One would hope that the weekend has helped calm the judiciary-executive conflict fuelled by media reports that the government was considering withdrawing its executive order of March 16 last year that restored the judges.
The Chief Justice, in his remarks on Saturday, stated that he had little doubt of the veracity of the media report, a belief, no doubt, strengthened by the Prime Minister's statement on the floor of the House that the executive order did not have the seal of parliamentary approval.
The judiciary, in its order on Saturday, ruled that "judges' restoration notification cannot be withdrawn by any constitutional organ of the country, including president, prime minister, and any such step, if at all taken, would be in violation of Article 6 of the Constitution."
Babar Awan, the controversial Law Minister, addressed a press conference with Kaira, the Minister of Information, the same day and poured more fuel on the fire. The Prime Minister who had no time to provide a written statement to the Supreme Court denying his intent to withdraw the March 16 order, which would have defused the crisis, took time to visit the President; reports of a meeting with the Chief of Army Staff were denied by ISPR.
The President and his coterie of loyal hangers-on accuse the courts of bias, with the Sindh Interior Minister, referring to judicial martial law, and in the same breath continue to claim successes in governance. They accuse their detractors of following a political agenda focused on toppling the PPP government, invoke the 'Sindh Card', and threaten the collapse of the entire system if they are sent packing through unconstitutional means.
In contrast public perception of the current performance of the PPP government is extremely negative with proof of misrule and abuse of power for financial gain not a thing of the past, but of the present. In addition, the international community continues to heap accusations against the government for continued poor governance, lack of transparency and accountability. The question is: are there any replacement candidates for the current dispensation?
In spite of claims to the contrary, the President, members of the PPP in the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and the executive committee members of the party, have said with one voice: the PPP government will complete its five years and no one can dislodge it. Bravado aside - reflected by rhetorically challenging what is perceived as the source of all threats to the government referred to variously as the establishment, political manipulators, and most recently as directors by the President - the PPP is fighting to stay in power.
Its actions reflect the personality of the chairperson: refuse to buckle down on governance issues, especially those that are in the interest of senior members of the party and complete capitulation once they perceive that the end of the line in terms of their government is at hand, unless they comply. It is not yet clear whether the government regards the executive-judiciary conflict as having reached the end of the line and its submission in the court today (Monday) would help gauge this.
But equally evident is the fact that the second largest party in the National Assembly, the PML (N), has no intentions of upsetting the applecart through what is acknowledged as the only 'constitutional means' of unseating the Zardari government: by agreeing to merge all the PML factions.
Nawaz Sharif's refusal to accede to the clamour by other PML factions, led by Pir Pagara, to merge which would enable the party to employ constitutional means to unseat the current dispensation is premised on his inability to forgive those who summarily dumped him in favour of Musharraf. The PML (N) claims that valuable lessons have been learned this time around and argue that it is preferable to rely on the proven loyalties of a few rather than to induct those with proven disloyalties; this approach ensures that the PPP government has nothing to fear in parliament.
In their own defence, the Chaudhry-led PML (Q) faction maintains that they were the target of Musharraf's reprisals till they capitulated to his demand to denounce their former party leader Nawaz Sharif; and they further aver that had Nawaz Sharif and his family opted to stay in the country, they would not have abandoned their leader. Be that as it may the number of PML factions is itself a reflection of the ease with which this party's members have split in the past with the overriding objective of remaining in power, irrespective of a democratic or dictatorial dispensation, with Nawaz Sharif himself guilty of his long association with Zia-ul-Haq.
Politics, however, is the art of compromise in a democracy. Those who are elected by the people of this country have to come together in the legislative chambers where they discuss and debate policies. No one party wins everything it supports. For example, the PPP government had to withdraw its initial decision to seek approval of the National Reconciliation Ordinance from parliament after it realised that it simply did not have the numbers to ensure its passage. The budget for 2010-11 was passed in spite of its continued heavy reliance on foreign aid even though the PML (N) had initially clamoured for withdrawing the 50 percent government servants' salary.
Economist Donald Wittman notes what good politicians do: "create coalitions and find acceptable compromise." That unfortunately Nawaz Sharif has been unwilling to do so far except with the PPP; and equally pertinent is the fact that the PPP government led by President Zardari, is willing and able to do.
There is an argument doing the rounds that while the country is being subjected to daily scams amounting to billions of rupees and supervised by those appointed by the current dispensation who, in some instances, have neither the experience nor the qualification, the continued tacit support to the government by the PML (N) is unwarranted. Perhaps epitomising poor management in recent years is the scam in our cricket, the resulting mishandling by Ijaz Butt, who has reportedly cost the exchequer over one crore in less than two years, and the public support by President Zardari towards a man, who has embarrassed Pakistan repeatedly. By delivering a fiery speech in parliament occasionally, exhorting the PPP to put its house in order and last but not least making sure that the Public Accounts Committee does not catch the big fish in the net, is tantamount to the PML (N) not playing its due constitutional role.
Analysts further aver that the only challenge to the government and its continued mismanagement/abuse is by the courts and not the parliament or in other words one is compelled to conclude that the parliament is not playing its due role in this regard.
The foregoing reflects two important facts. First and foremost the PPP is the only party that is willing to run the federal government today. The other parties, including PML (N) are content with their provincial role. And second and equally importantly, the PML (N), trying to project itself as a government in waiting, has indicated that it would support mid-term elections. The PML (N) is, no doubt, delusional in its estimate of its growing popularity: the traditionally low popularity ratings of President Zardari may not translate into higher number of seats in the National Assembly for the PML (N). The loss of seats may well go to the regional parties active in PPP strongholds.
Thus a tender notice seeking applications for the country's top executive positions, namely the President and the Prime Minister is likely to attract candidates from smaller parties or retired international bureaucrats not representative of the people of this country. That alone is PPP's trump card today in its over-arching objective to remain in power. If however the Prime Minister decides to seek a vote of confidence from the assembly, then the situation would change dramatically in favour of the party: if he wins, then he would be strengthened beyond the 126 out of a total House strength of 342 seats. And if he loses then the PPP would present a strong opposition that would be a force to be reckoned with but without the capacity to pay for loyalties.