These are difficult times for Pakistan. The country is facing three inter-related challenges — terrorism, economic relapse and poor governance. The PPP-led coalition government started with two advantages: a clear democratic mandate in the February elections and an army that is willing to give space to the new government to establish its credibility.The government should have used these advantages to address national issues in a coherent and comprehensive manner. However, it has not been able to fully utilise these advantages. The emphasis has been on deflecting pressure rather than evolving a long-term strategy.The government is also finding it difficult to sustain broad-based support of opposing political circles. Having withdrawn from the ruling coalition, the PMLN is playing as a tough opposition, even though it shares power with the PPP in the Punjab. The JUIF has been a reluctant supporter and member of the coalition to maximise its political gains; it does not support the government-backed military operations in the tribal areas.Islamic militancy and terrorism are the most serious threats to Pakistan’s internal security and stability. The groups based mainly, but not exclusively, in the tribal areas want to paralyse and undermine the Pakistani state in order to create an administrative domain to pursue their agenda. The government has extended full support to the army to conduct operations against these elements; the ANP government in NWFP and the MQM both support this policy.However, the consensus starts faltering beyond these circles. Islamist political parties and other right-wing pro-militancy political circles openly support the Taliban and describe them as ‘friends’ of Pakistan who must be supported because they are fighting against the American occupation of Afghanistan. They describe Taliban-sponsored attacks and suicide bombings in Pakistan as legitimate retaliation to Pakistan’s use of force against them.Nawaz Sharif and his PMLN oppose military action against the Taliban, and have an ambiguous stance on suicide bombings, which amounts to condoning these acts. They share the perspective of the Islamist parties, that Pakistan’s involvement in the US-led war on terror does not serve the Pakistani agenda.The PPP government is unable or unwilling to recognise that terrorism and internal security issues cannot be separated from the partisan interests of these parties. Therefore, as long as political wrangling continues, and these parties drift in different directions, they will not endorse the government policy.Despite the PMLN’s strong Islamist tilt, it would have support military action if it had been part of the coalition government. The PPP’s refusal to restore all superior court judges, dismissed November 3, 2007 by Pervez Musharraf, led the PMLN to quit the coalition. The PMLN’s refusal to endorse government policy on counterterrorism is payback for the PPP’s treatment of the judges issue. PMLN support would have also helped control the political fallout of Islamist parties’ opposition.The opposition to military action by the PMLN and Islamist parties has encouraged a number of other groups and individuals to take issue with the government’s counterterrorism policy.A good number of prominent retired senior military officers (including those who served under Musharraf), business groups, and leaders of public opinion take varying degrees of exception to military action in the tribal areas. An increasing number of people are expressing strong anti-American sentiments and describing the war on terror as an exclusively American war. This has weakened the consensus on controlling terrorism and made the government’s task more complex.The task of the opposition is facilitated by the intensification of economic problems and the inability of the ruling coalition to improve governance. As the people, especially politically active circles, get alienated from the government, they are likely to pay more attention to the opposition’s perspectives on issues of national importance.One can trace the roots of Pakistan’s current economic relapse to the days of Musharraf, whose economic wizards could not salvage the Pakistani economy despite the availability of liberal economic assistance from the West after 9/11. Consumerism was promoted through easy consumer finance. This created artificial prosperity, which began to falter in 2007, with Musharraf still in power.However, the PPP government did not pay serious attention to salvaging the economy in the early stages of its rule. The first finance minister, Ishaq Dar of the PMLN, was keener on highlighting the deficiencies of the inherited economy than on rectifying them. His statements weakened domestic and external confidence in the economy. After his exit from the ministry, the PPP did not assemble a credible economic team. In fact, some of its officials further weakened confidence in the economy by making ill-considered statements.A banker has now been roped in to help the economy, and especially secure a financial lifeline from international financial institutions and donors. However, the similarities of his banking career with Shaukat Aziz’s will haunt him unless he proves through action that he has a better understanding of the situation.The present government failed utterly to stop the flight of capital from Pakistan. This shows the lack of confidence of Pakistan’s wealthiest classes in the PPP government, which appears to have made no attempt to stall this trend.The government, failing to cope with governance challenges, failed to demonstrate that it was working towards improving the life of ordinary Pakistanis. The poor management of the price structure of essential goods, and the shortages of electricity indicated the government’s helplessness. Take the example of the electricity bills mishap. The government announced a 31 percent rise in electricity price. However, the new bills showed a 50 to 100 percent rise. Either the billing process was mismanaged or people were not told about the actual price hike. When this caused unrest, the government agreed to give a 40 percent rebate.Good governance implies that a government is able to anticipate the implications of a policy measure and take precautionary measures in advance to avoid negative fallout. The government should have anticipated the reaction to such a significant increase in electricity rates. Unfortunately, there has been no inquiry into the billing mishap. Another example of poor governance is the petrol supply and petrol stations in Lahore. Very few of them sell petrol at the price fixed by the government, and instead increase it by ten to thirty paisas per litre on their own. These rates are left unchecked by the government.Those in power should take their jobs seriously to stall the current political drift as well as the economic decline. The government must also adopt measures to demonstrate that it is really committed to the welfare of the people. The mandate of the general election needs to be reinforced through the elected government’s performance. The government cannot rely on the legacy of the Musharraf government to cover up its lack of direction and initiative any more. Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst