Policing Reloaded

By Amir Zia
Monday, May 26, 2014
The News

The prime importance for Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah and his team appears to get men of their choice to lead the police. The removal of Shahid Hayat is just another symptom of the grave ailment that continues to grip this anti-people and unfair system.
 
Additional Inspector General of Karachi Police Shahid Hayat had to bid adieu after remaining in office for less than nine months – a relatively long term for an officer in a city where many last on similar positions barely two to three months on an average.
The new man – Ghulam Qadir Thebo – is the sixth officer to assume charge of this coveted, but treacherous slot in a period of about 18 months. This means that the average lifespan of a Karachi police chief is barely 12 weeks, which highlights the prevalent ad hocism and uncertainty in the police force, assigned to combat crime and terrorism in one of the most dangerous mega-cities of the world.
Similarly, about a dozen inspector generals have come and gone over a period of six years in the Sindh Police – making their average stay in office no longer than six months.
Deputy inspectors general, senior superintendents, superintendents, their deputies and station house officers have much shorter terms. They are mostly appointed and then transferred or removed within weeks or a couple of months.
The brief ‘honeymoon’ phase is all an officer gets in any position in the Sindh Police. In this period, the officer naturally takes a few days to settle in the new job, attempts to build a team, gets some familiarity with the usual and unusual challenges of his assignment and by the time he enters the planning or implementation phase, there are marching orders for him. Then comes a new man, and the familiar cycle begins again.
Political bosses keep police officers on a tight leash – not to fight crime, but to follow their whims. Favourites are thrust on lucrative positions and officers who try to resist land on the sidelines. There are pressures to go soft on politically-connected criminals and killers, demands to set them free and even tamper with their First Investigative Reports so that they can get benefit of doubt in courts and thus walk free.
Ask any police officer and you will hear that political interference remains the worst predicament for the force under the PPP rule in the province. And unfortunately, there are hardly any hopes for an improvement.
Shahid Hayat’s removal is just another demonstration of how politicians have been keeping the police force hostage. As reported in the press, the Sindh government had been vying to get rid of him for the past several months.
The reason – he ruffled many sacred feathers since taking charge of his office on September 13. He resisted political appointments and transfers, tried to build a team of relatively clean officers to spearhead the operation against criminals and terrorists, went after Lyari gangsters – many of whom enjoy patronage of some PPP stalwarts – raided MQM offices and took on the Al-Qaeda-inspired local Taliban, who use Karachi to rest, regroup and raise funds through bank robberies, extortion, kidnappings and other crimes.
It was certainly not that Karachi became less dangerous or less lawless when Hayat was holding the fort. The number of street crimes, according to the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee, jumped by nearly 20 percent during the last eight months, but at least the Karachi police had been taking initiatives and going to areas that were once considered out of bounds. 
As a result, there was a 35 percent drop in killings during the eight months of the operation, while extortion and kidnapping for ransom cases declined between 10 to 15 percent. Police killed 253 criminals during the first 248 days of the operation compared with 81 in the same number of days prior to the crackdown.
Given Karachi’s peculiar and complex demography, continued political interference in policing and the old nexus between criminals and politicians, it was no mean achievement for the police force which lacks both in numbers and equipment for a city of Karachi’s size. Yes, against the approved strength of 31,064, Karachi police only has 26,847 men and women on duty. This means that for 819 citizens, there is only one police official available here, compared with Lahore’s ratio of 337 per official, Delhi’s 291, New York’s 237 and London’s 152. 
Lahore with an estimated population of 10.9 million – almost half the size of our mega port city’s 22 million – has a police force of 32,600. 
While attempts to oust Shahid Hayat were frustrated by the federal government and the DG Sindh Rangers in the past, the PPP-led provincial government this time around used a Supreme Court order of May 9 that ordered the demotion of all government employees working on senior posts on ‘own pay scale’ (junior grade).
The Sindh government – known for poor governance, inefficiency and dragging its feet even on basic issues from providing timely relief to drought victims of Tharparkar to potable water in rural Sindh – in this case moved with haste to implement the court order.
It never occurred to the Sindh government’s bosses to take the administrative decision and make the slot of Karachi police chief a ‘floating-position’ for grade 20/21 officers as done by the other provincial governments, including Punjab, in their major cities. In the past, the Karachi police chief’s position was also for grade 20 officers as in the other provinces.
The Sindh government decided not to file a review petition in the honourable Supreme Court. Its mala fide intentions are revealed from the fact that the Supreme Court order was implemented selectively in the police department where around 20 officers of grade 18, including some of the favourites of former president Asif Ali Zardari, continue to serve in grade 19 positions.
Rules also allow appointment of a junior grade officer at a senior position if there is a genuine reason. In this case, the valid reason remains that the Sindh Police has only three grade 21 officers in its ranks against seven such positions. As a result, now four out of seven grade 21 positions, including that of CIA and traffic chiefs, are vacant.
This politically-loaded decision of a change of guard in the Karachi police team when the operation against criminals and terrorists is entering the third phase has rightly drawn criticism from the federal government. In a strongly-worded statement, Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed has said that Sindh government showed “irresponsible and non-serious behaviour” by removing Shahid Hayat. The decision has also created uncertainty in the police force, which has lost more than 100 men, including one SSP and six inspectors, during the operation.
Efforts to beat crime and terrorism are likely to take a hit in the city as the new team leader of the Karachi police will take his natural time to build his team amidst interference of the Sindh government, which wants to see officers of its choice on various positions – from DIGs to SHOs – a move resisted by Shahid Hayat.
Instead of initiating the much-needed police reforms, which should include doing away with the culture of political interference in the police force and giving it operational autonomy, the Sindh government has stuck to its tried, tested and failed methods aimed at serving vested interests of those PPP’s bigwigs known for their passion for promoting commercial interests or patronising crime mafias of Lyari.
The Sindh government would have served Karachi better had it taken steps to increase the strength of the police force and introduced a protection programme for witnesses and police officers in the forefront in fighting terrorism. 
The Karachi police need improvement in infrastructure including renovation of police stations and housing facilities. The force requires better training and human resource. It should be provided incentives of medical insurance and other welfare projects so that police personnel can face challenges with greater confidence. It must have modern equipment – from armoured personnel carriers to bulletproof jackets and communication network – to make Karachi a little less dangerous and a bit more liveable.
But all these vital steps remain low on Sindh government’s agenda. The prime importance for Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah and his team appears to get men of their choice to lead the police. The removal of Shahid Hayat is just another symptom of the grave ailment that continues to grip this anti-people and unfair system.

The Unholy Nexus

By Amir Zia

May 19, 2014

The News 

In no other major city of Pakistan do we find this kind of criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime. Karachi’s sheer population size and its diverse ethnic composition make the situation complicated against the backdrop of rampant corruption at the official level and past attempts by the security agencies to prop up one political or ethnic force against the other

Crime and politics usually go hand-in-hand in the urban jungle called Karachi. This has long been an open state secret in the land of the pure – a sort of fact that always remained in the knowledge, but seldom formally acknowledged, at the official level. 

Ask our elected lords and masters about the unholy nexus between crime and politics in Sindh – especially Karachi – and they will either indulge in self-denial or blame their rivals for this evil.

However, the hard fact remains that Sindh’s political parties – representing rural as well as urban areas – are mostly responsible for Karachi’s law and order woes. The PPP, its part-ally, part-rival the MQM, the ANP, the small Sindhi nationalist groups, the religious and sectarian parties – they all have contributed to our city’s plight, each according to its size and weight. 

Therefore, it was interesting to see on May 14 some of these very political stakeholders sitting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the top military brass that included Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif to ponder over the law and order challenges of Karachi. The reported crux of the chief secretary Sindh and director general Sindh Rangers’ separate briefings on the occasion was how political patronage and interference in policing have been hampering the operation against criminals and terrorists from getting desired results.

The two briefings reportedly exposed the collapse of governance and administration under the PPP-led rule in Sindh since 2008, which should hardly be a revelation for former president Asif Ali Zardari, who was sitting next to the prime minister, and his other PPP top stalwarts including the Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah. 

Some of the figures presented during the briefings were an eye opener. For instance, out of the 1,747 hardened criminals arrested since the launch of the Karachi operation on September 5, only 27 have been convicted. The two major political parties – the PPP and the MQM – have proved to be the biggest hindrance for both the police and the Rangers, preventing them from performing their duties. 

The PPP ministers kept the pressure on the police force by their successful and unsuccessful attempts to bring police officers of their own choice on important slots and thus creating a sense of uncertainty among the senior members of the Karachi police team.

The provincial government even dragged its feet in issuing the red warrants for the arrest of notorious criminals who allegedly have connections with some of the members of the ruling party here.

The MQM kept the heat on through its series of protests and attempts to make the operation controversial, accusing the law-enforcement agencies of extrajudicial killings of its workers and their alleged forced disappearances. The Sindh government, on its part, failed to activate the four committees including monitoring and grievance committees that have to ensure the effectiveness and transparency of the operation.

If Army Chief Raheel Sharif made it clear that the operation won’t succeed until the political forces take its ownership for peace and rule of law in the city, the prime minister warned against allowing terrorists from using the ‘political umbrella.’

It is perhaps ironic that the push for peace and indiscriminate action against criminals is not coming from the two main stakeholders in Sindh’s politics, but from the federal government and the military. The political forces of Sindh appear as the reluctant partners in this operation, which prime minister has vowed to take to its next phase now. 

The reluctance of the local political players of Sindh seems understandable. Most of the extortion mafias operate their rackets in this teeming port city with the blessings of one or the other political, ethnic, religious or sectarian group. The encroachment of prized land is made possible here only under political patronage. These forces fight bloody turf wars. They kill rivals and dissident members of their own. Some openly allow thugs in their ranks to indulge in the deadly drug and weapons’ trade. The gun-wielding boys do all the dirty work of their political bosses and, when free, also take assignments of their own.

In a nutshell, most major political stakeholders of Karachi are a part of the problem of lawlessness, crime and violence. Their narrow vested interests and financial stakes are the biggest obstacles in establishing rule of law here.

In no other major city of Pakistan do we find this kind of criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime. Karachi’s sheer population size and its diverse ethnic composition make the situation complicated against the backdrop of rampant corruption at the official level and past attempts by the security agencies to prop up one political or ethnic force against the other. And in doing this, our agencies have shown a lot of tolerance for crimes, acts of terrorism and killings committed by militants considered on the right side of the fence.

Is this going to change any time soon? Maybe…The army chief reportedly assured the civilian leaders of “100 percent” sincerity and cooperation in beating crime and lawlessness in Karachi, which is a heartening development. Prime Minister Sharif’s often repeated resolve to bring peace in Karachi should also raise expectations that the government will match its words with action.

In the past, many such high-level meetings did create a lot of hype and hope for peace, but the bitter fact remains that despite all such tall claims the ground reality in Karachi remained unchanged. The main reason for this remains the lack of political will that prevented any meaningful structural reforms mainly in the police, and the judiciary.

The police need to be freed from political interference and must be given operational independence. The government must also ensure that all the recruitment and appointments in the police force are on merit and officers are appointed for a fixed term.

Similarly, there is an urgent need to introduce modern investigation techniques, which cannot be done without changing the entire training manual of the police force. The old colonial-era system, which has been corrupted and tarnished over the years, won’t simply work in the present times. None of these recommendations are new. Many of our veteran police officers have been urging for such reforms for decades now. Is anyone listening? 

There also remains a dire need to set up more courts, including anti-terror courts, for speedy dispensation of justice. A witness-protection plan along with foolproof security for judges and prosecutors are also a must.

The government needs to remove the dichotomy in the legal system, which it has introduced by placing a moratorium on the death penalty. This only benefits people convicted for heinous crimes, including terrorism and murders.

Only a holistic approach, political will and structural reforms can help realise the dream of beating crime and terrorism. Our rulers have paid enough lip service to this cause. It is time for action. Let’s hope that this time the civil and military leadership does not end up disappointing the people.

 

Little By Little

Amir Zia

May 12, 2014

The News

We see confusion, polarisation and conflict escalating in the society, but the state appears unable to resolve these contradictions... Perhaps for the ruling elite of Pakistan, the party is not yet over

Slowly but surely the violent non-state actors are pushing Pakistan towards the brink. Little by little we are witnessing the state’s writ being eroded. Gradually Pakistani society’s descend into lawlessness is gaining momentum. And step by step Pakistan’s status as an internationally pariah state is being paved and cemented.

Our rulers may not agree with this cheerless account of today’s Pakistan. They may still think that they hold all the cards. They may still believe that they remain firmly in control. But living in self-denial and a make-believe world – no matter how grand – can’t stop Pakistan’s one-way backward march.

The reality is grim and the signs of the times ominous, underlining the weakening of the state authority. Yet, our lords and masters do not seem to see the writing on the wall.

The latest drag for the state has come in the form of the spurt in cases of the polio virus – thanks to our so-called holy warriors who declare the vaccination drive against this crippling disease a ‘western conspiracy’ to make our future generations infertile.

As a result, the goal of a polio-free Pakistan – which once appeared within reach in 1999-00 – now seems unattainable. Fourteen years down the road, as Sharif completes the first year of his third term in power, Pakistan is one of the only three countries – along with Syria and Cameroon – that threaten the world by exporting this virus to other countries.

UN efforts to eradicate polio globally by 2018 are being torpedoed mainly because of our Islamic republic’s inability to carry out effective vaccination drives in many parts of its territory – especially in the troubled tribal region. The outcome of this failure is manifested through 59 new polio cases so far this year in Pakistan out of the total 74 in all the 10 polio-affected countries. 

Out of the 59 local polio cases, 46 have been reported in the tribal belt where despite frequent appeals by both government and non-government quarters, the militants do not allow health workers to administer polio drops to children age five years and below. The Afghan Taliban militants are better in a sense as they facilitate the anti-polio campaign by holding temporary ceasefires. 

No wonder the WHO has now recommended polio vaccination a must for all Pakistanis travelling abroad. What does that mean for the country? It is not just simply a new obstacle for Pakistani travellers, but another triumph for the pro-Al-Qaeda local militants against the backdrop of the civil and military leadership’s near policy-paralysis on how to deal with the twin scourge of terrorism and extremism. It is another symbolic blow to this struggling state, which faces the greatest internal threat in its recent history.

The best our rulers have offered so far against this internal challenge remains half-hearted, incomplete reactive operations against militants and the self-defeating exercise of holding talks with them. There appears to be no roadmap for victory despite the immense sacrifices of Pakistani soldiers. There seems to be no urgency to end the prolonged conflict, which should have been the top item on the government’s agenda.

For all the different shades and colours of extremists, including the Al-Qaeda inspired militants, the triumph on the poliovirus front is not the first one against the Pakistani state. They have been expanding their influence and stifling the state called Pakistan in a gradual manner. For any country, this endless state of conflict is the worst case scenario as it results in fatigue and draining out of its resources. Our rulers seem oblivious to this age-old code of war and peace in politics.

The extremists, who have kept the initiative in this protracted conflict, have scored one symbolic psychological victory after the other as successive governments continued to debate and discuss whether to fight or not to fight.

The militants successfully banished international sports from Pakistan with the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team as our decision-makers tried to make a distinction between the ‘good and bad’ militants. The precarious state of security forced many western diplomatic missions to scale down operations and declare Pakistan a hardship posting but our successive rulers gloated over their ‘success’ of bringing in foreign aid, grants and loans – as they are doing now. 

Security concerns forced most foreign investors and businesspeople to stop visiting Pakistan, but our decision-makers claimed they had been reviving the economy. Footprints of almost every major incident of global terrorism led to Pakistan, but our politicians and decision-makers saw ‘a foreign hand’ behind many of our ills. Pakistan’s worst era of lawlessness and bloodletting at the hands of terrorists and extremists consumed thousands of lives, but our political parties kept arguing over whose war Pakistan has been fighting.

After sacrificing more than 4,000 soldiers in the northern tribal belt alone, Pakistani leaders still do not know the real enemy and remain undecided whether to fight or to talk.

While a segment of violent non-state actors and their foreign militant allies have taken on the state, creating their terrorist safe havens on Pakistani soil, many other extremists groups are waging their unholy wars against members of ‘rival’ sects or dissident voices within society.

The state and its institutions seem powerless as extremists commit one atrocity after another. It is the terrorists who are on the charge, while the ones who should be upholding the law remain on the defensive. 

Killing anyone by exploiting the sacred name of Islam is now easy. The government is surely to turn a blind eye towards the organised gangs of militants rather than provide justice to the victims and their families. It is an abject surrender by the state and its institutions.

The recent assassination of human rights activist Rashid Rehman in Multan is one more addition to the ever-growing list of victims killed because of their views. He was apparently killed for pleading the case of a man accused of blasphemy. His murder failed to create ripples in the society, barring a small vocal section of civil society members – many of whom themselves remain in the line of fire.

In the same long list of victims, we also have governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, who was killed by his own police guard because he too spoke about a controversial blasphemy case. The Pakistani state remains unable to prosecute his assassin in what is an open-and-shut case because of the fear of an organised minority. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We see confusion, polarisation and conflict escalating in the society, but the state appears unable to resolve these contradictions, which is vital for its own survival.

Perhaps for the ruling elite of Pakistan, the party is not yet over. There is still some opportunity to perpetuate rule and make money, but the state called Pakistan is being hollowed out bit by bit, little by little. 

There appears to be no political force in the ring that can turn the tide as gangs and bands of militants, terrorists and criminals hold sway. Tough times never seem to be over in the land called Pakistan.

 

The Real Issue

By Amir Zia  
The News
May 5, 2014

The biggest irony of the Hamid Mir episode is that amidst all these relevant or irrelevant questions and the blame game, the real issue is almost lost – the precarious state of law and order in Pakistan.

The brazen attack on Geo News’ anchorperson Hamid Mir should have highlighted the perils of being a journalist in Pakistan and galvanised media persons, but it has undeniably divided them. The attack should have helped bring all stakeholders, including media houses, political parties, the government and the armed forces on the same page against the challenges of rampant lawlessness, terrorism and violence, but instead it increased polarisation in the country.
The blame game is on. Who is a traitor and who is not? What is the national interest? Who remains its sole custodian and arbiter? Which institution transgressed its mandate? What should be the role of our spy agencies? What are the red lines for media houses? What is responsible journalism and what’s not?
The Jang/Geo Group – Pakistan’s biggest media house – is being dubbed a traitor and is being threatened amidst calls for banning its news channel and newspapers for what some can call irresponsible or sensational journalism in the aftermath of the attack on Hamid Mir – nothing less, nothing more.
Pakistan’s defamation laws, regulatory authorities and courts should be able to address this issue. If the laws are ineffective or regulatory authorities are weak and dysfunctional and fail to provide relief to an aggrieved individual or institution, the episode provides an opportunity to develop an effective legal framework – as has been done in all civilised societies where press freedom remains synonymous with responsible journalism.
People there can approach the justice system if they believe that they have been wronged by any media outlet. The application of defamation and libel laws is never selective or aimed to benefit the powerful alone, especially in the advanced democracies from where we have imported the concept of press freedom. Any private citizen manages to get swift justice there, unlike Pakistan where court cases drag on from grandfather to grandson.
If mudslinging and spreading unsubstantiated allegations is bad journalism – which it certainly is – then one Pakistani media group cannot be singled out for this offence. If one has triggered the wrath of Pakistan’s mightiest institution, others have been riding roughshod with lesser mortals, including the targeted vilification campaign directed against the Jang/Geo Group itself.
But bad journalism by others should be no excuse to follow suit. It is time for many of us in the media industry, including journalists, news managers, and owners, to be self-critical. Let’s reassert the basic universal values of journalism, which calls for accuracy, objectivity, balance and fairness in reporting. Yes, we have to be current, we have to be candid and at times controversial, but the most important of all the four ‘Cs’ of journalism remains credibility. As the old cliché of the world of journalists say that you are as good as your last story.
The debate on ethics and values of journalism, especially in the electronic media, has been raging within professionals even before the April 19 attack on Hamid Mir. It is time to do it in a more structured way by involving all the stakeholders, and develop not just a voluntary code of conduct but also recommend improvements in the defamation laws and regulatory framework. 
Responsible, factual and objective journalism, which keeps a demarcation between facts, opinions and allegations, remain the best way to protect press freedom. Effective laws against defamation and libel should not be seen as curbing press freedom, but protecting it. In every international media organisation the first lesson drilled in the minds of both reporters and desk-persons is how to avoid the pitfalls of defamation, libel and slander while reporting.
This ongoing blame game, barrage of allegations and counter-allegations and awarding tickets of being patriotic or unpatriotic will not lead us anywhere. It is time to do some serious soul searching and try to resolve the issue with maturity, restraint and sticking to the legal course.
Fanning public emotions with the help of various political and religious parties and wilfully or inadvertently taken unlawful steps against Jang/Geo – or any other group for that matter – is charting a dangerous course. Organised incidents of outright intimidation and harassment to vilification campaign against Jang/Geo and efforts to block the distribution of its newspapers or removing Geo News from the cables or pushing it on the lower slot are unlawful. Non-state actors and various illegal and legal pressure groups can take advantage of this situation to target and intimidate the media or for that matter any voice of dissent.
Pakistan remains one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. It will become even more dangerous if our major stakeholders, including the top civil and military leaders, fail to take the lead in guaranteeing press freedom at every cost. So far the signs from the top are encouraging – from the prime minister to the army chief, all have vowed to protect the press freedom.
It is now necessary to put across this message down to the ranks. When legal means are available, disgruntled individuals should not be allowed to exploit the situation and target any media house – even if ‘right or wrong’, there are complaints against it.
The most urgent need is that civil and military leaders should take note of the direct threats to journalists affiliated with the Jang/Geo group and all the other media houses and try to ensure maximum security in this age of lawlessness.
Individuals, political parties or organisations have every right to boycott this or that newspaper or news channel. That is a matter of choice and also of readers’ or viewers’ preference. But trying to force this boycott on others in an organised manner to stifle a media group is setting a wrong precedent and should be seen as an effort to muzzle the independent press. 
The biggest irony of the Hamid Mir episode is that amidst all these relevant or irrelevant questions and the blame game, the real issue is almost lost – the precarious state of law and order in Pakistan.
This is a country where no one is safe – including journalists, who relatively enjoy a sort of a privileged status in the society. We have seen professionals, including doctors, teachers and lawyers, being systematically targeted in major cities by religious fanatics and extremists. Unsuspecting civilians – men, women and children – have been the victims of suicide bombings and other acts of terror. The unabated bloodletting has consumed senior government officials, politicians, religious scholars, clerics and students. There are scores of policemen who have been martyred in their line of duty.
Our soldiers and defence installations remain on the hit list of Al-Qaeda-inspired local militant groups, especially the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban with which our civilian government is locked in the so-called peace talks. From our senior-most officials of the armed forces down to the foot soldier, all have borne the brunt of terrorism.
The internal challenge of terrorism and extremism is the most crucial, life and death issue for today’s Pakistan. It is so unfortunate that this issue has been placed on the backburner and those institutions which remain the best bet for a democratic, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan appear to be at loggerheads with one another.
This situation benefits only the external and internal enemies of Pakistan. This strengthens only the forces of chaos and anarchy, trying to bring down the state of Pakistan from within. Who else but the military leadership has greater awareness of this grave challenge? It needs to keep this most important issue in the main national narrative – no matter what the distracters of Pakistan’s armed forces try to do in the covert or overt manner by bringing any secondary issues to the forefront. The armed forces and the people of Pakistan must stay on course.

Trapped Again

By Amir Zia
The News
April 28, 2014

The coming together of political forces should ideally be seen as a welcome step. But political alliances should be based on principles, clear-cut objectives and vision for tomorrow rather than on getting handful of cabinet portfolios. The marriage of convenience never works – especially in an ethnically diverse and politically polarised province such as Sindh.
  
This time, there was no political chest-thumping when the Muttahida Qaumi Movement rejoined the Sindh provincial government as the junior partner of the Pakistan People’s Party. In fact, some senior leaders belonging to both the PPP and the MQM appeared quite sheepish while trying to explain the rationale behind conducting the same failed experiment yet again.
Their embarrassment remains understandable. Only till a few days back, the PPP- MQM lawmakers were locked in bitter verbal brawls inside Sindh Assembly as well as outside despite efforts by their top leadership for a patch-up in the recent months.
The wide gulf of differences and mutual distrust between the urban and rural representatives manifested itself on almost each and every issue. Whether it is the thorny and emotionally-loaded question of the quota system in Sindh, or relatively smaller issues pertaining to the creation of a new district in Karachi and setting up of a university in Hyderabad, these two sides love to disagree.
If on paper, the MQM wants a powerful local bodies system and immediate holding of local elections, the PPP’s interest lies in running the affairs of Sindh as it has been doing since 2008. If the people of Karachi crave for a modern mass transit system, the PPP leaders see holding a Rs450 million-worth Sindh Festival a far more important activity. From the allocation of funds and provincial taxation to the issue of exercising administrative authority over the key urban departments, the interests of the PPP and the MQM diverge on each one of them.
The ongoing operation against criminals and terrorists in Karachi is also a huge bone of contention. Just less than a week before shaking hands with the PPP, the MQM leaders were spitting fire and brimstone over the issue of ‘extrajudicial killings’ and ‘mysterious disappearances’ of its workers allegedly by law-enforcement agencies.
The MQM says that at least 25 of its workers have been executed by the law enforcers and another 45 remain in illegal detention, falling in the dubious category of ‘missing persons’, since the start of the Karachi Operation in early September. The party announced a series of protests on April 17, holding the Sindh government responsible for these killings and forced disappearances of its workers.
But the pendulum of their relations suddenly swung from one extreme to another at a time when it appeared that the MQM was gearing up to increase the political heat. However, the new deal again failed to give any public roadmap that provides the basis of their partnership.
For the MQM, so far the gains boil down to getting two of its men inducted as ministers and three as advisers in the Sindh cabinet, with a promise for a few more slots in the near- to mid-term. Being part of the Sindh government will also provide some shield to the MQM workers, who are being targeted in the Karachi Operation.
The PPP hopes to bring some stability in Karachi and manage its own lawmakers more effectively when it decides to execute an in-house change to replace its aging Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah. 
But these are short-term tactical reasons for the partnership as the two sides failed to give any vision about their province or how to bridge the rural-urban divide and remove at least some of the irritants that bedevilled their relations in the past.
There also appears to be no agreement on how to bring peace and rule of law in Karachi, which has transformed into the most dangerous city even by the standards of the lawless country called Pakistan. Every party – political, ethnic, religious, nationalist or outlawed – has huge financial stakes in this mega city. Extortion, ‘donations’, land grabbing, and direct and indirect links with crime mafias are some of the major means to earn megabucks here. No wonder, turf-wars, killings and violence remain order of the day in Karachi.
During their 2008-13 stint in power as coalition partners, the PPP and the MQM militants were often at each other’s throats, fighting bloody turf wars as their top leaders were vowing to stay together. Both the PPP’s Asif Ali Zardari and the MQM’s Altaf Hussain failed to bring their rank-and-file, and even many of the first and second tier leaders, onboard about the wisdom of an alliance between the rural-urban representatives.
Yet again, the entire thrust of forming a coalition government has come from the top. Zardari and Hussain managed to agree on terms and conditions despite some serious reservations within their party ranks and support-base. “The MQM has been trapped again”, a senior MQM leader confided requesting anonymity. “It was Rehman Malik (the former interior minister) who pulled off this deal because of his excellent relations with our Quaid (Hussain).”
And within the MQM, when the Quaid speaks all the others toe the line – no matter what remain the lessons of history. “We were taken for a ride during 2008-13 as none of the major grievances of urban Sindh got addressed from the holding of local elections to our concerns about the criminal activities of the Lyari Aman Committee. I expect no different results again.”
MQM insiders say that some provincial assembly members were keen to join hands with the PPP, while a number of the National Assembly and Senate members wanted a hand-shake with the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz at the centre. The hardliners wanted to stay in the opposition, challenging the wisdom of joining, especially the provincial government with their inability to address any of the major issues concerning their voters.
However, the pro-PPP argument prevailed because the MQM needed a little breathing space on an urgent basis against the backdrop of the Karachi Operation and desire to resolve at least some of the issues of their followers, if not the city. In a nutshell, the MQM’s decision to become junior partners in Syed Qaim Ali Shah’s cabinet for the third time is based more on expediency rather than any long-term strategy to serve the interests of the urban Sindh.
The same is the storyline for the PPP, in which members from young Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to a long line of other hawks were firmly opposed to embracing the MQM again. It was Zardari and his close coterie of confidants, who succeeded in imposing their will and an unpopular decision, especially in the rural areas.
“We don’t need the MQM”, said a visibly upset PPP Sindh Assembly member, accusing the urban-based party of violence and killing many PPP workers. “In Sindh’s politics, the MQM is more of a liability… our leadership should have concentrated on expanding its influence in Karachi rather than comprising with the MQM.”
Many supporters and leaders of the two parties feel that have been trapped in an alliance that failed to deliver in the past and is unlikely to do so again this time. The wounds of the recent past are still fresh and there is simply too much bad blood.
Yes, the coming together of political forces should ideally be seen as a welcome step. But political alliances should be based on principles, clear-cut objectives and vision for tomorrow rather than on getting handful of cabinet portfolios. The marriage of convenience never works – especially in an ethnically diverse and politically polarised province such as Sindh.
What our beleaguered province needs from its representatives are sincerity, moral uprightness and intellectual honesty, which can pave the way for a consensus on the basis of give-and-take and resolve the long standing issues. But if history is any guide, these are the very qualities that are found wanting in our leaders.
Will it be any different this time around? Even the statements of the PPP-MQM leaders fail to give any hope let alone their actions. It is simply the politics of convenience as the key life-and-death issues including peace, prosperity and improving the quality of life of the masses continue to stay on the backburner. Let’s admit it. Even the people of Sindh stay trapped between these two parties.

Democracy on Trial

By Amir Zia
April 21, 2014
The News

Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits...and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise.

What’s the best way to protect and strengthen Pakistan’s fragile democratic system? This perhaps remains the mother of all questions for many of the movers and shakers of Pakistani politics who have stakes in the current order.
This question becomes all the more pertinent now as civil-military ties have again slid into the choppy waters – thanks to the recent politics of brinkmanship by some stalwarts of the ruling party. Although these strained relations have not yet crossed the red line where the entire system can be seen under threat, the belligerent posturing by some of the key players exposes the vulnerability and inherent weaknesses of our democratic institutions, which remain overwhelmingly dominated by feudals, tribal chiefs and leading businesspeople-cum-land owners.
Nevertheless, despite the undemocratic mindset of Pakistan’s elected ruling elite, these tensions could have been avoided in the first place if sane and mature minds ran the show in our corridors of power – those politicians who could set their priorities in the right order by differentiating between the important and the unimportant at this crucial juncture of history. But alas, this is too much to expect from the majority of our parliamentarians.
What we are witnessing instead are crude symbolic statements and thoughtless actions by many of the elected representatives and their cronies, which seem to focus more on the secondary rather than the primary issues. And that too at the cost of triggering unneeded controversies, causing friction within institutions and increasing polarisation in an already polarised and divided society. This should not come as a surprise because our parliament has bags full of politicians to offer but hardly any leader or statesman.
Let’s ask our self-proclaimed champions of democracy whether they are strengthening the system and ensuring its continuity by their brash, irresponsible statements. Does a huddle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and a very tainted former president, Asif Ali Zardari, guarantee continuation of the civilian rule and make it impregnable? Are our civilian lords and masters serving democracy by trying to appease the Al-Qaeda inspired violent extremists and accepting them as ‘legitimate stakeholders’ by holding direct talks with their representatives? 
Is the administration of selective justice the only way to establish the supremacy of the constitution? Will the conviction of a former military ruler – retired general Pervez Musharraf – on the controversial treason charges for imposing emergency in November 2007 close the door on any future military coup? And lastly, is this the right time for any overt or covert effort to change the civil-military balance of power and stir up tensions which could have easily been avoided?
Going by the mere symbolic fallout of pursuing all or any of these goals, one can easily say that they are not the shortest, safest and surest path to bolster democracy. The more Pakistan’s civilian political bosses assert that they won’t allow the system to get derailed and stand as one to safeguard democracy, the more they intensify speculations and uncertainty about its future.
The civilian Sharif and Zardari first need to explain against whom they have joined hands to protect democracy. Of course ‘enemies of democracy’ will be their answer. But these politicians need to spell it out for innocent people like this scribe what they mean by these enemies rather than talking about them in vague terms. Shouldn’t they name and identify these enemies? Remember the old cliché: ‘the devil is in the detail.’
Are the elected ones pointing fingers at their civilian rivals and fear that they could lead a move to overthrow the system? But civilians, no matter how villainous they are, hardly have any such power or clout. They can only play second fiddle, as once Sharif and many of his top aides did during the inglorious days of General Ziaul Haq. On their own they were nought at that time.
Let’s guess again. Does the Sharif-Zardari duo mean that the enemies of democracy are the retired army personnel? But they should know better that oldies too can’t make this happen. Once they are out of the mighty institution, they don’t wield any make-or-break power and influence.
In this guessing game, even the Al-Qaeda linked local militants cannot be tipped as the enemies because this government is holding talks with them under the ambit of the constitution – ceasefire or no ceasefire. Any foreign power conspiring against democracy is also hard to fathom as our friends and foes all want at least democracy to flourish – even if not the country. 
Then, who is the enemy of democracy?
Are Sharif and Zardari pointing fingers at the armed forces, which helped the country’s first democratic transition in 2013 and continued to support the system since the country’s return to full-fledged democracy in 2008? 
Who then is this enemy that is toying with the idea of taking ‘illegal and unconstitutional steps’? What these two politicians and their associates say in whispers, behind closed-doors and off-the-record sessions, can they please spell it out openly in the larger national interest?
Let’s hope that these champions of democracy are not chasing shadows or imagining conspiracies because of some hidden guilt. But one should rule out that experienced Sharif and wily Zardari can fall to such follies. If they are putting on a united front against an unnamed force and issuing warnings in metaphors, they must have crossed a line or seen someone doing it. 
But as per informed ones, it’s the elected government that backtracked on some of the commitments and upped the ante too high and too soon in its desire to dominate Pakistan’s political chessboard, which led to the mistrust and tensions in civil-military relations.
This is the same error Sharif and his team committed in their second stint in power. The desire to dominate every other institution, the confrontationist style of politics and sticking to the mantra of having ‘my way or the highway’ brought the two-thirds majority government of Sharif down. And that too not with a bang, but a small whimper.
Who should know this better than Sharif that Pakistani democracy faces no external threat today. If there is any threat, it comes from within this democratic setup as was in the past. What makes democracy vulnerable in the present context is its inability to deliver the promised fruits to the masses by going beyond holding the mere exercise of elections and failing to understand the wisdom of compromise to achieve bigger and grander goals.
Musharraf, the former military ruler, can rightly or wrongly be on trial for his 2007 actions. It is now up to the court to acquit or pronounce him guilty.
But the far bigger trial taking place in the court of history remains of this democratic order. Will the elected government be able to make a difference in the lives of the ordinary Pakistanis? Will it be able to give them peace, rule of law and good governance? From fighting corruption, boosting economic growth, ensuring prosperity and political stability to getting rid of the scourge of religious extremism and terrorism – the elected government’s performance will be judged on these vital issues and not secondary ones that hold no value for the present or the future of this country. 
The state institutions should work in tandem and not be seen as competing against one another. The very narrative that this or that institution needs to be dominant is a flawed one. The adventurist souls among the civilian setup must abandon their dream of transforming and treating the armed forces as the Sindh or the Punjab Police.
The best bet to safeguard democracy is the civilian setup’s ability to raise the bar of its performance. This it can do by providing clean and efficient governance and tackling some pressing issues, including fighting terrorism and extremism, that make Pakistan one of the most dangerous and lawless countries of the world. The Sharif government must redo its list of priorities.

Brinkmanship Won’t Pay

By Amir Zia
April 14, 2014
The News

The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare. 

It is not an everyday occurrence that Pakistan’s army chief warns distracters against undermining the military’s institutional morale. It is also unusual that a couple of federal ministers have to repeatedly clarify that the target of their recent contentious statements was not the armed forces, but a former military ruler. 
While Army Chief General Raheel Sharif in his rare statement last week vowed that the military will “resolutely preserve its own dignity and institutional pride,” the two ministers also appear unrepentant for their harsh remarks ridiculing General (r) Pervez Musharraf.
This apparent tiff between the government and the army certainly serves as an ominous sign for the country’s fragile democratic process even if it has not become alarming at this stage.
The fundamental question that remains is: what forced the army chief to issue this stern warning that reflects the collective sentiment of the armed forces? Certainly a couple of irresponsible statements by the two federal ministers alone could not have triggered this reaction. This highlights the problem within civil-military relations and the feeling of distrust that seems to be growing between these two important institutions at a time when the Pakistani security forces and agencies remain the prime target of various anti-state political and militant groups as well as foreign powers.
The discontent of the armed forces at this stage is more telling; since the return of democracy in 2008, the military leadership has firmly supported democracy and democratic institutions despite serious reservations about the alleged mega-corruption and misrule under the PPP-led government. The military has also backed the democratic transition from one elected government to another following the 2013 general elections.
In a way Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif got an ideal start to his third stint in power as there has been an overwhelming consensus among all the institutions, including the army, about the supremacy of the constitution and continuation of the democratic process. 
This intra-institutional honeymoon, however, seems to be short-lived. Military insiders blame the recklessness of the civilian leadership in handling important issues for the strained ties, but they admit that the tussle has not crossed the Rubicon.
Government stalwarts also appear confident that Prime Minister Sharif will not allow his government’s tensions with the mighty military establishment to aggravate or get out of control.
The calculated brinkmanship by some close confidants of Prime Minister Sharif is seen as an attempt to ‘gradually’ bring the civilian leadership in an assertive role and push the boundaries of elected institutions a little further.
The small trusted coterie around Sharif thinks that the timing to achieve the target of bridling the army’s influence and establishing ‘their’ supremacy could not have been better.
The obvious basis of this civilian leadership’s assumption is; the army remains too bogged down and over-stretched because of the grave internal and external security challenges it faces. The country’s weak economy, governance issues and the fact that the US-led western powers support democracy and democratic institutions at least in Pakistan’s case – these are all seen together as restraining factors for the generals from adopting any ‘adventurous course.’
Some analysts also tend to believe that the military is no longer that powerful or the sole deciding factor in Pakistani politics as it once used to be.
In the mission to expand its turf, Musharraf is not just one easy symbolic punch-bag for the government, but the former military ruler’s trials and tribulation also help settle the personal scores of the Sharif family and their loyalists.
Indeed national opinion remains fragmented over former army chief’s trial for his ‘secondary sin’ of enforcing the Nov 3, 2007 emergency, and is causing discontent and resentment within the ranks of the armed forces. But the treason charges against Musharraf and the indirect approach adopted by Sharif’s key cabinet members to criticise, attack and undermine the institution of the armed forces is not the only factor that bedevils civil-military relations.
There are several other important issues on which the civilian and the military leaders do not see eye-to-eye despite repeated claims by top government officials that the two sides remain on the same page. The foremost is the way the government is handling and holding talks with the Al-Qeada linked local militants, responsible for killing more than 45,000 civilians and approximately 5,000 security personnel during the more than a decade long conflict.
The armed forces – long been declared as enemy number one and a legitimate target by Al-Qaeda and all its affiliate and inspired local militant groups – have their concerns about this policy of appeasing the Taliban and yielding too much in too little time including the release of some militants without any substantial gains.
The talks have already hit a deadlock as accepting many of the key demands of the militants is beyond the powers of the civilian negotiators.
The military leadership rightly refuses to pull troops out of the troubled tribal areas. There are also question marks whether the army will be able to forget and forgive those terror masterminds that ordered and executed attacks on sensitive defence installations across Pakistan and killed and beheaded soldiers.
The passionate defence of the killers of Pakistani soldiers by some federal ministers and attempts to legitimise these groups by holding direct talks with them as equal stakeholders is also creating resentment among the soldiers and their families which have given immense sacrifices in this protracted conflict.
The release of hardened militants is also a knotty question despite the inclination to do so by Sharif’s security affairs think-tank led by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. Setting the pace of the process of improving ties with India also remains a divisive issue, though the GHQ supports the peace overtures with New Delhi. 
Instead of managing the civil-military relations with caution, maturity and in the spirit of building institutional consensus, the Sharif government appears to be treading the same old confrontationist path that failed this ruling party in the past when it had two-thirds majority in parliament. 
Agreed that the constitution and parliament remain supreme in a democratic setup, but the overtly simplistic and selective interpretation of these notions can be self-defeating and dangerous for the democratic institutions that continue to work in a flawed and dysfunctional manner.
Using these notions as mere slogans and based on the narrative set by a section of the popular media, which often fails to understand and appreciate the complex nature of intra-institutional relations, the complexity of statecraft and politics can unnecessarily pit one institution against the other.
Instead of the desire to dominate, the civilian leaders must focus on building consensus and developing a harmonious working relationship within institutions. This can only be done by shunning the politics of brinkmanship, curbing the desire of administrating personal vendetta, and taking into account the concerns of all the other stakeholders.
The civilian leadership also needs to set its priorities right and make a clear-cut demarcation between what is important for the country at this stage and what is not.
The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare. 
Who should know this better than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? Twice in the past he has paid the price of confrontation and picking fights too early. Should he go for the same course of action a third time again? Whatever hardliners around him may say, the prime minister must adopt a sensible course which brings the political heat and temperatures back to normal.