The Coalition Partners
By Dr Ghayur Ayub
London, UK
For a long time, PML was the only major party at the national level. It was bruised now and again by splinter groups but never faced a serious threat from another party. Then in the late 1960s, PPP surfaced and instead of adopting two-party politics in the country, they went for a head-on collision, intensified frequently by the intrigues of agencies. In line with the national psyche, the division widened and the parties detest turned into personal despise between the leaderships reaching its crescendo in the late-1980s that brought the late Benazir Bhutto against Nawaz Sharif. The rest is history.
The process, by default or by design, exposed politicians as people of no conscience with no principles. The notion still holds true. This may not be true in all cases. Yes; at times, they take actions which look unprincipled in broader terms but they usually fall within the framework of party policy. Every party runs on certain policy principles which are not hidden from the public. Remaining within those principles, sometimes politicians give statements which seemingly make them look unethical. (I am not talking about corruption)
Similar principles apply to partners in coalitions. The difference is that before they announce formal coalition, the leaders agree on a Minimum Common Program (MCP) which becomes the principle policy by which they run future governments. India, at times, had 36 coalition partners and if my memory serves me right, at present there are 27 partners in the present government.
In Pakistan, on the other hand, this practice became a handicap in the politics of coalition. Except for the ‘controlled democracy’ of Musharaf (a term supportively used by the White House and militarily used by Gen Ayub Khan), coalitions always broke before they could nurture to maturity. The reason? The partners failed to draw a prior MCP as a policy tool for future governance and if they drew up one; a partner or two decided to disown it.
Moreover, unlike the rivalries of parties in western democracies, the politics of Pakistan hinge on the mood of the party leadership. This is because our society is primarily based on hero worship. We make our heroes, polish them as ideals and nearly worship them, refusing to hear even positive criticism about them. This concept gets exaggerated in the case of dead heroes. Politicians don’t miss a chance to use their names as strategic tools to gain political mileage. The irony is that the vast majority of the public fall in ‘Pidar-e-Mun Sultan Bood’ trap, ignoring the moral ailments linked to the incumbent leaderships. This is the gist of coalition politics in Pakistan where 'hero-worship' and nonviable MCP become the forces that steer governments.
Keeping these two factors in mind, let us assess the state of the coalition between the two major parties, PPP and PML-N. On leadership, Nawaz Sharif has been a tested player having served the country twice as prime minister. Whatever his style of governance; he is known to be the only leader from Punjab who stood against two presidents and two army chiefs on principles when he found them attacking democracy. On the other hand, Asif Ali Zardari, after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, played a tremendous role keeping the federation intact by appearing sober and wise. In a short span, he won the hearts and minds of a lot of Pakistanis when he opened his arms for reconciliation. They saw a new dynamic leadership emerging in PPP, sweeping aside stalwarts such as Makhdum Amin Fahim, et al. His benign looking smile was not far behind the seasoned grin of the peace-loving Dalai Lama.
Against this background, the parley between the two leaders created a ray of hope in a desperate nation. All eyes were fixed on them. Having a signed CoD in their back pockets, the two didn’t have much difficulty in joining hands and agreeing on an MCP in the shape of the Murree Declaration. The two leaders signed it under the flashing lights of the world media, fulfilling the hopes of many hope-deprived people.
Everyone was content - lawyers, civil society, human rights activists, students, doctors and, of course, the partner politicians. I suppose a few might even be smiling in the presidency for their own reasons. One article of the MCP was made time-barred and that became a sticking point. For unknown reasons, AAZ took a U-turn by unilaterally changing the policy frame of the document into a political casing, dismantling the principle of MCP and igniting a bandwagon of distrust. In the process, at one stage, MNS also took a ‘semi U-turn’ calling it a ‘bitter pill’, but soon he reverted back to his original stand.
In such a situation, the first and the second line leaders of the two parties, instead of roping each other with 'and', (PPP and PML-N) started distancing themselves by using 'or', (PPP or PML-N) or even 'versus' (PPP v PML-N), when discussing issues of common interest. This was a sign of the erosion of the bond of CMP, which made the hopeful public confused and even disenchanted. They were already under the heavy weight of the rapid price hike and the worsening law and order situation. The frequent American interference in the political scheming did not help cool their anger. Rather the opposite.
In this scenario, it is reported that Mr. Asif Ali Zardari has asked Mr. Nawaz Sharif to tell his colleagues not to give public statements which could further damage the deteriorating relationship between the two coalition partners. In the light of this request the following points keep distracting the thinking minds:
First, does it mean PML-N should compromise on the two principled stands and remain quiet on the issues of restoration of judges and ouster of Musharaf? After all, the PML-N candidates took an oath to pursue the case of the restoration of judges to the position of November 2, 2007. The issue of Musharaf’s ouster is equally important as it became ‘Awaz-e-Khalq’ during the election campaign and PML-N took it as ‘Naqara-e-Khuda’ and called ‘Labbaik’ to it when they went out to get votes. If we take the chronological ratings of Musharaf’s popularity from 2006 to present day, we see a rapid fall from 62% in 2006 to 14% two weeks ago. A fresh survey report only a day earlier stated that 100% of people want Musharaf to quit.
Second; one should remember that AAZ's primary interest is to uplift the PPP to the peaks, and that is not possible if the PML-N stays popular in the public. We all know that politics run in reverse equations between the two opposing parties even if they are coalition partners in a government.
Third, the state of indecision by Nawaz Sharif will create an impression among the public that he is towing the line taken by Asif Ali Zardari (though differently) and that might bring down his popularity for the benefit of the latter.
Fourth, some even believe, it is in the interest of AAZ to keep the two major issues alive not because he has made commitments somewhere else (that may be so), but because in a status quo, he can retard the progressive steps taken by the revolutionary mind of Shahbaz Sharif in the most populous province of the country. His high speed action-orientated politics is not good for the PPP in Punjab.
Fifth, some expect chaos in the country if the coalition collapses. This may not be true, provided the major parties in the center and the provinces wisely sit in opposition and don’t get trapped by mosaic intrigues of the agencies as they did in the past. A relevant clause in this regard is already in place in the CoD document. This will also pave the way for the formation of a two-party system at the national level.
Finally, whatever the reasons, one thing is obvious: the present lethargy in the governance is damaging the coalition partners and their leadership in more ways than one. The earlier they take a decision on the two major issues, the better it would be for democracy and the country.
