And isn’t that what some say Musharraf tried in the beginning? And who did he end up in bed with? The Chaudhries, Altaf Hussain, Zia’s son, Raza Kasuri (a so-called Nawab), and to a lesser extent Amin Fahim. Hina Rabbani Khar….same old feudal stuff presented in a prettier package. She has a degree in hotel management yet serves as an economic adviser to the PM! Nice new blood!

The first few years of the Musharraf era can be seen as a failed reform project. In the end, he used NAB to pressure corrupt politicians to join him. It’s been tried. The judiciary is key though. The law must replace hero worship and belief in a savior.

Eight years ago, we would have thought it was the end of Sharif and Zardari. Now they are back on top. Sad, but true. Musharraf attempted to delete them from the system. Instead, he has deleted himself with his foolishness. An ironic twist of fate. He has effectively switched roles with Nawaz!

So Nawaz and Zardari are political realities. But my point is that they all need to be put in the same competitive sphere, so they can share the same risks and benefits. So if they are political, they can win and lose elections and be subject to public opinion and scrutiny.

In the end, one has to be resigned toward the present state of leadership. But it is a changed Pakistan. Benazir realized that when she arrived. It’s a somewhat new ball game. The media, the judiciary, the vocal middle class (partly birthed by Musharraf himself), etc. They can serve as a check on Nawaz and Zardari.

Musharraf, by imposing emergency rule/martial law, sacking the Supreme Court, and curbing media freedoms, showed he would eliminate these checks on him. That’s why he has to go. And if Sharif and Zardari ever try the same, they should go to. But as long as they play by the new rules of a the slightly new Pakistan, then they can be controlled and managed.

Internal party elections are a must. But the idea that one can dramatically change the political system through one man has been proven wrong. He will, in the end, compromise and, later, be eaten. What Pakistan needs is a legal/institutional foundation that constrains major political actors. I think our discussion should focus on that.

Our discussion would be better if you offered specific solutions.

————-

Zubair Sahib, I share your concern about Altaf Hussain. His cry of Talibanization, as I have written earlier, seems like preparation to attack the Pakhtun of Karachi.

If Talibanization is occuring in parts of Karachi, thuggery is no solution to thuggery. It will only produce greater violence. It will bring the battle in FATA into Sindh and paint the challenge of Talibanization in ethnic terms.

Altaf Hussain, I fear, is campaigning to be a Pakistani Muhammad Dahlan (the Palestinian goon used as a secular hammer against HAMAS in Gaza). Balancing out HAMAS in Gaza might serve the interests of some foreign powers and a section of the Palestinian elite, but Gaza is currently a prison for its people. Altaf Hussain could very well be pulling Karachi in the same direction, as he sits comfortably in London. He needs to come back to Pakistan and play by the same rules as everyone else.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. First we talk about better governance. Then we end up electing the same corrupt and illetrate (having a degree does not really make one literate) a decade down the row. Why is that?

ISNT IT REALLY THEN OUR FAULT THAT THE SYSTEM IS DYSFUNCTIONAL?

Lets bring some fresh blood, newer and better ideas.

I totally agree with the empowerment of the judiciary. However, I believe that the judiciary is already empowered by law – whether the government recognizes this is another story. Thus, the focus should be on educating the rulers that THEY MUST LISTEN, OBEY AND RESPECT THE JUDICIARY AT ALL COSTS – no matter what happens. This only has to happen once in this country to set a precedent that would most likely be followed by the future governments.

I am not pessimistic. On the contrary, I am optimistic in the sense that I firmly believe that it is high time that these lords who derive their power solely based on the blood line be sent home, and new blood be brought into limelight. This can be done by having elections (akin to primaries in the U.S.) within the political parties.

I also am of the opinion that the institution of Presidency be abolished. It does not hold any emotional or historical significance in our case, and incurring exponential expenses on such an insitution is HIGHLY ABSURD in our POOR COUNTRY.

I would add that all politicians should be INSIDE the country. This is difficult to legally mandate, but every political figure should share the same benefits and risks from being inside the country (and inside the political process).

Altaf Hussain, from his London apartment can call on his young men in Karachi to take up arms.

Sharif and Zardari run off to London and Dubai.

Musharraf hides in the GHQ. He is a political actor that has hidden behind the protective walls of the presidency and army.

They are all guilty of this.

What this means is that the average Pakistani bears the immediate shocks of their political leadership’s decisions.

It produces unresponsive governance.

—

Rafay, I was once in favor of Article 58(2)B, but the downside is that it over-empowers the president and has stifled civilian governments from functioning. Also the dual system (PM & CMs vs. President & Governors) provides a convenient excuse for incompetent elected governments.

But what is important is a check on the prime minister. After all, we have seen the excesses of the ZA Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif eras.

So the question is how to attain a check on the PM that facilitates good activity and obstructs bad activity.

I think that would require empowering the judiciary (suo moto powers are important) and parliament (oversight committees, mandated question time.).

In terms of security issues, I am in favor of the National Security Council as a body that brings together the military and intelligence leadership with the senior elected civilian leadership. They should meet biweekly or monthly. Right now two major power brokers are outside the elected system. As a result, Sharif and Zardari should be inside parliament to correct this irregularity.

IF the presidency would be non-symbolic, then it should be directly elected by the people.

But at the present, the system doesn’t create balance, it creates dysfunction. There are two competing power structures and things only work if one side is the chamcha of the other.

I share your pessimism, but so do many Pakistanis and that could be something positive. It might say that we are wiser — we don’t truly like any of the major leaders — and we are looking for some real change and not the cyclical interchange of civil and military rule.

The popularity of the lawyers’ movement suggests to me that a great deal of Pakistanis are looking not for a savior, but a system — a system that works.

It is not the mere presence of laws that in itself hinders anarchy and promotes civil harmony; it is the application of that law across all the spheres of the society UNCONDITIONALLY. This never happens in Pakistan. There are laws that prevent people from running in elections if found guilty; however, we still see the very same people (and their corruption is an open secret) in our assemblies.

It must be remembered that laws by theirselves are mere pieces of legislation. Unless fear of accountablity is instilled in ALL THE PEOPLE from the VERY YOUNG AGE WHEN THE PERSONALITY STARTS TO TAKE SHAPE, WE SHOULD NOT HOPE TO SEE MUCH OF A CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY. In the developed world, laws are respected and people have a genuine FEAR (from the chief executive down to the citizens) of accountablity. This FEAR OF ACCOUNTABLITY is something which is promoted from the very beginning (by education as well as the environment).

To be quite honest, I dont really foresee a positive change in Pakistani system. Unless of course a careful scheme of long term planning is launched and a child is taught of governance, accountability and responsbility and the consequences of doing wrong from a very young age. Such a change would obviously easily require a century.

I further suggest that that the new assembly should pass a law that will prohibit any member (and their immediate family members)of the national, provisional assemblies and government official to hold foreign bank accounts and real estate properties as long as they are receiving their pay from the government of Pakistan. There should be no loophole in this law. Anybody found to have bank account or property in any foreign country automatically removed from elected or assigned post.

If the Presidency is only of ceremonial nature, why don’t we just get rid of this institution? If nothing else, it would save the national exchequer from significant expenses incurred by the Presidency. I have never come to terms with the “concrete significance of Presidency” in our environment.

Why, and I repeat WHY, maintain such ceremonious institutions in a country which is ridden with poverty, where there is a huge different between wages and prices, and where there is shortage of everything from food to power? After all, the Presidency does not really hold any emotional, historical or social signifcance for Pakistanis (like the monarchy does for Canadians, and the Presidency in the U.S.).

I believe that Article 58-(2b) provides a sound “check” mechanism on the powers of the federal executive (if used fairly). The focus should be on changing characters and the need is for resolve on the part of the new government to be fair, transparent and provide good governance. If this happens, there would be no need for any President to invoke Article 58-(2b). The past repute of the people now rhetorically babbling about the impeachment is also ridden with various corruption schemes whilst in power previously. An idiom from Urdu would describe it best: “aaj kae hukumraan kaun sae doodh kae dhulae hain?” Same old faces, same old game, same old tricks.

We all know that new governments, with massive mandates, create an illusion of good governance in the beginning. However, as time passes and the “honey-moon” period is over, it is back to the norms: corruption, price hikes, artificial shortages, etc. etc. The need is for a firm resolve to put the interests of the country before self-ambitions and self-interest, not revoking Article 58-(2b). If Article 58-(2b) is to go, then might as well abolish Presidency.