A
Two-Party System to Create Stability
By Ahmed Quraishi
Islamabad
To move from one era to another, a change of
faces is not enough. The language also has to
change. There should be a new vocabulary, new
catchphrases and buzzwords that reflect the
new thinking.
Have you noticed how there’s only legal
jargon and no visionary talk every time we hear
some government spokesperson explaining why
Mr Musharraf should continue as a military president.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is probably the
only other person left, apart from the President,
who infuses some vision in his statements. The
rest of what we hear from the government side
is dry and unattractive legal defense that is
of no concern to the ordinary ears.
This unimaginative approach is not good for
the image of the Musharraf administration. The
reasons for Mr Musharraf’s need to stay
at the helm and to continue as a military president
must be rooted in the language of vision, not
just the language of law.
I don’t understand why someone with a
great idea and plan would undersell his genius.
President Musharraf has a superior product to
anyone or anything on offer on Pakistan’s
political scene today. He is like a founding
father to a new Pakistan that is robust and
confident, that realizes the full capabilities
of its people and that forges ahead as a player
on the world stage.
That’s why it beats me why the mouthpieces
of the administration would churn out tenuous
explanations on why he needs to continue as
both president and army chief when better reasons
and arguments exist that also are more convincing
than all that constitutional language we hear
everyday.
Hiding behind the constitution, the law and
the war on terror - though legitimate and true
- is the wrong reason for why we want to see
Musharraf continuing as both army chief and
president.
The right reason is bolder and more convincing:
We need the continuation of the massive and
visionary project of nation-building that Musharraf
administration is executing today to erect a
confident, prosperous, and strong Pakistan.
We need to continue the tough work of creating
the conditions for the emergence of fresh future
political leadership and culture, and break
the cycle of failed civilian politics. We need
to erect a system with well-defined rules of
the political game that no one can breach, where
the interests of the Pakistani nation are respected
by all players.
We need to continue with the disciplined leadership
that has brought the nation to a takeoff position
and is capable of creating a reasonable grassroots
economic turnaround in coming years. And finally,
we need to continue with strengthening the national
defense to secure regional peace.
To ensure the success of this nation-building
project in Pakistan, the power of the military
institution is crucial, and this power must
be brought to the presidency. As the visionary
and the executer of this makeover in Pakistan’s
internal and external politics, Mr Musharraf
needs to have the power of the two offices of
President and Army Chief. His colleagues in
the military are his best allies in this effort.
And his project is the best chance we have to
ensure a vibrant and stable democracy in Pakistan.
This is the right justification for having this
military president and not the overwrought legal
talk that government spokespersons routinely
churn out inside the parliament. We understand
why the military-led administration had to rely
on the failed political class to execute its
agenda. But members of this class seem to be
unable to reflect any ‘vision’ when
defending administration policy. The only way
to overcome this problem is by indoctrinating
them in the vision that guides the administration
so that they don’t sound repulsive and
boring when speaking for the government. Their
failures are reflecting poorly on an otherwise
progressive administration.
The constitution and the law are abstracts that
cannot reason with something intangible like
vision. That’s why an exclusive reliance
on law books to explain a military president
will always sound weak, despite being in line
with the law. Instead of seeking too many justifications
based on the constitution, the Pakistani president
should also seek strength and guidance from
the words and passions that he showed in his
early days in office.
Those words, actions and plans remain the foundation
for his agenda in reality. But the perception
now is that the legal and constitutional language
has taken their place. The current constitution
itself is part of an ailing Pakistani political
culture, not its remedy.
That’s why in purely public opinion perceptions,
the reasons for Musharraf’s need to stay
at the helm and to continue as a military president
must be rooted in the language of vision, not
just the language of law.
This is what true wellwishers of Pakistan need
to understand as well. We’ve seen an eminent
diplomat such as Mr Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth
Secretary General, insisting that the Constitution
and the Parliament be the final arbiters on
the debate on a military president. It is wrong
for him to insist that an ailing political system
be the final judge on the vision and leadership
of a president who is trying to change and reform
this very system.
The current system in Pakistan is rotten to
the core. It is resistant to reforms and continues,
for example, to try to scuttle the local governments.
The failure of the current system was amply
demonstrated by the recent circus inside the
Parliament, where politicians, especially those
in the opposition, were simply unable to change
their old ways of disruptive politics. And the
solution here is not to replace one set of politicians
- those in the government - with another set
of politicians - those sitting in the opposition,
since both of them are faces of the same coin.
Some of our partisan commentators say that one
solution lies in inducting the Benazir Bhutto-led
faction of Pakistan People’s Party in
the Musharraf administration because its ideology
and vision correspond to that of Musharraf’s.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The
PPP faction led by the former premier is a false
prophet of modernism. Its democratic deficit
is astounding: A supposed ‘liberal democratic’
party where the principal members shamelessly
voted their former premier head to lifelong
chairmanship. And the chairperson not only accepted
it but won’t allow any real internal elections.
We don’t need a ‘national reconciliation’
- an abused phrase that has become synonymous
now with attempts to revive and continue the
old failed political system of the country.
What we need is a fresh look at the whole system.
If a complete revamping of this system was not
possible back in 1999-2000 because it was not
wise back then to expose the country to the
shock of a major internal shakeup, it should
be possible now.
It is time now for the military-led administration
to begin the phase II of its rebuilding agenda:
Accelerating the emergence of a new political
order and giving it permanence to last for a
couple of decades at least in which a gradual
transition to democracy will go hand in hand
with empowering and educating the voting public
and help in creating new political leadership
models.
One of the areas where a major change is required
is the multiparty system. Pakistan should abandon
this failed model in favor of a two-party system.
This new system should become the pivot of our
political order and introduce issues-based politics
instead of the current order that revolves around
personality cults. The law must be amended to
enforce regular elections within the parties.
Smaller, district-level parties can exist in
this new system but should not have much bearing
on the political order. This system can be established
in Pakistan and may require some goading and
engineering by the military-led administration
in the beginning, which should not be a problem.
This change has become inevitable. If elections
were held now, our current multiparty system
will lead once again to failed politics. We
saw a glimpse of that between 1950 and 1958
when we had seven prime ministers in eight years.
The stalemate then was one of the reasons that
led to the first military intervention in politics.
That military government accomplished more for
the country during the following one decade
than anything the multiparty system did in the
preceding decade.
A Pakistani analyst, Mr Hussain Zaidi, has written
recently: "The multiparty system has been
partly responsible for the country’s political
instability. In such a system, no party has
a clear majority in the legislature. Therefore,
no party is in a position to form the government
on its own. Hence, coalitions have to be formed
which are inherently instable."
The two-party system is working in the world’s
two major democracies, the US and the UK. Someone
might argue that multiparty system works in
India. That’s fine because it suits India.
But Pakistan and India are not only two different
nations but have two very different temperaments,
cultures and histories. Our system has to suit
us, not copy someone else’s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
