The War Within

Pakistan is no stranger to facing a crisis but the one that it is presently facing is no less in its complexity that led to the breakup of the country in 1971. The major political parties are literary at war with each other, making a mockery of democracy. The opposition leader Imran Khan whose party the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has a broad support base refuses to engage with the leadership of the Pakistan Democratic Alliance (PDM), an amalgam of several major and minor political parties, led by the Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) as its junior partner.

Until recently, PTI has been agitating mostly on the roads and in the media demanding that elections be held within three months of the dissolution of the provincial and national assemblies. Its’ demand is fair and is accordance with the dictates of the Constitution. But the ruling PDM alliance is pursuing dilatory tactics knowing that its chances of winning are remote.

The undeterred use of violence against voices of dissent has become a common feature and was recently demonstrated by the government against the opposition leaders. The PTI when in power has been equally harsh with its opponents. The leadership has yet to develop the culture of presenting their differing views in parliament in a civilized manner and developing a consensus on major issues. The National Assembly and the Senate happen to be the prestigious forums for formulating and passing legislation and guiding the government on economic, security and foreign affairs related issues. However, both forums are being mostly used for invective and personal point-scoring. Important financial or foreign policy related legislation that demands thoughtful and researched discussion hardly gets that serious attention. In short, anarchy prevails in the country where every institution is fighting against the other and amongst itself, while the people watch as hapless spectators.

In essence, the genesis of this crisis is rooted in years of flawed policies of successive governments. It has its origins in Pakistan’s weak democratic culture and traditions. At the time of the Partition, there was no political party that had its roots in all the five provinces. Balochistan was not even a province. For years the country’s politicians were unable to formulate a constitution. Political leaders and institutional heads had a weak commitment to democracy, looking for opportunity to grab power. They spent more time in personalized rhetoric than forming and implementing policy on major national issues or addressing the grievances of the masses. It was the ceaseless pursuit of the Quaid, M. A. Jinnah for a separate homeland that created favourable conditions for the creation of Pakistan.

The other major state institutions have equally failed in coming up to the expectations of the people. The judiciary has given judgements in collusion with other state institutions that violate the fundamentals of the Constitution. Even as of now it stands deeply divided on fundamental issues and gives an impression of being politicized. Not surprising that the lawyer community is sharply divided on political and provincial lines and spends considerable time agitating on various national and institutional matters, while litigation cases keep piling up, hurting public interests.

The army’s top brass recent pronouncements that it would stay away from exercising political influence has yet to be reflected in its dealings with the government and institutions. Army’s disengagement with politics in the mid and long -term would have a transformational impact on strengthening democratic culture. The bureaucracy which in the early years of Pakistan was looked upon with great admiration for its efficiency and propriety has become largely a handmaiden of politicians. Of course, the fault lies essentially with political governments, but bureaucrats failing to resolutely standing up to certain ethical and professional codes at the individual and collective level have seriously affected the government’s efficiency and tarnished its image.

We all are well-aware what is happening and how fast the country is getting mired in an inexorable situation, but the fundamental question is how are we going to come out of it and develop attributes of a normal nation? As a first measure, elections at the provincial and national levels should be held within the stipulated time frame of 90 days. Any departure from this basic constitutional obligation will further derail the country and would not be surprising if it could lead to greater anarchy from which it may be more difficult to recover. Considering the present government’s disregard to constitutional obligations and court orders how will it be implemented, especially when the army leadership too feels that elections may be destabilizing?

A legal battle is already on and the apex court had summoned all the top relevant officials over the government’s failure to comply with the court orders. At the heart of the blatant defiance is the fact that the PML-N knows fully well it stands no chance of winning the election. As national polls indicate 60% of the people are likely to vote for the PTI, far ahead of the PML-N coalition. But considering the delay and general uncertainty about elections, coupled with a sinking economy, it is not difficult to foretell the direction direction the country is heading.

Then there are credible concerns regarding the increase in militant activity in the border areas. The Tehrik-i-Taliban -Pakistan, a militant organization that has roots in Afghanistan and enjoys the tactical support of the Taliban regime is once again intensifying its activities in tribal areas close to the Afghan border. Pakistan’s leadership, for short term tactical gains had invested in the Taliban leadership, at the expense of alienating the earlier Afghan regimes not realizing its adverse consequences for one’s own country.

International attention and especially of the US on Afghanistan has dwindled after the withdrawal of military forces. There is frustration in US as its policy of influencing events in the region remained unsuccessful despite engagement for several decades and significant investment in military operations and the democratization effort. At the regional level, Pakistan-India relations remain frozen. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi capitalizing on Pakistan’s internal weaknesses refuses to engage in dialogue at any level.

The irony is that when the country desperately needs assiduous stewardship to steer the country through these trying times the reality is the opposite with consequences. But neither the internal crisis nor external adverse consequences seem to stir the conscience and policies of the leadership.