It appears that the entire national fabric is at loggerheads. At the centre of it all is the ruling dispensation that is primarily held responsible for the chaotic situation since it is entrusted with the task to govern, although it is not the only agency responsible for creating national friction. However, it cannot come clean on many aspects either.
The first aspect of the apparent failure of governance is that, despite being under constant siege for the last five years, the government conveniently ignored that a democratic dispensation is always under threat of a hostile takeover by rival political groupings remaining within the ambit of democracy. In Pakistan, it is democracy itself that faces existential danger and that it is vital to keep arbitrary forces in check.
The government closed its eyes to the reality that military takeovers in Pakistan have polluted democratic forces with three vital venoms; the unreliability of political associates, distrust of political alliances and a tendency in democratic leadership to emphasise on personality cult.
Military rule in Pakistan fatally damaged the federal process of national cohesion. Currently the country is devoid of a political grouping capable of winning a nationwide mandate. Military dictatorships have badly dented the interdependence matrix of civil democratic groupings, both within and outside of them. Such takeovers have adversely affected the confidence levels of leaderships of democratic parties and have filled them with profound sense of unreliability about their political associates. Resultantly these leaderships, when in power, tend to restrict exercise of power within a close circle of confidantes, creating heartburn in rest of their party associates.
Since the first onslaught on democratic governance in 1958, political figures have been seen running for cover and their chain of command going haywire. Dictatorships often succeeded in breaking the ranks of ruling political parties and co-opting many politicians in the process who formed splinter groups.
To their credit, however, political groupings always succeeded to regroup, challenge dictatorial regimes and win power through collective efforts. They gradually closed the loopholes exploited by the military to oust them but, after gaining power, singularly failed to keep their own houses in order simply because their leaderships insisted on exercising arbitrary control on their parties.
The leaderships willfully assumed that it was primarily due to their efforts that the power was wrested from the military and conveniently ignored the collective contributions of their comrades-in-arms.
After the implementation of anti-defection clause, the party leaderships behaved tyrannically towards the rank and file of their parties and complained bitterly against any dissension voiced inside it. In the process, the parties created a slavish cadre that proved ineffective while in power and toothless without it. It gave rise to a profound atmosphere of intrigue and counter-intrigue that directly benefited the arbitrary forces. The willful antics of the party leaderships held sway in the closed order of Cold War when, due to control over media, it was possible to spin things over. Now, with a vibrantly venomous media, the myth created around party leaderships is blown to pieces.
It is conceded that party leaderships had to undergo hardships during the course of political turmoil facing imprisonment, isolation and exile whereas their turncoat colleagues prospered through treachery. However, it also must be realized that, in most instances, the over-centralised and personalised policies of ruling party leaderships resulted in loss of power and exposed them to travails.
In the current scenario, witnessing the third time two-third majority laden rise of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) to power, the extremity of the conduct of its leadership could be gauged from the fact that it swung like a pendulum by initially co-opting electables from all walks of the political spectrum and then isolating them in return through centralised and aloof behaviour. This time, even the kitchen cabinet was reduced to small wardrobe, rigidly locked from both in and outside. It is therefore surprising to observe that the arrangement managed to survive for as long as it has!
In the annals of democratic political exercise of power, it is very rare to observe party leaderships denying all chances of advancement to their colleagues. It is worrying to observe that even the small coterie of advisers is chosen on personal likes and dislikes, and that too, is kept on tenterhooks under constant harassment of falling out of favour.
It is a self-defeating ploy that not only succeeds in isolating the leadership from close party associates but ultimately results in isolating the party itself. The impression conveyed is that the party leadership is punishing its associates for all the wrongs done to it after it lost power in 1999, irrespective of them being responsible for it, or otherwise. It has not even spared elements that joined it after 1999 and could in no way be held accountable for the unfortunate coup of 1999.
The inward isolation process is justified by the top party leadership through lofty ideals of reducing expenditures and running a tight ship, ignoring the fact that the staff assisting the prime minister was not only skeletal to adequately manage the chores of governance but was largely devoid of political representation. The bureaucratic nature of PMO is antithetical to the rigours of large scale political maneuvering and adjustment and this point has been brought to the fore many times in the past.
The current design through which the government is run clearly points to a psychological inertia that is harming governance and may well stretch the electoral viability of the party machine to the breaking point that has till now successfully withstood vagaries of by-election contests.
It would certainly be cumbersome to expect that Pakistani military will heed rationalistic advice of refraining from interfering in political affairs of the country but it may be worthwhile to expect the democratic political forces to review and analyse the negative effects of the changes that are witnessed in their behavioral patterns as a result of intermittent military interventions.
As mentioned earlier, all military interventions rattled the fabric of political parties and created schisms within them and the current atmosphere, rife with news about deliberate creation of rifts between regular cadres of political groupings, is therefore nothing new or alien to the political culture of Pakistan.
To add to the woes, the ousted leadership of PML-N has mounted a challenge to the establishment that has always been wary of such a development emerging out of the majority province. The resultant politico-judicial battle has added to the chances of a long-drawn confrontation. Nawaz Sharif is bent upon a fight and is holding his fort. It appears that the breezy visit of the prime minister to Saudi Arabia along with the army chief on the pretext of participating in Gulf Shield 1 exercises is a desperate attempt to devise a solution that may ward off the confrontation. The establishment is well aware that political engineering may not be possible in current scenario particularly in presence of a vibrant and vigilant media.
Ali Siddiqi is a former bureaucrat and runs an academic training outfit in Karachi. He can be reached at tviuk@hotmail.com
The first aspect of the apparent failure of governance is that, despite being under constant siege for the last five years, the government conveniently ignored that a democratic dispensation is always under threat of a hostile takeover by rival political groupings remaining within the ambit of democracy. In Pakistan, it is democracy itself that faces existential danger and that it is vital to keep arbitrary forces in check.
The government closed its eyes to the reality that military takeovers in Pakistan have polluted democratic forces with three vital venoms; the unreliability of political associates, distrust of political alliances and a tendency in democratic leadership to emphasise on personality cult.
Military rule in Pakistan fatally damaged the federal process of national cohesion. Currently the country is devoid of a political grouping capable of winning a nationwide mandate. Military dictatorships have badly dented the interdependence matrix of civil democratic groupings, both within and outside of them. Such takeovers have adversely affected the confidence levels of leaderships of democratic parties and have filled them with profound sense of unreliability about their political associates. Resultantly these leaderships, when in power, tend to restrict exercise of power within a close circle of confidantes, creating heartburn in rest of their party associates.
Military rule in Pakistan fatally damaged the federal process of national cohesion
Since the first onslaught on democratic governance in 1958, political figures have been seen running for cover and their chain of command going haywire. Dictatorships often succeeded in breaking the ranks of ruling political parties and co-opting many politicians in the process who formed splinter groups.
To their credit, however, political groupings always succeeded to regroup, challenge dictatorial regimes and win power through collective efforts. They gradually closed the loopholes exploited by the military to oust them but, after gaining power, singularly failed to keep their own houses in order simply because their leaderships insisted on exercising arbitrary control on their parties.
The leaderships willfully assumed that it was primarily due to their efforts that the power was wrested from the military and conveniently ignored the collective contributions of their comrades-in-arms.
After the implementation of anti-defection clause, the party leaderships behaved tyrannically towards the rank and file of their parties and complained bitterly against any dissension voiced inside it. In the process, the parties created a slavish cadre that proved ineffective while in power and toothless without it. It gave rise to a profound atmosphere of intrigue and counter-intrigue that directly benefited the arbitrary forces. The willful antics of the party leaderships held sway in the closed order of Cold War when, due to control over media, it was possible to spin things over. Now, with a vibrantly venomous media, the myth created around party leaderships is blown to pieces.
It is conceded that party leaderships had to undergo hardships during the course of political turmoil facing imprisonment, isolation and exile whereas their turncoat colleagues prospered through treachery. However, it also must be realized that, in most instances, the over-centralised and personalised policies of ruling party leaderships resulted in loss of power and exposed them to travails.
In the current scenario, witnessing the third time two-third majority laden rise of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) to power, the extremity of the conduct of its leadership could be gauged from the fact that it swung like a pendulum by initially co-opting electables from all walks of the political spectrum and then isolating them in return through centralised and aloof behaviour. This time, even the kitchen cabinet was reduced to small wardrobe, rigidly locked from both in and outside. It is therefore surprising to observe that the arrangement managed to survive for as long as it has!
In the annals of democratic political exercise of power, it is very rare to observe party leaderships denying all chances of advancement to their colleagues. It is worrying to observe that even the small coterie of advisers is chosen on personal likes and dislikes, and that too, is kept on tenterhooks under constant harassment of falling out of favour.
It is a self-defeating ploy that not only succeeds in isolating the leadership from close party associates but ultimately results in isolating the party itself. The impression conveyed is that the party leadership is punishing its associates for all the wrongs done to it after it lost power in 1999, irrespective of them being responsible for it, or otherwise. It has not even spared elements that joined it after 1999 and could in no way be held accountable for the unfortunate coup of 1999.
The inward isolation process is justified by the top party leadership through lofty ideals of reducing expenditures and running a tight ship, ignoring the fact that the staff assisting the prime minister was not only skeletal to adequately manage the chores of governance but was largely devoid of political representation. The bureaucratic nature of PMO is antithetical to the rigours of large scale political maneuvering and adjustment and this point has been brought to the fore many times in the past.
The current design through which the government is run clearly points to a psychological inertia that is harming governance and may well stretch the electoral viability of the party machine to the breaking point that has till now successfully withstood vagaries of by-election contests.
It would certainly be cumbersome to expect that Pakistani military will heed rationalistic advice of refraining from interfering in political affairs of the country but it may be worthwhile to expect the democratic political forces to review and analyse the negative effects of the changes that are witnessed in their behavioral patterns as a result of intermittent military interventions.
As mentioned earlier, all military interventions rattled the fabric of political parties and created schisms within them and the current atmosphere, rife with news about deliberate creation of rifts between regular cadres of political groupings, is therefore nothing new or alien to the political culture of Pakistan.
To add to the woes, the ousted leadership of PML-N has mounted a challenge to the establishment that has always been wary of such a development emerging out of the majority province. The resultant politico-judicial battle has added to the chances of a long-drawn confrontation. Nawaz Sharif is bent upon a fight and is holding his fort. It appears that the breezy visit of the prime minister to Saudi Arabia along with the army chief on the pretext of participating in Gulf Shield 1 exercises is a desperate attempt to devise a solution that may ward off the confrontation. The establishment is well aware that political engineering may not be possible in current scenario particularly in presence of a vibrant and vigilant media.
Ali Siddiqi is a former bureaucrat and runs an academic training outfit in Karachi. He can be reached at tviuk@hotmail.com