analysis: Step up to the plate —Talat Masood

The political parties and the people, by and large, are seeking cooperative
relations with India and it is being reciprocated by the other side as well. In
their view, peaceful borders are a pre-requisite for the economic and social
development of the two countries; but the establishments on both sides have their
own agenda

It is astonishing how the current PPP-led government thinks it can take rational
decisions and face the enormous external and domestic challenges confronting the
country with a sub-optimal power configuration and a deformed state structure. The
coalition government is working without the participation of its main ally, the
PMLN. The PPP itself is factionalised and is only drawing upon its partial
institutional strength. Moreover, several key members of the cabinet are
unelected. The PPP’s top leader, Asif Ali Zardari is out of parliament and mostly
out of country whereas he is believed to be managing government affairs even at
the micro-level, creating a major distortion in the system.

Drawing a parallel with India’s Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh model of managing the
affairs of the state would be erroneous and misleading in many ways. India’s
democracy is on a sound footing, Congress is institutionally robust and Sonia
Gandhi is a respected politician. Manmohan Singh, though not a run of the mill
politician, is a highly experienced and astute technocrat with impeccable
integrity. In any case, while India has its problems, these are nowhere as
threatening to its integrity and survival as the problems Pakistan faces today.

Having mutilated the Constitution, President Pervez Musharraf continues to enjoy

disproportionate power despite a categorical electoral verdict against him. The
current powers of the President undermine the parliamentary character of
government and no sincere effort is being made by the political leadership to
correct this fundamental anomaly. And indications are that the PPP’s
constitutional package is unlikely to pass in its present form.

When countries are rocked by political turmoil and instability, the bureaucracy
provides continuity and stability to the government machinery. Italy and France in
the not too distant past had frequent changes of government but despite the
political upheavals, the economy kept growing and social indicators maintained an
upward trend. The basic reason for the progress was a professionally sound and
competent bureaucracy.

In our case, the general pattern has been that as soon as a new government takes
over, it shakes up the bureaucracy, not on the basis of merit but of patronage. In
a country which is already seeping with corruption and inefficiency, it only makes
matters worse. Bureaucratic instability combined with cronyism and political
instability has a negative multiplier effect.

Surely, to energise the government’s functioning, it is the political government’s

prerogative to bring in new faces that it trusts, but not at the expense of
efficiency and merit. Government organisations are meant to serve the interests of
the people and are not a vehicle for distributing largesse in return for
individual favours. The same principal applies to public sector enterprises like
the Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, OGDCL, etc.

Pakistan faces another serious anomaly that undermines government functioning. The
establishment elite and the political elite are mostly working at cross purposes
and there is no harmonisation between the two. The genesis of the problem lies in
the fundamental contradiction that exists in our power structure wherein the
civilian government has repeatedly failed to establish its supremacy over the
military. It is clear that the present coalition government will also depend on
the military for formulating and implementing security issues.

Nonetheless, the consequence of this is that the military and intelligence

agencies remain outside the orbit of accountability and pursue policies
inadvertently or deliberately that are not in harmony with the government’s goals
and objectives. What is worse it provides a ready excuse for foreign governments
to blame Pakistan or its intelligence agencies for acts of violence in India and
Afghanistan and launch a damaging media campaign against us.

Blaming the ISI for involvement in the terrorist attack on the Indian Embassy in
Kabul, the Indian National Security Adviser, Mr Narayanan, made a highly vicious
statement: “ISI needs to be destroyed”. These words coming from such a high
official of the security establishment of India cannot be taken lightly,
especially now that India is a big regional player, has a strong strategic
relationship with the US, and enjoys highly cordial relations with Afghanistan.
The same lacunae in the system provided an opportunity to our detractors to malign
Pakistan’s establishment with charges of nuclear proliferation as well.

The divergence in strategic thought between the political elite and the
establishment has other negative consequences. The political parties and the
people, by and large, are seeking cooperative relations with India and it is being
reciprocated by the other side as well. In their view, peaceful borders are a pre-
requisite for the economic and social development of the two countries; but the
establishments on both sides have their own agenda.

While the government is burdened with systemic and leadership weaknesses, two
major threats face Pakistan squarely. The first is the growing wave of militancy
and Talibanisation and the second is economic downturn that is accompanied by
rising inflation and food insecurity. Both these threats are supplementing each
other and we have on our hands a highly volatile mix. In addition, the US and NATO
countries are pressuring us to “do more” on the Western front and India and
Afghanistan in collusion are pointing fingers at our intelligence agencies, which
only make matters worse.

To add to our anxieties, one wonders what prevents Pakistani leaders from doing
the right thing, with respect to the issue of judges or addressing the problems of
the masses. Is the current crisis not sufficient to trigger alarm bells? Are they
unable to grasp the evolving security and economic situation that is engulfing the
nation?

Has pragmatism and character of politics in Pakistan degenerated, due to prolonged

military and equally authoritarian civilian rule, to such a low point that self
interest and strong egos override national interest? There seems to be a total
absence of a value system that one could ascribe to our leaders.

Clearly, the current crisis provides a valuable opportunity to our political

leadership to bring about a major, more people-centric change in both domestic and
foreign policies. In that way, they could galvanise public and parliamentary
support to face these multiple challenges.