|
By Shahab Usto THAT recently the PPP-PML-N coalition virtually came to a breaking point on the issue of the judges is not surprising. Right from day one the coalition has suffered from serious differences on structural and policy issues, which if not resolved could, sooner than later, bury the coalition along with the hopes of the teeming millions of voters who look up to it as their ‘last saviour’.
Even though the date — May 12 — of the judges’ restoration has been announced, scepticism still persists as to whether the judges would be restored at all due to differences over the method of restoration.
Frankly, notwithstanding their grandstanding on the Charter of Democracy, the coalition was the outcome of Nawaz Sharif’s show of camaraderie with the PPP after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and at a time of strong anti-Musharraf/PML-Q public sentiments, pressure exerted by civil society and the lawyers’ movement, post-election euphoria and popular expectations.
But there was hardly any consensus on the three main issues on which they won the elections: the restoration of judges, the war on terror and ‘roti kapra aur makan’.
On the issue of the judges’ restoration, Asif Zardari admitted in a recent TV interview that the PPP was committed only to its promise of providing ‘roti kapra aur makan’ and that the restoration of the judges was an issue for ‘those who got the votes for it’.
Similarly, Nawaz Sharif threatened to walk out of the coalition if all the judges were not restored, as if the other two issues, no matter how critical, were not his concern.
Similarly, Nawaz Sharif has consistently opposed the war on terror, calling for redefining it and getting it to be fought by US/Nato forces, a view also shared by the ANP, another coalition partner heading the government in the NWFP. But the PPP ‘owns’ the war and considers it a serious threat to the security and secular future of the country.
Then there remains a big question mark regarding the policy of the PML-N towards the PPP’s pledge of providing the people with ‘roti, kapra aur makan’. In fact, of all the election manifestoes, this one is the most ambitious.
Given that the age of socialist economy is over and the state’s role in economic and social restructuring has shrunk in the face of infrastructural and institutional support to market forces, it would be interesting to watch how the coalition translates this programme into reality, especially as there are many forces to contend with.
For one, ever since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reversed the process of nationalisation to ‘win over’ the estranged industrial and financial classes in the latter part of his six-year rule, a considerable body of literature has been amassed against centralised planning, creating a strong academic bias against state intervention in economic affairs.
For another, during this time, a new crop of big industrialists which included not only the once medium-scale industrial families such the Sharifs, the Chaudhries and the Mukhtars, but also a large number of politically nurtured feudal-turned-industrialists, who will resist tooth and nail any redistribution of wealth, evolved.
Without going into the recent change of heart among a section of western economists as to the merits of the state’s role in capital and financial markets and in monetary stability, the fact remains that the past 30 years of laissez-faire has failed to bring about economic stability, let alone turn the country into an Asian tiger.
Therefore, the coalition cannot avoid bringing in meaningful fiscal, financial and land reforms to correct social and economic imbalances which could lead to serious political crises.
But the question remains: would the PML-N, that represents a major chunk of laissez-faire beneficiaries, support the purported reforms?
Finally, differences also exist between the two coalition partners as to the future of President Musharraf. The PPP without ‘accepting’ his constitutionality seems to have found a ‘working’ relationship with him. But the PML-N flatly refuses to have anything to do with him, treating him as a usurper. Herein lies a structural threat to the coalition.
Already, whereas the induction of the MQM as a coalition partner in Sindh (and potentially in the centre) has understandably fortified the PPP in Sindh, it has also added another bone to the rickety coalition. The PML-N has reservations about the MQM’s past conduct as well as its continued support to President Musharraf.
The PML-N would be naïve to misjudge the ramifications of the PPP-MQM alliance that has not only reduced the PPP’s numerical dependence on the PML-N to continue the coalition, but has also set the future course of party politics. Pragmatically speaking, if the cookie crumbled, the PML-Q (minus the Chaudhries?) could replace the PML-N as coalition partner.
But that would be tragic for two reasons. One, the new alignment would reignite old hostilities between the PPP and PML-N. Two, it would practically undo the anti-PML-Q/Musharraf mandate given by the people.
And they would always be remembered in history for this betrayal.
Therefore, it is in the best interest of the coalition partners that they rise above party politics and meet the aspirations of the people. Any quest for a government dominated by a single party would be folly. The country is faced with a crisis of institutions and requires statesmanship and a bipartisan approach to tackle a plethora of threats.
In any case, coalition governments are a norm in today’s parliamentary democracies, particularly in federal polities. Based on the approach of ‘unity in diversity’, broad-based coalition governments work towards common ‘goals’, allowing each coalition partner to enjoy freedom in implementing its party programme.
In India, the Congress government comprises a coalition of 22 political parties representing a wide spectrum of political ideologies. Why can’t three or four political parties constitute an ‘effective’ government in Pakistan?
The old arguments for ‘stable’ governments don’t hold any more. We have seen the results of long spells of dictatorial ‘stable’ regimes. In this highly informed political environment, a government is rated on its performance and meeting electoral pledges.
The people have already given their verdict, loud and clear, in favour of the three major issues: restoration of the original judiciary, an end to the war, and the provision of ‘roti, kapra aur makan’.
Now it is for the coalition to redeem its pledge, as individual parties and as a coalition, so that instead of evoking the strains of ‘Hum dekhain gain’, people can finally rejoice by singing ‘Bahaar aayee’.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
RSS