The minus one formula

Kaira, the Minister for Information, let loose a salvo that surprised many: he revealed the existence of a minus one formula, with the target 'one' being none other than Asif Ali Zardari. This formula will not succeed, he thundered.
His real audience, one can safely assume, was not the Pakistani public but the President's detractors, who had, allegedly, formulated the formula. Soon afterwards, Qaim Ali Shah made a similar statement of support for the President.
These two statements released a major furore within the electronic as well as the print media. To ascertain who could possibly be the architect of the formula was an easy one, given Pakistan's past history: the establishment. But the main focus of debates in the media have largely centered around not on the architect of the formula, but whether it is an accurate perception on the part of the PPP high command, consisting mainly of the victim himself, or not.
Some have dismissed the PPP high command's apprehensions, with respect to the existence of the minus one formula, as nothing but paranoia. As time has passed, however, an increasing number are arguing that there is no smoke without fire and that there must be some truth to this assertion, especially as it is being made by those in power.
What, however, is not arguable is the fact that there have been similar attempts in the past, with some failures and some successes, and, more relevantly, such attempts have invariably been launched when the government was weak, its popularity at an all-time low and there was a general perception of poor governance. The perceptions of the general public, normally spearheaded the formulation of the proposed formula in the past. It is on record that the public perceptions, with respect to the governance capacity of the incumbent PPP-led government, is extremely poor.
Examples include the continuing energy crisis, the sugar crisis and the brewing atta crisis to name just a few. The rest, as they say, is history. The President's popularity remains dangerously low. His rating remains distinct from Prime Minister Gilani's, whose are at par with other popular world leaders - a fact that lends some credibility to the minus one formula, rather than a minus two or minus three or indeed minus-PPP formula. Allegations of corruption and nepotism are strengthening with each passing day.
The way the sugar crisis has been dealt with has astounded critics and friends of the PPP alike. It is more than likely that the President did not have any hand in Wattoo's infamous deal with the sugar mill owners yet the public is angered by the President's silence on the matter. The fact that it is well documented that the President is the owner of more than a couple of sugar mills is being cited as "proof" of his alleged complicity in the Wattoo deal.
The politically wily Sharifs, owners of nine sugar mills, have successfully defused all charges of complicity by the Punjab government's Thursday decision to take over control of sugar mills, without discrimination, in an effort to force them to sell at Rs 40 per kg during Ramazan - more than nine rupees less than what Wattoo had agreed to. And even though this constitutes open defiance of the Wattoo agreement, the Punjab public is unlikely to back the Federal government on this issue.
The Punjab government has also banned the transportation of atta to NWFP and Balochistan in an effort to control its price in Punjab. This decision has increased atta prices in Balochistan and NWFP, forcing their governments to appeal to the Federal government to step in. To date, the Federal government is silent on the issue. Another crisis is, therefore, clearly brewing.
To add fuel to the fire, there is a growing perception amongst the general public that there is a large element of nepotism in appointments, which is causing a huge loss to the Exchequer. PM Gilani was finally forced to sack the chairman of the PSM, who was considered a Zardari appointee. Other institutions, headed by "Zardari appointees", are said to be performing poorly as well.
Incompetence is the third major failing of the government, or such is the perception. The continued mishandling of the energy crisis, the reliance on expensive, rental power projects that only now, the Ministry of Finance has begun to challenge, the failure to curtail imports as a policy option, to reduce dependence on foreign assistance and the continuing reliance on assistance from 'friends', who have expressed concerns over the PPP-led government's governance capacity, are seriously undermining the resolution of major issues that the public is grappling with.
PPP stalwarts - especially those who have publicly derided attempts to implement the minus-one formula, as one which is bound to fail - would do well to remember that in a democracy, ratings must not be dismissed as inaccurate, or the work of partisan institutions that may be dealt with, by not extending their visa, as happened recently with respect to one polling agency.
Ratings reflect the public's perceptions about the government's performance, which drive opinions that must matter to each and every democratically-elected politician. At this juncture, it is pertinent to recall that many a democratically-elected leader has witnessed a downturn in his/her popularity ratings soon after they took over power. Barack Obama, and Brown are prime examples. Obama was elected by the people and not through limited franchise, consisting of only Congress or Senate members.
Obama may have lost his popularity ratings because of his insistence on restraining Israeli intransigence with respect to settlements or his health reform bill that is being resisted by the powerful insurance lobby. Or it may merely reflect a historical pattern, which reveals declining ratings of a newly-elected President after the first six months.
Brown, on the other hand, inherited the mantle of power from Blair and it was the Labour party that supported his elevation to the post of the Prime Minister; he has yet to stand as his party's nominee in a general elections. Analysts argue that his declining popularity reflects his inability to convince the general public of his leadership credentials. President Zardari's elevation to power is akin to Brown's and not Obama's.
His franchise is limited to the PPP. In addition, analysts point to three major factors that may limit his success as his own party's leader in the next elections. First, the 18 February 2008 election results were according to a pattern that was witnessed over two decades ago: the Pakistani public supported a PPP and the PML (N) cohabitation, with the PPP as the favoured party in Sindh and the PML (N) in Punjab. This is reflected by the PPP's win of about as many seats as in the 1990s. Ms Bhutto's assassination did not generate any significant sympathy vote. It is, however, difficult to deny that the Zardari factor, as Ms Bhutto's legitimate heir, did play a role in sustaining the PPP electoral strength in the elections.
Second, there is a growing disenchantment with the President from within his party, a disenchantment that may not entirely be attributable to the performance of the government to date, as his alienation of those who were close to Ms Bhutto as he struggled to surround himself with his own loyalists is well known. Could these former Ms Bhutto acolytes mount sufficient challenge to his chairmanship, in spite of the Bilawal Bhutto factor, is still open to debate. The President appears to be fully aware of this element and frequently makes use of Bilawal as a political tool within the party. It, however, must be pointed out that Ms Bhutto was not the only contender to PPP leadership, after her father's judicial murder and had to painstakingly consolidate her own hold over the PPP. Thus, while the mantle of legitimate inheritance cannot be denied, yet the two co-chairmen of PPP will have to assert their control in the next elections and win before the party will grant them a status of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or Benazir Bhutto.
And finally, the President got elected by a limited franchise; it is relevant to note that the PML (N) did not actively canvass for their presidential candidate during these elections. Chances that the President would win by as large a margin, if at all, if elections are held today, are non-existent, but that he would win is not in doubt given the current constitution of the National Assembly.
The sensible way out of the dilemma is not by threatening failure of the minus one formula, but by improving governance. This would automatically strengthen the government. However, as matters stand today, it appears that the defence consists of hurling accusations of victimisation as party strategy. Such a tactic makes sense when one is out of power, exiled or in jail. To proclaim victimisation when in government is not appropriate, as it reflects a weak government and thereby, strengthens the hand of the conspirators, nor is indeed all that credible for the general public especially now, given that the army's interference in the civilian government is minimal.