Chaos and Collapse ----Mumtaz Ali Bhutto

Mind boggling bungling, among other more heinous faults, has come to be the identifying characteristic of the Zardari government. From the inept way administrative matters are handled to the fact that Zardari can not open his mouth without something startling pouring out of it, one gets an overwhelming sense of incompetence all around. Not only the task of governance, but even that of running a party like the Peoples’ Party has proved to be far beyond the capabilities of the accidental Co-Chairman, who sneaked into power not on his own merits or public acclaim but on a tidal wave of emotions and subservience of those who were salivating at the prospect of memberships of assemblies, ministerships and all the other joys associated with winning an election in the current dispensation. All too soon, the whole set up has exploded and, as pointed out at the start, the lack of calibre and qualification of those who have occupied high offices has become starkly evident. It must be remembered that it was more or less this lot which twice before formed governments but were unable to run them even though Shaheed Benazir held the reins. They have landed the country in serious trouble internally and externally, such as bringing it to the brink of war with India by grossly mishandling the Bombay tragedy and reducing the much trumpeted reconciliation to a joke by violating all commitments. This government basically came into being through a deal with Musharaf and under protection of the cursed NRO. In return, the government does not only maintain him in presidential style, but also follows in his footsteps. The greatest letdown, however, has been in keeping the promise of roti, kapra makan to the people and freeing them from the curse of corruption, lawlessness, high cost of essential commodities and lack of basic amenities. The lure of jobs and handouts under the Benazir Income Support Scheme has proved to be a pipe dream and gone sour. The net result is that within a short period of nine months the government and the Peoples’ Party are not only in a chaotic state of disarray and collapse, but also the object of public discontent, which has manifest itself in a recent poll by placing Zardari’s popularity at nineteen percent. So much so that ministers and party office holders are unable to venture even into gatherings of party workers without risking harm and their leader can not step out despite the security provided by thousands of protectors at very high cost to the people.

On Benazir’s first death anniversary, it was announced that there would be a public meeting at Garhi Khuda Buksh Bhutto, addressed by Zardari. Later, this was cancelled due to security concerns. Then it was on again and Zardari was to address it by telephone from Naodero, a mile away. But on the morning of the anniversary, it was once again announced that the public meeting was off for the same security reasons, much to the anger of those who had been herded from across the country to be there. It is shocking that a man who professes to be a democrat and a leader of the masses, guarded by 9,000 policemen, 7,000 rangers and hundreds of commandos on this occasion, did not feel safe among the people in, of all places, Garhi Khuda Buksh Bhutto, the geographic epicenter of the Peoples’ Party’s.

While lack of any progress in apprehending and punishing Benazir’s assassins, indeed the failure to file an FIR even a year after the murder, falls like a yoke on the government’s neck, in his address to a small gathering of party office holders in Naodero, Zardari confessed that he knew the identity of the killers. This being so, the inexplicable twelve month delay in action against them is unpardonable and the façade of approaching the United Nations, at the potential cost of hundreds of millions of dollars for just an inquiry, nothing more than an escape. Knowing the identity of the killers yet allowing them to go free not only casts doubt on Zardari’s motives but also implicates him under section 216 of the Penal Code, thereby bringing Benazir’s murder at par with that of Mir Murtaza Bhutto.

Zardari And Musharraf Congrates Iltaf Over Karachi's Rally?

  Asif Ali Zardari and his predecessor Pervez Musharraf on Monday praised MQM chief Altaf Hussain for organizing a successful rally in Karachi against desecration of Benazir Bhutto’s memorial.

They phoned Altaf Hussain and thanked him on his positive initiative for reconciliation process in the country.
It means That U are Same......

Karak Social Forum

we are against the verdict and governor Rule at Punjab

EXPECTATIONS had been aroused by conciliatory statements from Prime Minster Gilani and Mian Nawaz Sharif that the ongoing confrontation between the government and the PML(N) might finally end. Many thought good sense would finally prevail among the top leadership of the country. These hopes have received a severe jolt from the verdict of a Supreme Court bench, upholding the disqualification of Mian Nawaz from contesting elections and removing Shahbaz Sharif from both the membership of the Punjab Assembly and the post of CM. Even if he is re-elected to the Assembly, he has been effectively disqualified from being the Chief Minister by a bar imposed by former President Musharraf on a third tenure. The imposition of Governor's Rule in the province exacerbates the situation. Mian Nawaz is the leader of the second largest party in the country and has been twice elected Prime Minister. PML(N) lawyers and leaders have condemned the decision as biased and accused President Zardari of putting pressure on the Court to debar his major political opponents. The judgement, which has led to the removal of Mian Shahbaz as CM, has generated a crisis in the largest province of the country, which had a popular, stable and relatively efficient government which faced no threat from the Assembly. With the authority to run the province passing over to the Governor known for his antipathy to the PML(N), the PPP-PML(N) coalition government is virtually dead. The judgement has led to a perception of instability, leaving a negative impact on the share market. Protests by PML(N) workers and the lawyers started all over Punjab, including the provincial capital, soon after the verdict was announced by TV channels. The Punjab Bar Council and Lahore High Court Bar Association declared three days' boycott of the courts. There is a likelihood of similar, though perhaps less spirited, reactions from other provinces also. While the position of other ruling coalition partners is yet not clear, ANP President Asfandyar Wali has expressed dismay over the development, indicating division over the issue within the ruling coalition.
 he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.

 XPECTATIONS had been aroused by conciliatory statements from Prime Minster Gilani and Mian Nawaz Sharif that the ongoing confrontation between the government and the PML(N) might finally end. Many thought good sense would finally prevail among the top leadership of the country. These hopes have received a severe jolt from the verdict of a Supreme Court bench, upholding the disqualification of Mian Nawaz from contesting elections and removing Shahbaz Sharif from both the membership of the Punjab Assembly and the post of CM. Even if he is re-elected to the Assembly, he has been effectively disqualified from being the Chief Minister by a bar imposed by former President Musharraf on a third tenure. The imposition of Governor's Rule in the province exacerbates the situation. Mian Nawaz is the leader of the second largest party in the country and has been twice elected Prime Minister. PML(N) lawyers and leaders have condemned the decision as biased and accused President Zardari of putting pressure on the Court to debar his major political opponents. The judgement, which has led to the removal of Mian Shahbaz as CM, has generated a crisis in the largest province of the country, which had a popular, stable and relatively efficient government which faced no threat from the Assembly. With the authority to run the province passing over to the Governor known for his antipathy to the PML(N), the PPP-PML(N) coalition government is virtually dead. The judgement has led to a perception of instability, leaving a negative impact on the share market. Protests by PML(N) workers and the lawyers started all over Punjab, including the provincial capital, soon after the verdict was announced by TV channels. The Punjab Bar Council and Lahore High Court Bar Association declared three days' boycott of the courts. There is a likelihood of similar, though perhaps less spirited, reactions from other provinces also. While the position of other ruling coalition partners is yet not clear, ANP President Asfandyar Wali has expressed dismay over the development, indicating division over the issue within the ruling coalition.
 he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.
 

How much sovereignty has Pakistan conceded? Sherin Mazari

It certainly did not take Holbrooke long to reveal his arrogant ignorance about Pakistan. Hysterical over the Swat agreement – clearly it undermines the US efforts to expand the destabilisation of Pakistan and thereby seek a rationale for sending troops into Pakistan and eventually targeting the country’s nuclear assets – he made some absolutely absurd remarks. First he chose to declare the 9/11 perpetrators as being similar to the Swat militants and to the groups of militants in FATA. Only his arrogance would push him into displaying such ignorance since we all know that the perpetrators of 9/11 were well-off Saudis educated in Western institutions (not madrassahs) and living in the West. Unlike them, the Swat militants are a motley group comprising various shades of Pakistanis, primarily madrassah educated and certainly not from the financial elite of the country. As for FATA, the militants comprise several groups ranging from Al-Qaeda offshoots, religious zealots, Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, local groups and criminal elements. But for Holbrooke it would appear these crucial differences are irrelevant and all that is relevant is the religious identity! Talk about bigotry and prejudice. As for his understanding of the security situation in the NWFP, it was defined in terms of people not “being able to walk their dogs!” Now how many ordinary citizens of Pakistan actually keep dogs as pets and walk them every evening a la New York style? And this is the best Obama could muster as a Special Envoy!

But for us Holbrooke is a secondary issue. Far more critical is the lying and cheating the governments of Pakistan have been indulging in with their own people as they have gradually conceded more and more sovereignty to the USA. We now know that the drone attacks have not only been done with the complicity of the Pakistan government (with both the military and civilian components giving their assent) but also with the provision of a special drone airbase at Bandari, about 87 kilometres from Kharan in Balochistan. There has been a deliberate effort to confuse the issue by citing the Shamsi base close to the Iranian border, built by an expansion of the old Juzzak airport, which is actually primarily being used by the US to destabilise Iran. The drone airfield is a separate clandestine one that does not figure even in the international list of the 22 restricted areas identified in Pakistan – because the drone base is not controlled at all by the Pakistan military – it has simply been handed over to the US to do with as they please. Even more pathetic is the news that our air defence personnel are now embedded in the US embassy in Islamabad to ensure the safety of the drones as they go about killing fellow Pakistanis.

As for our Defence Minister declaring that the US drones have been given rights to land only after they have killed Pakistanis; this is so ridiculous a claim one cannot waste time critiquing its irrationality. In any case, the Foreign Minister declared that the statement was based on a misperception – such is the dysfunctional nature of the state. But then when lies and cover ups are to be maintained this is what happens!

 or is the drone issue the only major relinquishing of state sovereignty by Pakistan. The New York Times has revealed what many of us had been writing about for some time now, that the US has around 70 military advisers and technical specialists who are training our military to fight Al Qaeda. That is comical given the lack of success the US is having fighting this beast in Afghanistan! Apparently this secret task force has been in Pakistan since summer 2008 – although there have been sightings of the odd foreigner much earlier in the area around Warsak!

Then there is the access given to the FBI to accompany our security forces as they make their arrests. Why? Is it because the US does not trust our security forces? There are also revelations coming in of how the British were part of the torture machinery of Pakistani prisoners alongside our agencies. Now where will all this go? Will we soon simply hand over our nuclear assets to the US also for “security” reasons – if we have not already done so! After all, with all the duplicity going on, who can trust the state anymore to tell the truth?

 eanwhile we continue to hear statements that external sources are funding the militants in parts of Pakistan and now the ISPR head, General Athar Abbas has declared that the military cannot control the “external elements” being funded by hostile sources. But the point is why is no one in the state identifying these elements and sources of funding? Why is it being kept so vague? What is the pressure and where is it coming from?

As the deceit by the state continues, the peace in Swat seems to be holding for the present and the nine points for maintaining this peace that have been given by Sufi Mohammad are interesting because they make demands from both sides. Incidentally, the Taliban have also declared a unilateral ceasefire in Bajaur. Since our rulers look up to the West for almost everything, perhaps they should study the Good Friday Agreement which ended the Northern Ireland conflict and in which concessions were made by all parties. Just to inform some judgemental but ignorant critics, the British Army was also unable to go into areas of Northern Ireland controlled by the armed IRA – the many “no-go” areas but eventually control by the state came through dialogue, not military force! And many prisoners were also released as part of the deal.

 oming back to the issue of the Pakistani state’s deception of its own people, the net result is that there is no credibility left. That is why interlocutors like Sufi Mohammed become necessary. If the credibility of the government and the establishment is to be re-established, they must first come clean on the extent of the sovereignty already surrendered to the US. Then they must delink from the US and claim back the lost sovereignty before it is too late. Whether one likes it or not, unless Pakistan creates space between itself and the US, there will be no peace and security and the space for moderates will continue to shrink.

 tudy the history of US-backed regimes – be it in Iran, Vietnam, or the many examples of Latin America. US leaders like Obama will not alter the strategic vision the US has of itself – and Obama’s first moves vis-à-vis Pakistan have hardly been encouraging. So let us break our leadership’s psychological dependency on Washington. The rest will follow. Otherwise, the threat our ruling and miniscule westernised elites are seeking to avert will surely become a reality.

Tailpiece: It is sad that Farhat Taj has had to resort to using my columns out of context to counter my arguments but then since she is giving me so much time, I feel my writings must be hurting in the right quarters! Just to clarify some points: the sectarian problem in Pakistan was there much before there were any Pakistan Taliban. Secondly, since I have always made a distinction between the situation in Swat and FATA, I am well aware that there are no drones in Swat – though the US could move in that direction if it felt threatened by the peace and stability being re-established there! But that does not mean our leaders should not visit the area instead of remaining barricaded in their ivory tower residences. Not wanting to waste space on the diatribes of Ms Taj, let me simply say that if she is as intolerant of opposing viewpoints what is the difference between her and the Taliban that she accuses of intolerance – just the weapons? But if she wants to devote her columns to critiquing my writings, I have no complaints. It seems it is not just the Taliban and the US that have intolerance endemic in them!



Email: callstr@hotmail.com

New political alignments

Political and social movements, no matter how insignificant, produce certain sentiments and mindsets. The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary, still on the march, has caused a significant degree of socio-political mobilisation of the urban middle classes

Perhaps it is too early to judge the recasting of political alliances among the socio-political forces of Pakistan. At the moment, the political lines between different players are blurred, and are not as clear as when the lawyers, the then opposition parties and civil society launched their movement against the imposition of a second martial law by Pervez Musharraf in November 2007. Earlier, the Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif drew the political line between ‘democratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ forces in the country.

The issues of authoritarianism and democracy in Pakistan are complex, as are the political relationships and networks between classes, institutions and political groupings that are ever willing to change positions for immediate political benefits. Under our brand of pragmatic politics, everyone is ready to strike a new political deal.

Musharraf, for all his political faults, understood the opportunism of the Pakistani political class and made effective, in some instances lasting, political deals to consolidate his power. Even during emergency rule, which didn’t last very long, he had a good section of the political forces on his side.

It was the popular democratic mood at the time of the February 18, 2008 elections that raised serious questions about Musharraf’s rule. His confrontation with the judiciary and the media proved to be a fatal mistake that led to his, and his political allies’, undoing.

Political and social movements, no matter how insignificant, produce certain sentiments and mindsets. The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary, still on the march, has caused a significant degree of socio-political mobilisation of the urban middle classes. Nawaz Sharif was quick to capture this sentiment in the more developed parts of Punjab, but the PPP was not left behind in owning and participating in the movement either. However, the political dividends of this participation were meagre for the PPP as compared to the PMLN.

There were other, not so insignificant, factors that played a major role in bringing the PPP to power for the fourth time: a stable social constituency of support in different parts of the country; its image as the party of the poor; and the great sacrifice of Benazir Bhutto.

It was the emotional factor, the mixture of grief and resilience among PPP leaders and workers, that led to a big turnout of its supporters on election day, and that was what mattered in the electoral results for the party.

The old political divide between the ‘democratic’ political forces and their bases of social support even today remains unchanged. At the national level, the divide is between the PPP and the PMLN. Ethnic and religious groups are also influenced by the strong pull of the two parties, depending on their political fortunes.

Then what has really changed?

The real change is in the character of the lawyers’ and civil society’s movement, their political agenda, and their flexibility to align with any political group that would lend support to their cause. This is one of the great social movements of Pakistan that mobilised on an issue-basis, i.e. independence of the judiciary and restoration of unfairly deposed judges. Further, a variety of political parties, either for political gains or conviction, support the movement.

Even bringing these issues to the forefront of the Pakistani political consciousness is a major contribution to democratic thought and practice in the country. At least among the urban middle and professional classes, there is the very strong belief that democratic transition will remain flawed, at best incomplete, unless the judiciary is free.

The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement is non-partisan, and started off with the support of every party and faction in the political opposition. However, there is an irony in the character of the movement: as far as political ideas are concerned, it is liberal-secular, and many of its prominent members were part of the socio-political forces that founded and supported the PPP.

So naturally, it seems to be disillusioned by the PPP leaders, whom it accuses of stalling on the issue of restoring the deposed judges. The movement believes that it has exhausted all possibilities of negotiation with the government, and feels that the only way out is political pressure through the Long March and the indefinite sit-in at Constitution Avenue in Islamabad.

There is a question mark about how the deposed judges will be restored and how the independence of the judiciary will be ensured at the end of the Long March and dharna. This will be a major political event that will be carefully watched by everyone in the country, as well as by the countries that want to gauge Pakistan’s political climate for their own national interest.

But the real significance of the dharna is in another question mark over the realignment of socio-political forces in the country. The PMLN has, finally, after some wavering and rethinking about its commitment to the movement, decided to join the dharna, declaring that it is now willing to “go beyond” this event.

What this means is that the PMLN, which a few days ago was questioning the utility of dharna, wants to throw its full weight behind the movement regardless of the political consequences, especially for its government in Punjab.

If this happens, then clearly, we will see a new realignment of activist urban social and political forces. This is going to be a very different kind of alignment, issue-specific but not grassroots-level, and essentially born out of common political frustrations that may not be enduring.

As soon as the issue of the restoration of judges is resolved, which looks unlikely, or the government is toppled, which we hope is not the aim and which cannot be accomplished short of a ‘revolution’, the alignment between the movement and the PMLN and its traditional political allies may remain intact. There is also an innate fear that the social movement may not be able to stand clear of the lines of political confrontation and may become tangled in them with possible divisions along partisan political lines.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk

Individualism

There is no hope in individualism for egotism. When a man is at last brought face to face with himself by a brave Individualism, he finds himself face to face, not with an individual, but with a species, and knows that to save himself, he must save the race. He can have no life except a share in the life of the community; and if that life is unhappy and squalid, nothing that he can do to paint and paper and upholster and shut off his little corner of it can really rescue him from it.

George Bernard Shaw, The Quintessence of Ibsenism (1891)