Daily Times

The arguments against the peace process are tenable, but the pro-peace talks lobby extends some equally reasonable arguments. One, the agenda of talks enjoys popular legitimacy as pro-peace political parties were voted into power. Two, holding negotiations with militants might aid in splintering the hydra-headed TTP, as for some militants, political reintegration might outweigh the pursuit of suicidal campaigns.

No doubt, in a democratic polity, the will of the people must always hold primacy, but the policy-making process to implement that will must be consensual, transparent and accountable.

Luckily, Pakistan has been able to put behind its tragic past when brutal dictators and their civilian protégés ruled, and when elected civilian governments were not allowed to complete their tenure. The democratic process evolved in Pakistan when politicians realised that political vendettas and pursuit of a zero sum game benefits the anti-democratic forces; the understanding of this fact thwarted the attempts of anti-democratic elements to scuttle the fragile democratic process, and that spirit of reconciliation enabled the civilian government to complete its first term in 67 years of the country’s existence.

Now another step needs to be taken: the ruling government as well as opposition must understand that the problems of Pakistan are not only multiple but also complex, and can only be tackled by formulation of nuanced policy frameworks, not in drawing rooms of politicians or GHQ, but through parliamentary committees. The committees are the best mechanism for forging consensus on intractable policy issues, where parliamentarians, reflecting the authority of the people, reach across the political divide by accepting the fact that people on the other side also embody the will of the electorate. Thus, empowering the parliamentary party to formulate the peace negotiation strategy can accrue two important benefits: the process of holding peace negotiations would be accountable and the policy-making role would be centred in the hands of civilian authorities. That said, in established democracies, the armed forces remain subservient to the civilian leadership as war policy springs out of political policy.

To carry out peace negotiations with the Taliban in a democratic manner, the government must vest the task of peace negotiations to a parliamentary committee, consisting of members of both opposition parties and the governing party. This parliamentary committee might hold discussions with different stakeholders, including the armed forces and non-elected forces, to understand the nitty-gritty of talks. To begin with, the parliamentary committee would need to comprehend the groupings, affiliates, ideological dispensations, recruiting areas and sources of funding of different militant groups. To put it simply, an important component of negotiation strategy formulation is to understand the party sitting on the other side of the table fully. Then, the members of the committee must also review the military strategy to understand the successes and reverses of military campaigns to incorporate those lessons in the negotiation strategy. After understanding all these issues, the parliamentary committee would be able to give shape to a creative negotiation strategy.

At the time of formulation of the negotiation agenda, the parliamentary committee must also hold discussions on the exit strategy to take care of fallouts arising from the failure of peace talks with the Taliban. The exit strategy would help the democratic government in saving face, as the repercussions of failed peace negotiations might not only prove costly for the government and other pro-peace opposition parties, but might also challenge the legitimacy of the democratic process.

Having said this, the government is, unfortunately, using the network of religious clerics rather than the forum of a parliamentary committee to pursue peace talks. It is a dangerous approach and would lack the transparency and accountability characteristic of a democratic polity. Thus, in case of the failure of the talks, if and when they are begun, conspiracy theorists would have a heyday while the democratic policy making process would suffer the most.

(Concluded)

The writer is a research analyst based in Lahore