Daily Times

In a democracy, difference of opinion between the ruling and opposition parties is a natural phenomenon whereas disharmony and confrontation between the organs of the state can be detrimental to the national interest. Once again, the PPP and the PML-N — two major political parties — are on a collision course, oblivious to the dangers ahead. When Mian Nawaz Sharif said that he would support democracy but not corruption, he meant President Asif Ali Zardari beyond any shadow of a doubt. For Mian Sahib, third-time premiership is a matter of life and death, whereas Zardari has procrastinated on foregoing 58(2)(B) and undoing the 17th Amendment. Unfortunately, there appear to be no integrating forces, no unified meaning and no vision to lead us out of the blind alley. It is times like this that the role of leaders assumes great importance. Nevertheless, the recent statement of President Asif Ali Zardari that he respected the judiciary, and all the decisions of the court would be implemented in letter and spirit, was reassuring. However, addressing the gathering at Naudero on the second death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto, he sounded bitter when he said: “Non-state actors were trying to break up Pakistan and institutions were being pitted against each other, but every sacrifice would be made to protect democracy.”
Of course, instead of reacting angrily he should try to remove misunderstandings between the institutions. There is a perception that his statements such as “Pakistan has no threat from India” and thanking John Kerry and the US government without going through the contents of the Kerry-Lugar bill were reasons for tension between him and the military leadership. It is true that a section of the press is up to some mischief, which is also obvious from the reporting of his address at Naudero. Newspapers of a particular group carried stories with provocative headlines whereas others did objective reporting because he was addressing as co-chairman of his party and not President of Pakistan. When he warned those who destroyed institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, anybody with common sense can understand that he meant the Americans, but a section of the press suggested that his entire speech was against the army and the judiciary, which is not true. The media’s role should be confined to exposing the corrupt practices of government functionaries, and under no circumstances it should pass judgments.
Of late, media in Pakistan have started playing a campaigner’s role, and at least one media group has resorted to character assassination of the president although members of other political parties are corruption-tainted in equal measure. They ignore the fact that during 1988-1999, both the PPP and the PML-N governments had instituted cases against each other, and leaders of both the parties had admitted that those cases were politically motivated. The question is why the PPP members are being singled out and targeted? The answer is simple. The PML-N was overthrown in October 1999, and its leaders had got most cases quashed from the courts except the Hudaybia Mills case. The new case was one of hijacking of a plane instituted by the Musharraf government, on which Mian Nawaz Sharif was convicted, and the rest is history. Since the PML-Q remained in power from 2002 till 2007, therefore nobody dared to file cases against its members. But it is none of their business to demand the resignation of PPP ministers. Nobody resigns on the basis of mere allegations.
Pakistan is in the throes of ethnic, sectarian and tribal violence and there are threats to its internal and external security. Hapless millions are suffering from unemployment, ever-rising prices of essential commodities and exorbitant utility tariffs. It should have been the top priority for the ruling party, opposition parties and the judiciary to put their act together to give relief to the deprived sections of society. The problem is that these hapless teeming millions do not figure in the scheme of things of the ruling elite. More and more people are being pushed below the poverty line giving rise to hunger, disease, crime and terrorism. In these circumstances, a messy showdown between the ruling and the opposition parties or confrontation between the executive and the judiciary could be disastrous. Every patriotic Pakistani is pained to see the prevailing situation, as he had expected that after the 2008 elections, the PPP and the PML-N leaders would learn from their past mistakes and work in unison to meet the challenges facing the nation. But that was not to be.
Despite the vow by the PML-N leaders not to destabilise the PPP government at the centre, they continue to tread the beaten track of the 1990s. The reason for this intolerance is that the PPP, PML-N and PML-Q are being run as ‘dynasties’ or private limited companies. They neither hold genuine elections in their parties nor do they allow an ‘outsider’ to head the party even if he is more experienced and imaginative. Since the political elite is not inclined to establish democracy within their respective parties, it is unlikely that democratic traditions could flourish and new leadership could emerge. It has arrogated to itself the role of kings, and looks down upon capable bureaucrats and generals. It is true that according to the constitution, government servants and army personnel have to obey the orders of the government, but they are supposed to advise the president, prime minister and their ministers on important issues as they have many years’ experience in running the affairs of the state. In a democracy, the system of civil service had been tailored because, more often than not, uneducated, filthy-rich feudal or industrial robber barons reach the corridors of power. They neither have political acumen nor are familiar with statecraft.
Coming back to the role of the media one would like to observe that it has played an important role for freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary. But recently a sizable section of media has been a source of confusion in the country. Barring a few honourable examples, most media persons cross all limits. These urban-centric anchorpersons and their ‘brilliant’ panelists remain preoccupied with proving each and every act of the government wrong. Media men are not supposed to be sentimental or become a party to partisan conflict because by doing so they lose their credibility. In fact, people have started showing their disdain for talk shows.
If one looks back to the 1970s and 1980s, the media had an undeclared code of ethics, and even self-projection of reporters was considered taboo. Of course, some right-thinking persons have started a debate over how a section of the media is resorting to media trial of leaders of a particular party. They, however, do not support any retaliation from the government side and suggest restraint. They believe that those involved in unethical practices and discrimination would stand exposed.
It must be mentioned that the PML-N leaders in the past had a damaged image. During their tenure they were in a confrontational mode with the then president, chief justice and chief of the army staff. But now they claim to be champions of the independence of the judiciary. PPP leaders argue that some political forces want to mire the present government in a messy showdown with the judiciary and the armed forces in order to pave their way to the corridors of power. Instead of believing in conspiracy theories and reacting reflexively, the PPP should try to mend fences with other organs of the state by showing mutual respect. And this will be their best revenge.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com