the slightest symbolic comparison of the Pakistani marchers with the Chinese one appears as a crude joke. Barring the farcical copy of the name, there is nothing remotely comparable between the Pakistani and Chinese marchers. For one, Pakistan marchers have always been on wheels. The Imran-Qadri duo is certainly not the only one that stands guilty of bluffing the masses.
Some light stone pelting by rivals, a first few drops of rain or being on the road for 40 hours or so make them yearn for the solitude, peace and comfort of their home as PTI chairman Imran Khan did when he left his troops at Gujranwala to speed up his journey towards Islamabad. Definitely, Imran has not done anything which the current breed of Pakistani politicians normally don’t practice when pitted against the odds. However, in the initial round of his campaign aimed to dislodge Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan has cut a sorry figure before his followers and critics alike. Will he be able to bounce back in round two during his ‘dharna’ (sit-in) at the federal capital and lead from the front? Perhaps it is too early to say this as these lines are written on this cloudy Saturday afternoon. 
But if Imran is serious in getting Sharif’s resignation – leaving aside the debate whether his demand is constitutional or unconstitutional – our former cricketing hero needs to improve his game and put up a better show than what he did by escaping from Gujranwala.
The ‘million march’ campaigns announced at the drop of the hat by none other than the Jamaat-e-Islami since the days of its former ameer Qazi Hussain Ahmed also proves one delusionary exercise. Since my reporting days in the early 1990s to this date, never once were a million marchers at the disposal of the Jamaat. Yes, there had been tens of thousands of people attending their street shows, but the figure of million remains a toll order. Fifty thousand or 100,000, maybe a little more or less did participate. Yet, most of our media rather than calling a spade a spade always went by the figure or the label given by the organisers. That’s what we call intellectual honesty – Pakistani style.
The Pakistani idea of revolution or revolutionary struggle also falls in the category of the theatre of the absurd. Amidst all the glare and racket of 24/7 television, clever one-liners in the new media, our politicians and many of their innocent followers think that staging revolution remains akin to going to a dinner party or playing an exciting 20/20 cricket match which guarantees instant results. This underlines that they remain totally devoid of the understanding of the political process and a sense of history. Their revolution or call of a ‘naya’ (new) Pakistan begins and ends with just a change of faces in the corridors of power. And the new faces are none other but their own. 
The true meaning of revolution – which destroys the old structures, brings sweeping socio-economic changes in a society with one brutal act of violence, and topples the ruling elite and replaces them with a new one – remains nowhere on their agenda. Even revolution becomes a sham slogan in Pakistan just as many believe democracy has already become in this Islamic Republic. 
Our similarity with all the great concepts, symbols and struggles begins and end with the tag, which Pakistani politicians have mastered in adopting for their gimmickries.
The very issues that dominate the narrative of our politics also remain mind- boggling. The top two or three issues dominating Pakistani political scene remain absent from the discourse of the ruling party as well as the opposition.
The challenge of militancy and extremism – the most pressing issue for Pakistan – appears to exist only for the armed forces. The civil government is content by paying mere lip-service to the cause and remains a reluctant partner in the effort to defeat the local and foreign militants. 
The opposition parties demanding Sharif’s resignation do not consider this is an issue worthy even to mention during their protests. The friendly opposition also has a wishy-washy position on the issue.
The effective military operation against terrorists has provided space to the civilian leadership to carry out reforms not just in the conflict hit areas but the entire country. These reforms should aim to de-radicalise and defeat the extremist mindset. But there is hardly any push in this direction. The civilian leadership has also been unable to provide the much needed support to the efforts of the security forces by introducing the required judicial reforms for quick dispensation of justice. The ban on the death penalty continues to remain the biggest dichotomy in our legal system with courts handing down death sentences, but the executive failing to implement them.
The fragile state of economy, poor governance, sorrowful state of social indicators including education and healthcare, soaring crime, the ordinary man’s inability to get cheap and speedy justice and other such issues are nowhere on the radar of our rulers and the pseudo revolutionary or friendly opposition parties wanting to save the system.
There is too much politics, too much political excitement around us to keep the nation on the tenterhooks, but there is too little awareness, too little debate and discourse and hardly any effort to address genuine issues.
Compare the performance of our politicians with India’s hard-line Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who on the occasion of his country’s Independence Day, focused his speech not on grand plans but about issues that bother the common Indian every day. Issues like provision of toilets to hundreds of millions of people, highlighting the barbaric practice of killing the girl child, slamming the rape culture and taking pride in the growing and expanding digital India. 
The Indian premier appears to have his hand on the pulse of India. What about our politicians? They seem to dwell on some other planet which remains out of bound for ordinary Pakistanis.

'Not A Dinner Party'

By Amir Zia
Monday, July 21, 2014
The News

Perhaps revolution was never on the agenda of the leadership of these small leftist parties. Many of their front-line leaders were happy to play second and even the third and fourth fiddle to the feudal, tribal and the urban rich while paying lip-service to the revolutionary cause. 
 
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall”. – Che Guevara. 
There is hardly a parallel between the words and actions of Che and our very own self-professed revolutionary Allama Tahirul Qadri. They are individuals belonging to two different planets. Che – a guerrilla fighter – fought, lived and died for the revolution. Qadri’s revolutionary struggle starts on board a first-class flight from Canada and keeps him secure in a bullet proof, bomb-proof, comfortable container.
Yet, one must not doubt the sincerity of our esteemed Allama Qadri and his passion to stage a revolution for which he will soon announce a date. However, to date, it is not clear whether he will give the day and time for the beginning of the revolutionary struggle or its culmination. A revolution with a defined deadline will be the first of its kind in history if it succeeds.
Certainly, Allama Qadri is not the first Pakistani politician to wave the banner of revolution in the country or we the first generation to hear claims that a sweeping change is on its way. Much before Qadri unfurled his banner with a pledge to destroy this “decadent, rotten and exploitative system” many other politicians tried to sell a similar dream to their followers and the masses under various wrappings.
Some defined revolution in all its Marxist sense of class struggle, while others interpreted it purely on religious lines to establish the rule of the clergy in the country. The centrist politicians called for a revolution from the comforts of their luxurious homes and four-wheel drive vehicles.
But just like Imran Khan’s so-called tsunami of today, they, too, aimed for a mere change of faces of rulers without disturbing the ruling elite, comprising the same powerful families of feudal lords, tribal chiefs and business and industrialist tycoons, who have been holding the destiny of this country in their hands all these years – be it under a democratic or military rule.
Most of our full-time and part-time revolutionaries only used, misused and abused the concept of revolution in all its superficial and phony sense just as others did the same with democracy and Islam. Their words were bombastic, their promises were big… some were eloquent speakers, but all of them were part of the system they claimed to uproot and destroy.
“You cannot make a revolution in white gloves”, said Vladimir Lenin. But many of our ‘revolutionary’ charlatans – leftist, rightist or centrist – never tried to take off their white, spotless gloves. No wonder, the hair of one generation after another kept turning grey while waiting for the elusive revolution – which never came. 
Various types of leftist groups – Maoist, pro-Soviet, Trotskyites – with inflated optimism and mindless innocence used to see a red revolution coming all through the ‘60s, 70s and ’80s. “Give one more push to the crumbling walls” was one popular slogan that echoed through all those years. But the ‘oppressive walls’s did not crumble and Pakistani ‘proletariat and peasants’ never got united to stage a socialist or communist revolution.
Yes, for a brief period Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did manage to ride the revolutionary bubble comprising mainly urban middle and lower middle class leftwing students and trade unions as people across the West Pakistan of yesteryears were mobilised against Ayub Khan’s rule and then for the 1970s elections, but he dumped the left soon after assuming power.
Many leftist ideologues, who were the founding members of the Pakistan People’s Party, landed in jail, beaten and tortured in the initial years of Bhutto rule. 
What went wrong for these senior comrades?
To put it in simple words, they forgot the basic lesson of revolutionary struggle while joining hands with Bhutto; people usually act in line with their class interest. And Bhutto, despite donning the Mao cap, was not Mao Tse-tung to declass himself and stop being a feudal lord. 
The left lost its steam after making the wrong ‘Bhutto choice’, but even till the late 1980s and the initial years of 1990s, various small but effective leftist groups did manage to survive. Some operated on narrow nationalist lines, while others debated whether change in Pakistan would be according to the ‘Soviet party line’ of national democratic revolution or the Maoist ‘peoples’ democratic revolution’. But these groups, despite their small size and the oppression of General Ziaul Haq’s martial law, did play an important role in the movement for the restoration of democracy – only to be dumped again by the Benazir Bhutto-led PPP in the 1988 elections. 
Our comrades again forgot the basic lesson of the revolutionary struggle described in such a simple and articulate manner by Chairman Mao; “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution.”
But perhaps revolution was never on the agenda of the leadership of these small leftist parties. Many of their front-line leaders were happy to play second and even the third and fourth fiddle to the feudal, tribal and the urban rich while paying lip-service to the revolutionary cause. But in their essence, they acted like the same ‘bourgeois’ parties that were their allies. This explains why one-by-one, many of the middle-class romantic revolutionaries too followed the opportunism of their leaders and became part of the system. 
Today, remnants of some of these leftist groups still exist, but they are a shadow of their past. They operate more as talking societies of pseudo-middle- and upper-class intellectuals, ultra-liberal civil and human rights advocacy groups and NGOs. No wonder they live in their tiny bubbles and fail to connect to the masses.
Our rightwing, religiously motivated revolutionaries, too, had their mirages of glory. From the Tehreek Nizam-e-Mustafa (pbuh) against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s rule following the 1977 elections to the chants of “revolution, revolution, Islamic revolution,” all through the 1980s and the early 1990s against the backdrop of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the religious parties managed to mobilise vast crowds and fuelled the imaginations of countless of youngsters, who took up weapons for their revolutionary Islamic cause in Afghanistan, Indian-held Kashmir and many other parts of the world as well as in Pakistan against all those they considered their enemies.
Those were the good days for the religious parties. The Pakistani establishment, the United States and all its western and Arab allies were on the same page and were doing all they could to bolster the armed Islamic groups of non-state actors to take on the Soviet Union and their communist allies. The Americans, the army and these self-proclaimed soldiers of Allah were one.
But once the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, the Americans lost interest in their partners. Both the Pakistani and Afghan Islamic political parties and armed groups, which proved so effective in the acts of destruction, failed to give a new system as they fought among themselves for the spoils. This underlines the fact that the religious leadership proved as insincere and shallow as their counterparts in the leftist and secular parties. The failure of the right in playing a positive role is more appalling because unlike the left, they enjoyed the support and the backing of the establishment until recently. 
How would Qadri’s revolutionary struggle prove different from the predecessors – both rightists and leftist? That is difficult to predict. But let’s not get cynical and for a while ignore all the criticism on his lifestyle, the lingering doubts about the class composition of his party, its source of funding and some contradictions in his words and actions.
Let’s just remind him in the words of Chairman Mao that “a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
Will Allama Qadri prove to write a different history in Pakistan’s subdued revolutionary history? Your guess should be as good as mine.0