SPOTLIGHT: Party chiefs should look after their parties - full time!: Time for a change of scene?

Surely you did not miss the PPP party clip, run on various channels, which repeatedly showed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB), Benazir Bhutto (BB) and, for good measure, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (BBZ), making an emotional 10-second or so speech in a highly charged top-of-the-decibel-scale tone of voice.
To be fair, both ZAB and BB have delivered many a sober, sophisticated, high quality speech in their time. But the choice of super-emotional, almost raving excerpts from speeches in the clips, appears to divulge the party belief that this is the great way to sway people rather than through a calm, logical and well-argued discourse.
As for youngster Bilawal, his outburst in the clip appears totally out of character with the person of the young man who otherwise displays a sober, serious and restrained demeanour unlike anything seen in the clip! One comes to the conclusion, therefore that PPP strategists (at least those around President Asif Zardari) consider a yelling style of public posturing to be the best way to impress people.
These thoughts come to mind when hearing and reading about the kind of charged speeches being made by many PPP leaders including its acting co-chairman in recent days following the NRO fiasco and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case.
In his much talked-about speech on the occasion of the second death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto at Garhi Khuda Bakhsh and later on other occasions, the President spoke in a rather desperate tone about conspiracies against democracy and against his own person by "non-state actors".
Why does President Zardari, occupying the highest elective office in the country, as well as control of the largest political party in the country, find the need to publicly indulge in a tirade against TV anchors and channels, unnamed non-state actors (whatever that means), against perceived plots and conspiracies touching his government and democracy (which two terms he appears to hold as synonymous), against actions and plots to pitch one pillar of state against another (without naming which specific pillar or pillars he has in mind) and so on.
Not to be outdone, in fact apparently taking a cue from their chief, several PPP leaders have also started expressing their fervent desire to pull out the tongues, cut off hands or gouge out eyes belonging to unknown (and sometimes "guessable") personages.
The President recounts his government's achievements in respect of the Balochistan Package, the NFC agreement, handing over the control of Nuclear assets to the PM and the like and appears to claim, quite illogically, that his enemies are out to get him because of these achievements on his part. He also keeps repeating quite unnecessarily, it seems, that there were no differences between his government and the Army.
"NON-STATE ACTORS" Strangely, the President said in a tone of martyrdom that he would live either in the Presidency, the PM House or in jail. Are these the only choices before the head of a political party in power? Why is the possibility of being in the opposition, normal in a democracy, not an option we wonder?
Talking to a TV channel two days later, he said the carnage on 10th of Muharram in Karachi was the work of "non-state actors", whom he had identified in the Nau Dero speech. Well, at least we can now get to know, who the non-state actors in the President's view were and get closer to the solution of the "mystery" surrounding their identity.
Now it only remains for the government to interrogate the culprits already arrested and as well as those seen engaged in looting and arson in the TV footage clips of the City Government (who are still at large but hopefully would be apprehended soon) to unmask the "non-state actors" for the benefit of the people of Pakistan and the media, and settle the question which has been agitating the minds of millions of Pakistanis, on account of the President speaking, day in and day out, of their heinous role of hatching conspiracies against him, once and for all
In the meantime, let us be content with a general identification of "non-state actors" through a reference to the Internet which reveals that the term "Violent non-state actor (VNSA), refers to any organisation that uses illegal violence (ie force not officially approved of by the state) to reach its goals, thereby contesting the monopoly on violence of the state.
The term has been used in several papers published by the United States military. Examples of VNSA's are: warlords, insurgents, para-militaries, liberation armies, freedom fighters, terrorists, militias, guerrillas, youth gangs, pirates, and criminal organisations like the Mafia or Yakuza". Phew!
Look at it from another angle. Our country today is beset with a host of problems. On the one hand, there are daily terrorist attacks in which ordinary, unsuspecting, innocent people - men, women and children - are getting killed and wounded by the score. The army in strength is involved in a serious war of attrition with the Taliban in our tribal areas with daily reports of deaths (terrorists killed and Jawans martyred).
On the other hand, the rising cost of living is making life difficult even for normally affluent people; people already surviving at the subsistence level are living in desperate misery, each day less able to meet the barest needs of their families for roti, kapra, makan, medical treatment, education and so forth.
With increasing frequency, one reads reports of frenzied parents selling or abandoning their children, unable any more to see them starve to slow death. The industry suffers from desperate shortage of infrastructure needs like power and water, leading to increasing unemployment and more poverty.
At desperate times like these you would expect a major speech by the head of the state to, at least verbally, address these problems, to give people hope, to acknowledge their suffering, to give some immediate relief, to outline a long-term plan as well as short-term measures to alleviate their desperate plight and, in general, to give the impression that he was mindful of people's suffering and thinking and acting vigorously with all available resources, to provide relief.
Instead, on the other hand, here was the elected president speaking of his own plight and suffering at the hands of unnamed villains. So much so that he was forced to say that for him it was either the Presidency or death. The thought of being in the opposition (a norm in democracies) for a change has apparently not occurred to the President.
His speech thus appeared to be designed to attract sympathy and support for himself rather than to express an offer of relief and support to the long-suffering people of Pakistan. "Ask not what your President can do for you" he appears to be telling the people, "but ask rather what you can do for the President", to use a famous John F. Kennedy adage of the sixties, modified with due apologies for the present occasion in Pakistan.
PARTY CHIEFS ARE A DRAG ON THEIR PARTIES! Watching the TV debates and discussions between the top and second tier political party people is getting to be a waste of time. Both the PPP and the PML-N chiefs, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif carry a baggage of alleged past deeds which is proving a drag on their respective parties. Their spokesmen on TV panels are having a hard time explaining the unexplainable, justifying the unjustifiable and trying to rewrite history.
A typical debate begins with one party functionary blaming the leader of the other party of a misdeed. There is no dearth of ammunition. The past of both the leaders is bursting with incidents of alleged undemocratic, below-par behaviour. When a debater belonging to PML-N digs into Asif Zardari's past to point an accusing finger at one or the other alleged transgression on his part, the PPP man is perplexed and does not know how to defend his party leader.
So he either gives answers he does not appear to be convinced about himself or he recalls the alleged misdeeds of Nawaz Sharif to "turn the tables" on his opponent. Then follows a shouting match at the end of which no one is the wiser as to the outcome, except to reach the conclusion that we perhaps need to have collective leadership in our two major political parties. We have no hesitation in saying that both parties can find their feet and move forward with unfettered limbs if they can manage to force the concept of collective leadership and policy by consensus in their respective parties.
WILD-GUESSING THE FUTURE! Let us imagine that the apparently impossible has come to pass! Both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have decided to eschew public office and begun to look after their respective parties, full time! Once the 17th amendment to the constitution is withdrawn and other changes put in place, in line with the Charter of Democracy agreement between the country's two major political parties, the office of the President will be mainly ceremonial and no longer well-matched with Zardari's ambitions.
He should therefore not have any serious qualms about handing over the Presidency to some one chosen by him. In any case, holding positions of the head, both of a political party and the government is unconstitutional according to many experts and, in this respect, his present position is presently under challenge in the courts anyway.
Since his authority in PPP is unchallenged, Zardari will continue to control or at least influence decisively the policies to be followed by the PPP government, even without him being President. How about Makhdoom Amin Fahim, then, as the titular head, under a constitution restored to its original 1973 contours? Alternatively an elder statesman from the smaller provinces could be considered.
For PPP, Bilawal can wait until he proves himself fit for the job or indicates if he is even interested in politics in the first place. Maybe Aitzaz Ahsan could be tried as Prime Minister to see if his talents also include the ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to fast-changing national and international scenarios.
What about Yousuf Raza Gilani, then? Well, he should be quite comfortable in the role of Governor Punjab or maybe Balochistan. Party faithfuls with good reputation and wider acceptability, Raza Rabbani for one, maybe, and others who fit the description, could be given more say in party policies and continued in important political roles. Safdar Abbasi, Sherry Rahman and other sidelined party faithful could be resurrected from cold storage and given suitable roles in party or government.
The likes of Raja Riaz (of hand-cutting fame), Salmaan Taseer (who played a not insignificant role in causing disaffection between erstwhile Federal Government partners PPP and PML-N, and continues to do so), Raja Pervez Ashraf (of no-load-shedding-after-31 December 2009-fame) and Zulfiqar Mirza (of Sindh Card fame) could be given much-needed long rest.
Glib Babar Awan and unruffled-under-all-situations Rahman Malik could be temporarily sent home, to maybe come back only after successfully defending themselves in the courts of law, in respect of cases in which they are accused. These steps could be instrumental in resurrecting of the party, presently reeling from a number of missteps of the past year and a half.
The same principle should apply to Nawaz Sharif and his party. Once freed from his quest for another go at Prime Ministership, Nawaz Sharif could devote full time to much-needed party organisation (PML-N at present being only a Punjab party) across the country and to bring the party closer to its (only verbally stated so far) ideological moorings.
A collective leadership style should be pioneered in the party. "Young Turks" Javed Hashmi, Saad Rafiq, Ahsen Iqbal and the like could be given more say in party affairs and policies as well as important roles in the Punjab government (and possibly the Federal Government if PPP and PML-N could return to the early 2008 power sharing).
Hamza Shahbaz, Captain Safdar (Retd), Nawaz's son-in-law and others in similar situations should be discouraged from leap-frogging into high positions, not on the strength of their ability, service and performance, but due to their "connections". How is that for loud thinking? What do you think?
([email protected])