After the London incident

Political temperature is rising again between the government and the PML-N because of a demonstration by a group of Pakistanis outside the London residence of the PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif. Speaking in the National Assembly on a point of order, parliamentary leader of the PML-N, Khawaja Asif, accused the ruling PTI of being behind the demonstration. Vowing to "pay back in the same coin" he warned, "the whole system can be wrapped up" if the opposition also asks its workers in London or in the country to attack the houses of opponents. Other Nawaz League and PPP legislators also strongly criticised that act of hooliganism. Their anger is understandable but it is just as important for the opposition as it is for the government not to act in a way that could undermine the entire system. Although two members of the federal cabinet distanced the ruling party from the London 'incident' and also condemned it, they did not help matters while responding to opposition legislators' speeches they assailed the Sharif family for alleged corruption, saying they should return to the country and face court cases - assertions that only vitiate the atmosphere, and may also be encouraging party supporters to heckle Sharif at his London home or in public places.

It is unfortunate that this should be happening at a time the government and opposition had started a consultation process - after endless exchange of recriminations - having decided to cooperate in legislative work. Five or six meetings have already taken place between the treasury members and the opposition. But the London incident has thrown a spanner in the works. Blaming the government for increasing acrimony, Khawaja Asif called the consultations an exercise in futility which cannot be continued, threatening to end cooperation with the government over the appointment of chief election commissioner as well as legislation regarding amendment to the Army Act, and some other subjects. "We'll not become part of this," he said. The two issues, particularly the latter, have far-reaching implications, and hence need to be settled carefully through meaningful discussions. The opposition has a responsibility to address it with the seriousness it demands, disallowing transient considerations to come into play. The onus for smooth running of proceedings inside the National Assembly, however, lies mainly on governmental shoulders.

The ruling coalition can remove the ambiguity in the Army Act, as directed by the apex court, on extension in the COAS' tenure or reappointment, on its own though only at the risk of creating an endless controversy. It is too important a matter to be decided by the treasury benches alone; it must have the backing of the major opposition parties in order to become acceptable and stand in good stead for the longer run. Cooperation between the treasury and opposition benches is necessary in view of the fact that it would become very difficult to reverse the amendments made at this point.