As expected the unified Pakistani opposition has begun to exert pressure on the government by tabling a no-confidence motion against the prime minister. Some 141 members have signed the motion.
A 500-page comprehensive charge sheet accusing the government of corruption, incompetence and foreign policy failures has been submitted with the motion. Dozens of opposition members have signed up to speak against the government. An open vote is expected on the motion to be taken up for discussion tomorrow.
This move by the opposition, of course, poses no immediate threat to the survival of the government. It does however underscore the severe problems with the current military-engineered political set-up. The no-confidence motion, though against the prime minister, actually targets the military-engineered quasi-democracy.
The opposition knows only too well that the move will not succeed. But its objective isn’t to remove the government. It is to initiate pressure on the government. The opposition has used the current system to exert pressure in a coordinated, coherent and widely communicated manner. It has used its constitutional prerogative to table the no-confidence motion. Its major charge against the government rests on the Supreme Court verdict on the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mill.
The government is confident that this motion will fail. The opposition has unity but not the numbers. Meanwhile minor attacks on the MMA in the Parliament are underway. For example, the MQM has charged the MMA with blasphemy for tearing the draft of the Women’s Rights Bill. Similarly the ruling party too raised the issue of the JUI— (F) removing Quaid-e-Azam’s photograph from their office in the Parliament. Interestingly on both these issues the MMA itself would have turned against other political parties.
Such is the nature of Pakistan’s current political system where the only thing that counts is survival.
Until recently Pakistan’s higher courts have been creating the environment for the present ruling system to survive. Other state institutions including the National Accountability Bureau and the intelligence agencies have also been unconstitutionally engaged in influencing Pakistan’s politicians. To ensure the continuity of this system, they have often used fear and favors to manipulate the politicians. Getting the numbers right has, therefore, been the name of the game.
Not surprisingly the prime minister is projecting victory for both the government and Pakistani democracy. Technically he is correct when he maintains that “in a political democratic system moving and defending of no-trust motions was not a strange thing, and the onus of proving the majority is always on the opposition which challenges the government.” The prime minister knows the ruling PML-Q and its coalition partners can defend themselves. Clearly for those who wield power and those who have a role to play in the present system, the broader issues that question the credibility, the moral authority and the democratic character of this current political system, remain irrelevant.
What are those broader questions? For one thing, the type of reforms Pakistan urgently needs cannot be successfully carried out without the backing of popular politics. For another, a credible and functioning democratic system is a must to address provincial grievances as well as inter-provincial disputes.
Pakistan’s political history is a paradoxical tale of myopic vision. No matter how valid the vision, how grand the ideas and sincere the intent, the means have been myopic and self-defeating.
The myopia is built into the structure of personalized rule that has perpetually asserted itself. The only known antidote to the myopic exercise of political and state power are principles and processes laid down in the constitution. Without a complex mesh of checks and balances, credible democracy remains an illusion.
Unfortunately the bulk of political energy in Pakistan is expended on battling political foes. The deep divide between the establishment and some of the major political forces like the PPP and even the PML-N is not over ideological and policy differences. It’s over the absence of fair play. Conversely Pakistan’s opposition is united only over the need for credible democracy, not on reform agenda. Because no major reform agenda can succeed without the support of popular political forces. This means that there should be an end, as soon as possible, to the practice of ostracizing the mainstream political parties.
