ISLAMABAD, 26 June 2004 — Pakistan’s establishment-managed democracy seems headed for a setback. If the establishment does go ahead and prematurely removes the very man their main political ally Chaudhary Shujaat had proposed and the establishment had cleared for the prime minister’s slot, it would further undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the current setup. While the establishment may disregard issues of credibility and legitimacy, given its successful efforts at creating a united Pakistan Muslim League and the anti-Bhutto PPP, the major security and development challenges that Pakistan faces call for a political consensus and cooperation on key issues. Yet with all the power at the establishment’s disposal it has been unable to ensure political consensus and cooperation among Pakistan’s political forces. Political antagonism between the establishment and the opposition parties ranging from MMA, Benazir’s PPP, Nawaz Sharif’s PML and the regional parties of Balochistan is on the rise.
Given that the principal roots of the deteriorating security situation in Sindh, Balochistan and of the pressures generated by the Wana operations lie in political bitterness and political aggression, force alone cannot be the answer. A healing touch through principle-based conciliatory political approach toward all political groups is a necessity. Removal of the prime minister will be an act exactly in the opposite direction. It will further fracture Pakistan’s polity. Not because of Jamali’s political standing. His is merely a one— person power base. Yet because of what he has now become to represent, the removal of Jamali will be viewed within Pakistan as an indicator of many power-related realities.
Foremost among them is the fact that the party patrons executed the Jamali removal plan. Irrespective of the fact that the overwhelming majority of PML parliamentarians will willingly vote him out and vote in another establishment nominee as the prime minister, the causes of his removal are already widely known. All are linked to the establishment. The president and his team’s preference were Humayun Akhtar and Mahmood Kasuri. Both were in fact interviewed for hours by the uniformed establishment.
The establishment began by defending Jamali when he was criticized for incompetence and nepotism. Subsequently the tables turned. When the media and even the opposition politicians saw Jamali as a harmless political appointee with limited powers reporting to the all-powerful president, the establishment became restive. They wanted a more efficient man, one who valued meritocracy and governed effectively. Since the later half of 2003 it appeared as if Jamali was on his way out. Majority in the Jamali Cabinet and the PML reported on Jamali’s inefficiencies to the establishment. They knew which way the tide was flowing.
Yet many internal factors ranging from continued support of the Chaudhary’s, the SAARC summit, establishment’s decision to give him another chance after Jamali’s aides were changed and a general feeling that a politician from a smaller province should not be sent packing, led to Jamali’s precarious survival. Given the constant power struggle between the unequal competitors — the army and the civilian politicians — Jamali’s performance became a secondary issue in the media and political debate. The president with the real power was judged for performance. Jamali was observed for his survival skills given that others mentored by the army were sent home by the army. The embittered opposition often sympathized with Jamali and many saw him as a helpless endangered prime minister. Power play, not Jamali’s performance, defined the public discussions.
However in recent weeks Jamali’s ouster again topped the establishment’s agenda. The PML president believed a midstream change would harm the entire setup, the country and the president’s own standing. Hence a close call for Jamali’s removal in early June passed off. Now the issue is back in focus. The media, reflecting the reality of the situation, is discussing Jamali’s replacements. The prime minister himself has launched a media blitzkrieg. His message to the establishment is clear: I will obey and create no trouble. Some bitterness too comes through as he criticizes the power brokers. Tragically it’s yesterday once more.
While it is hard to advocate Jamali’s survival on grounds of competence, his removal will destabilize the system that with all its faults has the potential to evolve into a credible democratic system. In fact it could even initiate the unraveling of the current political setup. For a concerned establishment it is important to recognize that institutions, processes and rule of law, not individuals alone, make for genuine democracy and efficient and effective governance, especially when the individual exercises fairly limited power.
— Nasim Zehra is a fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center.
