Pakistan under Zardari Presidency

By Usman Khalid, Director London Institute of South Asia

"Nobody has been so discredited and vilified as him.  If he has any talent it is time to use this opportunity to manifest integrity beyond doubts and clean himself before that time that he becomes another victim of Pakistan politics." Reza Hossein Borr

If the new President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has many foes that vilify him, he has many more friends who recognise merit in him. In an op-ed circulated on the Internet, Reza Hossein Borr, an Iranian, has carried out an analysis of the feudal politics of Pakistan where "˜putting everybody in his place' is the name of the game. Making alliances and putting down opponents is the "˜full time' pursuit of the political class of Pakistan. The new entrants into the game of politics, which includes businessmen and religious eminent, also have plenty of wealth and time; they also play politics as a leisure pursuit in the same manner.  That makes honeymoon period of every new administration short and the country perpetually unstable. If things do not change, it can be said with certainty that the new Zardari Administration will become as unpopular as fast as the previous two PPP led Government when his wife "“ Benazir Bhutto "“ was the prime minister. 

The political history of Pakistan raises two important question: 1) Why do the military dictators last much longer; 2) why the elected leaders also end up concentrating power in their hands and rule as dictators?  

The military leaders last longer in power because they do not depend on the political class for governing the country; the only use they have for the politicians is to give them legitimacy through tightly controlled elections for which they "˜co-opt' a segment of their class. For running the administration of the country they depend on either military officers or other professionals. The politicians, who are not chosen for the King's Party and given jobs, suspend their favourite pastime (of putting people in their place) and "˜unite' in a struggle against the "˜military dictatorship'. Since no one can be alert and popular for ever, a time comes when the military dictator outlast his welcome, begins to make mistakes, and ends up having the entire establishment uniting to depose him. Since the military dictators do not depend on the political class except for farcical legitimacy, they can retain their popularity and credibility a bit longer - for three to five years. But the elected leaders, who depend on the political class for everything, start becoming unpopular often in the very first year in power and are voted out of office at the next elections. That is also the case in India and Bangladesh. In India, there is even a term for it; it is called the "˜disadvantage of incumbency'.

At the last elections in India, the Congress led coalition of 26 parties formed the government and the person appointed the Chief Executive "“ Prime Minister Manmohan Singh - is not from the political class. He is a Sikh and a senior bureaucrat elected indirectly to the upper house from the Eastern State of Assam. The choice of the Congress Party for the Foreign Minister "“ Natwar Singh "“ was a senior diplomat (ambassador to Pakistan no less) and the Finance Minister (with a difficult to spell name) is finance professional who is a protégé rather than a principal in politics.  Learning from the experience of India, President Zardari should recruit the best in the business to his team and not depend on the political class either for ideas or for implementing policy. The ministers would continue to be politicians; their role is to sell the policy to the people, a job that professionals or bureaucrats are not good at. This is how democracy runs in every modern country. Ideas and proposals come from think tanks, universities and research institutes; the electronic media and the press present and discuss those ideas to crystallise and formulate proposals. The bureaucrats in the relevant ministry synthesise those proposals to articulate policy and or draft legislation. The cabinet gives approval; the parliament discusses the draft, suggest changes and fine-tune the policy/legislation.

To be popular and credible, the above process must be followed. That helps make institutions of the government viable and effective and reduce the chances of wrong decisions and poor implementation. It is when the leader is too arrogant and the institutions lack confidence and competence that ill-considered and unpopular decisions are made. Unpopularity makes him feel threatened and he concentrate power into his own hands with a coterie of advisors often referred to as the "˜kitchen cabinets'. The answer to the question why political Chief Executives also become dictators is that every one does not; only those who are ignorant, incompetent or overconfident become dictators when they want to subvert the system rather than provide leadership. When they become civilian dictators, they are resented just as much as the military dictators. The only difference is that military dictators do not come back; the civil dictators often do. That is because the political class needs wealthy leaders to whom they can attach themselves as "˜hangars on' to survive during the lean period when the military or their political opponents are in power. 

Democracy in any country is underpinned by an "˜independent judiciary' that is trusted by the people to protect them from crime as well as the excesses of the state. By refusing to re-instate Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhri, President Asif Zardari has doubly jeopardised his Presidency. One, trust in him is undermined by his refusing to restore the CJ the people trust. Two, he has committed such a grievous error from which he may never recover. It is an error of the scale committed by General Zia-ul-Haq by disgracing and then executing a popular leader "“ Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. President Zardari might justify not reinstating the Chief Justice as he refused to accept a lower post. But that is the same as dishonouring before death "“ both are reprehensible. In a country where an indicted criminal can become the President; it is perhaps right that everybody who is honest and honourable should leave the country. That is what is happening. It is not only the people but also money that are going overseas. The precipitous decline in the value of stocks and shares and of the Pakistan's currency is indicative of lack of faith and trust in Zardari Administration. And its cause? He does not trust whom the people trust. President Zardari cannot restore trust in himself without restoring the Chief Justice. 

Another underpinning of a modern democracy is "˜checks and balance' within the system. The checks are required within each institution of the state to make certain that it operates by the rules. The three pillars of the state - the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature "“ being equally effective and viable in their own separate roles, provides the balance. When no party enjoys a majority in the parliament, a coalition of parties forms the government. That becomes another element of balance (within the Executive Branch) that makes a state and the system more stable. When the two leading parties in the country "“ the PPP and the PML(N) - entered into a coalition, everybody in Pakistan was happy at the prospects of lasting political stability. That the coalition broke up in a few months, on the issue of betrayal of trust (not honouring pledges to restore the judges within the agreed time frame) makes the task of restoring trust in his Presidency even more onerous.

At the moment, even those who have little faith or trust in President Asif Zardari, want him to succeed. He has displayed grit, determination, steadfastness and resilience to transform himself from a politician to a statesman. He is secure in the highest office of the state for a period of five years. He has the authority to appoint or remove from office every member of the political executive, and higher echelons of the military and the bureaucracy. The only power he needs to relinquish is the power to dismiss the assemblies. The President should be able to order a re-shuffle on report of inefficiency or misconduct at the centre and through Governors in the province. The term of an assembly cut short and early elections held only on the advice of the Prime Minister, or concerned Chief Minister. Too many and too frequent changes to the Constitution does not auger well for a country. I am not for revoking the 17^th Amendment; I am for repealing the changes resulting from promulgation of emergency on November 3 and for amendment to Article 58(2) b as outlined above.