By Ghazi Salahuddin
After all, events in Pakistan are moving at a feverish pace. No sooner had Shah Mahmood completed his speech – a speech that I, with possible partisan leanings, found uplifting – the 'breaking news' of another bomb blast in Peshawar shattered our thoughts. Indeed, the morning session of the National Assembly on Friday was held under the ominous shadow of Thursday's terrifying terror attacks in Lahore.
For many years, I have been convinced that it is the 'enemy within' that threatens Pakistan's security and well-being – even its survival. However, I have felt intimidated and besieged by shrill voices that chant the establishment mantra of national security. Now that the wages of sponsoring political and radical Islam are so glaring, are there any signs on the part of the establishment to rethink and revise its strategies and ambitions? On the face of it, no. And the debate on the Kerry-Lugar Bill provides some evidence in this regard.
The point I am making is that the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, signed by President Obama on Thursday in Washington DC, has stirred emotions and issues that have a bearing on how we define our national sense of direction. This latest wave of the Taliban terror, unimaginable in its intensity and scope, may be seen as the manifestation of the waywardness of our national security policies.
In the immediate context, though, most of us would be unable to make any sense of the extremely grim situation that is developing. That assault on the GHQ on October 10 was particularly portentous and there is little likelihood of an early revelation of an enquiry into the incident. Other terror attacks have been no less alarming. People's sense of insecurity is mounting. They feel totally puzzled as to the meaning and purpose of the killings that are taking place.
In fact, they do not also understand the arguments and assertions that reverberate in television talk shows on such subjects as the war on terror, the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the looming threat to democracy and the government's decision to legislatively baptise the National Reconstruction Ordinance, 2007. Corruption, of course, has always been a major concern of the people of Pakistan and some the stories that are in circulation at this time are highly disconcerting.
One can easily sense that the people are unable to understand the present drift and are increasingly uncertain about their future. This is in spite of the avalanche of debate in our television talk shows, always professing to represent both sides. One problem here is that we have the usual suspects generally mouthing party slogans. The pack of guests on the panels is constantly shuffled but the hand that is dealt is often the same. Consequently, we are denied a sober, rational and incisive debate on these issues. As it is, the overall environment in our country does not promote an objective analysis of emotive issues, particularly those that fall in the domain of the establishment.
This brings me back to the issue of the Kerry-Lugar Bill in the wake of apprehensions about how it has underlined divergences between the civilian and the military leadership. In the first place, the debate that should have begun a long time ago has not yet been initiated. This bill, in a sense, has a prehistory. Critics had always blamed the American administration for dealing directly with the military – mostly military rulers – to subvert the democratic process in Pakistan.
Now that this approach is being changed, some tremors are inevitable. But the entire issue, with whatever missteps the Obama administration may have taken, was not carefully explored. I consider it a great tragedy of Pakistan's politics that the Pakistan People's Party-led government does not seem to have the political, intellectual and moral resources to be able to fruitfully mould public opinion in favour of the bill. This failing may have a dire impact on the future of democracy in Pakistan.
It is with this regret that I appreciate the intervention made by Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the National Assembly. But the best that he could do would not compensate for the loss of charisma and the absence of an articulate and popularly credible leadership that the party has suffered. Look at how forlorn and politically inadequate Asif Ali Zardari has figured in this potentially decisive challenge to the present arrangement. Ideally, the PPP should have heartily welcomed the confrontation that the bill has prompted and have gone to the people with a bold campaign.
With Asif Zardari as the president as well as the effective head of the party and Yusuf Raza Gilani as the prime minister, we have two leaders who cannot inspire the masses or communicate with them in a language that would seemingly translate basic concepts into a populist idiom. You may have noticed the prime minister's discomfiture while his foreign minister had the floor.
Looking back, we can see how disastrous it was for Asif Zardari to renege on his pledge to restore Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Had he kept his word, he would be stronger to deal with later challenges to his authority. That he had to do it under pressure was a double debacle because he lost face and the COAS was able to use his clout on the right side of public opinion. Now, the focus is shifting to the NRO and this may further damage the president's political authority.
Meanwhile, we have to contend with the explosions that are taking place in the minds of our people. The state of affairs across the entire spectrum is highly combustible. A sequence of terror attacks has left everyone feeling vulnerable. I was in Quetta one week ago to attend the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's Council meeting and cannot even begin to talk about the grim situation that exists in Balochistan. A military campaign is about to be launched in South Waziristan. At the grassroots level, a large number of people are not sure where their next meal would come from.
What has the Kerry-Lugar Bill to do with all this? In a peripheral sense, it is very relevant. We need to decide if we really need American assistance – or foreign aid as such. And if we do, isn't social development the most crucial element for our survival?
The writer is a staff member. Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com