The year 2008 was marked by a major political upheaval in Pakistan. Musharraf, who had ruled absolutely for over nine years, though he considered it politic to surround himself with some easily refutable trappings of democracy post 9/11, was ousted from power by a relative newcomer in our political leadership, Asif Ali Zardari.
The democratically elected President brought his own team, distinct from any that would have been put in place had Benazir Bhutto been alive, or so allege many Benazir loyalists not visible in Zardari's government. The question after almost ten months of President Zardari's control is: what, if any, are the major policy changes that have been effected with the advent of democracy in the country?
The challenges that had to be faced by the new government were truly staggering and, in all fairness to the present dispensation, would have been a trial even for the most wily and experienced of politicians. There is unanimity amongst friends and foes alike that President Zardari has dealt with internal PPP as well as domestic political issues deftly. His failings, so claim his critics and many a friend, have been in the arena of governance, directly linked to his waning popular support. But Zardari loyalists hasten to add poor governance is not the hallmark of the present government but is a carry-over from the past and it would take time and a sustained effort spanning quite a few years to make a difference.
They also aver, with a certain degree of credibility, that Pakistani leadership, especially those who came through extra-constitutional means, learnt how to govern while on the job and that, given time, President Zardari too will learn the ropes.
President Zardari's critics have a relatively easier task of proving their case than his friends. PPP, they declare, was ushered into power on a platform of change, and change is precisely what the government has not only failed to deliver over the last ten months but also does not appear inclined to do so anytime soon.
The areas where the general public wanted change and is still waiting for it ten months down the line, constitutes a rather long exhaustive list: (i) one or a very small unelected coterie taking unilateral decisions without consultation in all fields and sectors under a presidential system with the seventeenth amendment still in place, (ii) ad hoc appointments with merit not a major criterion, (iii) fully supporting the US war on terror, though while Musharraf remained quiet after repeated US drone attacks President Zardari's government condemns them as part of a deal with the US, or so the American public has been informed, (iv) relying on foreign assistance to keep the wheels of the economy moving, (v) not restoring the judiciary of 3 November 2008, (vi) not invalidating Musharraf's extra-constitutional measures after he declared emergency, spreading the perception that they have been validated, by default, (vii) not dealing with the issue of missing persons and human rights abuses, (viii) not addressing the discontent in Balochistan by putting a summary end to military operation, there though the President did apologise to the Baloch people, (ix) not restoring Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who has become a symbol of the independence of the judiciary - a demand made by Benazir Bhutto prior to her assassination, and last but not least (x) in the Farah Dogar issue the government is perceived to be supporting the indefensible for no apparent political gain.
Where is the difference they lament? A bit more bungling, claim the growing number of Zardari detractors, than in the past, for example, our official response in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks leaves a lot to be desired. From Prime Minister Gilani's statement that he would send the ISI Chief to India, a no-no from the perspective of a spy agency of any country, rogue or otherwise, to the hoax call which to many shows our incompetence rather than India's to President Zardari's insistence that Pakistani airspace was violated because of a technical error, to later summoning the Indian Ambassador and expressing concern over that violation. But that too will be forgotten one would assume as would all the other areas of continuity as it were.
What is unforgivable for the people of this country is economic deprivation calling to mind that age old proverb fraught with implications for a political leadership: it's the economy stupid. The high rate of inflation has angered the people but not sufficiently to come out on the streets. Many are, so far, accepting the government's explanation in this regard: the fault lies with the policies of the former government. But if coupled with a more serious issue, like the energy crisis, this could become relevant.
What has prompted widespread protests that have turned violent is the severe energy crunch. How come, people are asking, is there a severe energy shortage today - with prices of electricity and gas almost doubled as subsidies have been withdrawn? Why is there load shedding (electricity and gas) of a total in excess of 20 hours, depending on one's location, another source of anger against the rulers, while ten months ago this was less than two to four hours? Is it that our capacity has suddenly nose-dived and if so why? Or is it a result of some mismanagement that can only be attributed to the present government?
The answer unfortunately is only partly to do with lower capacity due to water shortage in our dams, and the ongoing work on the canals; and partly due to the rising inter-corporate debt which more than doubled during the tenure of the present government.
It is symptomatic of the malaise that besets the energy sector today that the government had to commit to the International Monetary Fund that it would eliminate inter-corporate debt. Ironically, the government did not provide a time frame in the Letter of Intent which, one can argue, is a reflection of the fact that the government did not expect any serious challenge from the general public or the industrialists on this issue.
The recent riots in several parts of the country have proved this assessment completely inaccurate and it has been tackled by (i) allocating 7 billion rupees to pay off part of the over 300 billion rupee inter-corporate debt, a drop in the ocean by all counts, (ii) President Zardari two days ago did instruct the relevant ministries/agencies to clear this debt by June this year, however; the jury is still out on whether this is possible; and (iii) divert supply from one sector to another. This is the Achilles' Heel for the Zardari led government. The Benazir Income Support Programme has lost its popular appeal in the face of unscheduled load shedding of electricity and gas on such a massive scale.
One can also feel the first stirring of popular discontent with respect to a rise in prices of kitchen items. In spite of government explanations, it is being felt that the reason is cartelization of several of our key kitchen items and that these cartels can be sourced to many who are close to the ruling elite. Sacred cows who are not taxed on their income results in heavier reliance on GST which is a regressive tax with a greater impact on the poor relative to the rich is also causing resentment.
In this winter of public discontent, the people of this country find they are not being supported by any major political party. PML (N) the second largest party in the country has not come up with a viable alternative to the PPP's economic or energy policies. There is no shadow Finance Minister who can provide an alternative set of priorities or policies. Nawaz Sharif is focused on trashing the memory and policies of the Musharraf era. While holding no brief for Musharraf, it is time to put up or shut up: either provide alternative to the current set of policies or else shut up.
Comments
Comments are closed.