A National Government:
To Win Which War?

As the terms “national government” and “coalition government” seem like step-siblings, it is necessary to distinguish them at the outset.

A coalition government is one in which different political parties, with their own respective philosophies, ideologies, manifestos intact nevertheless agree to form a government together. The reason for doing so is primarily because, in broad, general terms, the different parties share certain important basic notions. Almost always, one of these commonalities is to prevent the parties not participating in the coalition to be kept out of power. Thus, a coalition could be as much exclusionary as it is inclusionary.

In sharp contrast, a national government is one in which virtually all principal parties, including one or more that would be the chief “opposition” parties, to say, a coalition government, agree to share power and cease, at least for a particular period, to “oppose” the government of other major parties. In short, all come together. Because of a grave emergency in which either external or internal threats endanger the survival of the state, or pose an existential threat to economic security and continuity of the state, while retaining their respective, strongly diverging philosophies and ideologies. Thus, during the tenure of a national government, it is agreed that, in legislatures, no party with any consequential representation, will vote against the government on any matter.

Given the fact that, as of writing this brief reflection, just a few weeks ahead is the date of 8th February 2024 when general elections are due to be held, there are numerous variable factors that prevent any certainty or credible prediction of the outcome of voting. For instance: Whether the PTI will be fairly permitted to nominate candidates, whether they, in turn, will be permitted to campaign without impediments, seen and unseen, whether, on polling day itself, conditions at polling stations will be peaceful and orderly, specially where PTI candidates appear to be dominant; whether the vote-counting process will be transparent and whether the announcement of the tallied votes will be timely and acceptable to all, winners and losers; whether the onslaught of cases filed against the PTI leaders will be intensified in the weeks leading to 8th February; whether the state’s civil and military instruments, overt and covert, will be impartial; whether the Judiciary and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) will promptly intervene to ensure fairness; whether the results will be ideal for a coalition government and if so, whether a coalition will be an adequate remedy to end uncertainty and restore stability --- without recourse to the extreme solution of a search for a national government ? And so on. With so many unknowns, is it premature at this stage to consider the prospect of a national government?

This writer’s response is: regardless of how the imponderable options as listed above work out pre and post-8th February, the concept of a national government --- when there is no immediate threat of war with another state, or a total, pulverizing collapse of most organs of the state – is antithetical to the system of multi-party parliamentary democracy. Because this form of electoral governance is rooted in, and shaped by the principle of adversarial conflict: those in power must be opposed by those not in power, irrespective of how good or bad are the policies and acts of the holders of power. Partisanship is the poison of democracy. It divides and alienates citizens of the same, single state ostensibly on the basis of ideology but more intensely, purely on the basis of loyalty to party --- and to party leader! --- Notwithstanding shared citizenship of a country whose larger interests will be damaged due to partisanship’s capacity to prevent cooperation for the greater good of all.