There was bad governance and uninhibited corruption by those in power. And those left out, resorted to opposition with a passion, raising hell in the parliament and in the media and mobilising the street for popular disapproval. Under these conditions, it was difficult for any government to survive. Do any or all of these conditions exist today? Going by general sentiment in the country, governance is poor if not pathetic, and the odour of corruption is everywhere. From dodgy land deals in Sindh to looting of state owned entities, from shady power projects to manipulating government concessions and permits for profit, the spectre of corruption haunts the landscape.
This perception — and it is important to call this a perception because it is based on media stories that have been vehemently refuted — fulfils one condition for making a civil government unstable. It also appears to be an important reason for questions regarding the president’s future and the bandying about of the so-called minus-one formula. On a more substantive level, there is also an ideological difference within the power establishment regarding relations with the United States and India. The government and particularly the person of Mr Zardari are seen to be too deeply in the US camp. The charge is that he is virtually giving in to every American demand not only at the cost of sovereignty, which is a psychological construct, but national survival.
The sniping on the Kerry-Lugar bill, which many in the government see as a success of Pakistani diplomacy, is an example of this divergence. The reporting conditions attached to it by the US Congress are perceived as giving Americans a fatal ingress into the affairs of the country. According to this point of view, they not only commit the government to following US dictates on the fight against terrorist groups but seek to interfere in our domestic issues by laying guidelines on conduct of the armed forces.
A particular sore point is the condition regarding nuclear proliferation. The wording of the bill targets supplier networks and requires cooperation from the Pakistani government in stopping them. The common perception, however, is that this allows the US or international agencies a direct access to our nuclear sites. These perceptions about the real or purported purposes of the Kerry Lugar bill have raised temperatures considerably and heightened tensions between ideological groups in the power centres. More disturbing, in the public mind, have been the stories regarding stationing of thousands of marines in Islamabad and the arrival of the notorious Blackwater agents into the country.
A strong perception is building up that Americans, both government and private agents, are poised to physically take over our nuclear programme and indeed take control of the government. What is damaging for Mr Zardari particularly and by extension for the government is the perception that it is complicit in this arrangement. In other words, to put it bluntly, there is a growing feeling that Zardari and co are ready to hand over the country to the Americans as long as they remain in power.
Stories regarding the so-called Quetta Shura have also added fuel to the proverbial fire. Irresponsible statements in the US that it may consider bombing Taliban hide-outs in Balochistan have further upped the ante. There is little doubt that if this happens, the relatively nascent anti Americanism in the country will publicly erupt and the ideological group that sees a deep rooted American conspiracy in everything will feel vindicated.
There is of course another point of view represented by many in the government; that we need American help to stabilise our economy and build our military to fight terrorist groups. As regards the conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill, it is said, they apply more to the American government. And if the US national interest so dictates, the required certification will be made whatever the situation on the ground is.
It is also argued that there is no truth to the stories regarding stationing of the marines and the arrival of Blackwater agents. Nothing beyond the normal security arrangements is anticipated or will be allowed. Lastly, that the government is building bridges with the US in national interest not for any individual agenda. It is the pre-eminent super power in the world and having it on our side help us more than it harms us.
The India question also mixes into this debate. President Zardari and the PPP government are seen by some to be ready to give in to all Indian demands. It is alleged to have little interest in resolving the Kashmir dispute and has been too proactive in admitting Pakistani complicity in terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The counter argument that tension with India does not serve our national interest is seen to be defeatist.
Thus, both on a substantive level and in popular perception, President Zardari and the PPP government are seen to be incapable, corrupt and ready to barter away national interest. The question is, are these reasons enough for a change to come about?
Two things are missing and helping Zardari and the government stay in office. One is the role of the other major contender for power, the PML (N). Mr Nawaz Sharif would love to see the end of Zardari and the PPP but is not willing to take its opposition to such a level that it allows the system to collapse.
Two, there is no obvious mechanism for the removal of Mr Zardari or the PPP government. The army has neither the desire nor are the circumstances propitious for it to consider intervening. Within the system, there is no possibility of the President’s impeachment or the government losing its majority in the parliament. Its lack of performance, perception of corruption and being too close to America does agitate the people, but this is not likely to translate into its removal.
Does this mean that possibility of change does not exist? The short answer would be yes but there is the unexpected, the wild card. It could come through judicial review of the beneficiaries of National Reconciliation Ordinance. This Pandora’s Box is yet to open.
The sniping on the Kerry-Lugar bill, which many in the government see as a success of Pakistani diplomacy, is an example of this divergence. The reporting conditions attached to it by the US Congress are perceived as giving Americans a fatal ingress into the affairs of the country. According to this point of view, they not only commit the government to following US dictates on the fight against terrorist groups but seek to interfere in our domestic issues by laying guidelines on conduct of the armed forces.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed