The current political situation is quite interesting and probably the most dynamic it has been in years.
On the one hand you have the PPP and its leader Ms Bhutto who is desperate to do a deal with General Musharraf (who is even more desperate to do a deal with almost anyone), so that all cases against her are dropped and she is allowed to become the PM for a third-term.
On the other hand you have Nawaz Sharif who is adamant not to do any deal with Gen Musharraf, however, he does not seem to have the kind of votes in Parliament anyway that would make him worthy of a deal. Currently, he holds the moral high ground, but I feel it is not out of choice, but by default.
Then there is the Q-League, which is full of eccentric and interesting characters. You have one of the wittiest and most engaging of speakers in Sheikh Rasheed. A complete opposite is Chaudhry Shujaat who is indecipherable.
The Chaudhry’s are probably the most uncertain as to what needs to be done vis-a-vis the deal. They were completely against the Sharif’s coming, absolutely certain their position in Punjab would be threatened. Now that the Sharif’s are coming the Chaudhry’s are considering engaging them in order to solve their dilemma.
Chaudhry Shujaat is someone who can see that his importance in the political arena has already faded and is now trying to make himself look important by issuing statements like, ‘The Sharif’s can come whenever and wherever’. I am sure the Sharif’s know that already, plus they probably never felt the need to ask Chaudhry Shujaat once the SC court gave them persmission.
Anyway, here is a report that the talks have stalled because the Chaudhry is in no mood to support any amendment to allow Benazir to become PM for the third-time. To be honest, I agree. By allowing an amendment now would mean that PPP is coming into power anyway. That might undermine the entire election process. The ‘deal’ has no real guarantees and this may be an insurmountable hurdle for Mush-BB talks.
* PML won’t back amendment to allow third-term PM
* Shujaat says only 9pc, not 90pc issues agreed, wants uniform to stayBy Sharif Khan and Rana Qaisar
ISLAMABAD: The ongoing dialogue between President General Pervez Musharraf and PPP Chairwoman Benazir Bhutto hit a snag on Thursday, after the PML leadership refused to support a constitutional amendment to pave the way for Benazir to become prime minister for a third term.
Sources told Daily Times that the “Chaudhrys of Gujarat” – PML President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi – and other PML leaders told the president at a meeting at Aiwan-e-Sadr that they would not support a proposed constitutional package to remove the bar on prime ministers serving a third term.
After the president briefed the meeting on the proposed deal with Benazir, the PML leadership told the president that party legislators were against any constitutional amendment which would prove to be their “political demise”. Chaudhry Shujaat told the president that his party would neither prepare such a package nor support its passage through parliament.
“We told the president that principally these talks should have been conducted after the general elections keeping in view the performance of all the parties. This strategy would have enabled the president to easily choose which party to hold talks with. But if this amendment is made, now the talks are on, there will be a general perception that the PPP has been given a walkover by the president, which would bring about the political demise of the PML. Why should our shoulders be used to hoist the PPP chairwoman?” said a source privy to the meeting.
The source said that the Chaudhrys told the president that they had backed him on each and every issue throughout the past seven years. “Now the PML legislators have a feeling that the president has abandoned them by holding talks with their rival party,” the source quoted the PML leadership as saying.
Sources said the PML leadership also opposed any legislation to remove Article 58(2b) and advised the president not to doff his uniform. “We told him to take a decision on his uniform as per the law and Constitution. He can hold two office till December,” Shujaat told reporters after the meeting.
The presidency is also believed to be reluctant to shed Article 58(2b), in view of the “autocratic mindset” of both past prime ministers Benazir and Nawaz Sharif.
Shujaat said he explained to the president that a deal with Benazir would damage the PML. He brushed aside the impression that 90 percent of the issues between the government and PPP had been settled. “Only nine percent is through. The team in London is not authorised to sign a deal … nothing is final,” he said.
The meeting was also attended by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Farooq Leghari, Hamid Nasir Chattha and the chief ministers of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan.
Daily Times has learnt that the president is considering another option, that the prime minister dissolve parliament and call new elections within the next two months. In this way the president in uniform can preside over the next elections and try and get elected president from the next parliament.
Agencies add: Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani told reporters that that Gen Musharraf had not yet decided to step down as army chief before the upcoming presidential election, as claimed by Benazir. “No decision has been made,” Durrani said. “When he will decide, he will announce it.”
However, he stopped short of denying that Musharraf was prepared to step down as part of a possible agreement. “So far as dialogue is concerned, there can be discussion on everything,” he said, but added that the issue of Musharraf’s military uniform “will be decided by the president himself. If anyone else says something about this, it is just their own opinion.”
Durrani said the government was not considering any proposal to remove Article 58(2b) from the Constitution.
Naveed Siddiqui adds: He said the government had also not decided whether to arrest or stop Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz on their return to Pakistan. “Legal and constitutional experts and the federal government are considering the pros and cons of the Supreme Court verdict with reference to Sharif brothers and anything can happen to them as per the law of the land,” Durrani told Daily Times.
it’s saddening to me that after all the good, the bad, and the ugly of the musharraf years, the political options before us remain the same.
Political options are born out of continued political process. The reason we have the same options is because Musharraf’s military intervention froze the political process.
The stalling of the talks shows that BB was not being as unprincipled as her detractors have been painting her. If she was really desperate to have a dea at any price, she would have accepted Musharraf in uniform. Her refusal to do that shows she wants an arrangement but not at any price
Ayman, you are quite right about the uniform issue. Even though my personal opinion is that if she had agreed to Musharraf running for President in uniform that would have been political suicide. I think then she wouldn’t have needed to go back to Pakistan.
However, the talks in this case haven’t stalled due to any principled stand that BB may have taken, but due to the stand taken by the Chaudhry’s. The PML-Q leadership says:
“We told the president that principally these talks should have been conducted after the general elections keeping in view the performance of all the parties. This strategy would have enabled the president to easily choose which party to hold talks with. But if this amendment is made, now the talks are on, there will be a general perception that the PPP has been given a walkover by the president, which would bring about the political demise of the PML. Why should our shoulders be used to hoist the PPP chairwoman?”
i wonder though: what sort of political process did musharraf freeze? was it one that held any promise? we’d already had sharif and bhutto twice each. they were most certainly not interested in creating more options for pakistani citizens. i don’t condone the coup, but i think we have to look further back to identify when pakistani politics was frozen.
and i just don’t understand how bhutto - or sharif for that matter - can even be considered viable options today, in 2007. it seems completely irrelevant to me whether or not bhutto’s negotiations with a dictator are principled or not.
the bottom line is surely this: she has failed twice - as has sharif. doesn’t this outweigh everything? what has she done - really done - to redeem herself? begun negotiations to reclaim power? how can we justify considering, let alone electing, her - or him - again?
Neither Sharif, nor BB has done anything to redeem themselves. However, by virtue of them being the only topic of discussion, it is clear that, excluding the “eccentric and interesting characters” of the PML, no better option has presented itself. At the risk of stating the obvious, it could be some time before Pakistan has a true leader.
i appreciate the point you’re making, saji, and i understand we must be practical here. i think it’s true that bhutto and sharif - and their respective parties - are the most realistic candidates. i just find that extremely disappointing - as do others, i’m sure.
the lack of leadership development, and the lack of spaces for leadership to develop, in pakistan has worried me for some time. we must try to understand the factors behind this.
is it that there is no leadership potential amongst pakistani citizens? i refuse to believe that is the case - again, i’m sure others feel the same as i do. in this regard, the fact that bhutto and sharif are “the only topic of discussion” and “no better option has presented itself” is very revealing, i think.
who is generating, framing, and conducting this discussion on pakistan’s future? we can immediately say that it is the bearers of power in pakistani society - the ones with control over our government, our economy, our information, our culture.
more specifically, we can identify bureaucrats, industrialists, corporate executives, landowners, military officers, bankers and financiers, the mass media. there is much overlap here, and this concentration of power is the heart of the issue, i think.
as long as this persists, the discussion will always be managed, censored, or discontinued as the power-bearers see fit - they will sometimes act subtly, sometimes not so much. the options that exist, the ready leaders waiting for us to recognise them, will never be given a chance to present themselves.
in the comments above, the point was made that the processes of pakistan’s political development have been frozen. having thought about it some more, i think it might be more accurate to say that these processes have not been entirely frozen, but managed in the interests of a few. so, this would mean that things have not stagnated; they have gotten worse. i feel that this is also true for the processes of pakistan’s social and cultural development. and i imagine this will continue to be the case as long as no sustainable spaces for popular participation emerge - or are allowed to emerge - within these processes.
There is certainly no lack of leadership potential among Pakistani citizens. At the risk of sounding cynical, the reason Pakistan’s best and brightest aren’t stepping forth is because the office of president heralds very little glory at the moment. Blaire, Bush et. al. may be hated in their respective countries, but there are not semi-regular assassination attempts on them. It’s depressing for me to think, but it’s not “leadership potential” that citizens lack, but rather motive. Or, in the vast, vast majority of the cases, funds. So much potential is lost when 25% of the country is born into extreme poverty. We’re caught in a quandary, because without a great leader, there will be no change, and without change, there will be no great leader.
I’ve depressed myself enough for one night.