Judging by the customary measures, the country seems to have fallen into decrepitude. The economy is stagnant and unyielding, corruption is rampant and blatant, governance is wayward and indiscreet, law and order are in a state of breakdown, and the citizen’s life and possessions have become insecure. Prices have been mounting, real incomes have been falling, and individuals have a hard time putting food in front of their children, not to speak of their ability to pay for their healthcare and education. Ideological extremists continue to blast away their explosives and kill innocent bystanders. Institutions of the state and society, other than the higher judiciary, are disabled and some of them have been placed in opposition to one another. Peace and tranquillity have a decisive impact on the economy. Persons with money will not invest in this country if they cannot have security of life and property. It is a known fact that industrialists have been taking their assets out and investing or installing them in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The potential for economic development is considerable but it is not being actualised because the environment is inhospitable. The breakdown of order does not arise merely from the inadequacy of law enforcement agencies. We are in the midst of something like a civil war in Karachi and insurrections in Balochistan and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Nearly 10,000 Taliban have reportedly infiltrated Karachi and they are poised to disrupt the political and social order in the city. They have no interest in the preservation of Pakistan and its wellbeing. They want to take over and remake it in their own image. The army has had some success in eradicating them but the campaigns against them and their allies such as al Qaeda remain to be concluded. What is then to be done? Intolerance of the dissident is a contributing factor in the spread and continuance of domestic violence. We cannot ask players in the arena of politics to stop opposing one another. That would be to ask them to quit the craft of politics. They may continue to contest elections but they must learn to respect the mandate that each side may have received. The politics of boycotts, walkouts and fistfights should yield to debate in the assemblies in the course of which participants may incorporate in their positions the sensible elements in the stand of their rivals. Principles may not be abandoned but the specific means of implementing them must remain open to negotiation and compromise. It is good to remember the old maxim that politics cease at the water’s edge. That is where we as a people are. Recall in this connection the assertion of our army spokesmen that we are in a state of war. It is time for the leaders of political parties to come together, take stock of the crises facing the country, and figure out the imperatives of survival. It is essential also that they expel gangsters, extortionists and killers from their ranks. Politicians virtually without exception assert from the public platform that the rule of law should prevail, and further that each of the public institutions should work within its own designated space. It so happens that the constitution authorises the Supreme Court to take cognizance of wrongdoing in various departments of the government and order corrections. It may thus restrain the executive from action that is arbitrary or capricious. The executive does not like to be restrained. President Zardari wants to do whatever whim, passion, self-interest (and occasionally good sense) may demand. He might be cited for contempt of court, but it is hard to see if any agency of the government can hold him to account and impose penalties on him. The federal government under Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf is willing to honour and implement the court’s directives, but he cannot force the president to do the same. We hope that the present situation will change after the next election. The Supreme Court has instructed the government to prosecute General Aslam Beg, the former army chief and General Asad Durrani, the former ISI head, for their interference in the election of 1990. In addition, it has asked the FIA to investigate the conduct of three retired lieutenant generals who are alleged to have misused public funds when they were holding civilian posts. These actions have anguished the army, which, in its own reckoning, is fighting a war. The thought that the sacrifices it has made for the country are not duly appreciated irritates it. These concerns were implicit in a statement that General Kayani issued a couple of weeks ago. It provoked the Rawalpindi Bar Association to denounce the general in vile language, which further complicates the relations between the army and the judiciary. Judges in Pakistan tend to be expansive. In their judgments, they offer opinions and comments on external issues relating to governance and the social order. These commentaries and strictures, which have no binding effect, get mixed up with the essence of the court’s holdings and directives. This operational style leads to ambiguity, even confusion, and in my view, it should be avoided. The army’s anguish over public criticism of some of its officers deserves sympathetic consideration. It is indeed making sacrifices. Thousands of its officers and men have laid down their lives in safeguarding the nation’s frontiers and vital interests. Some wrongdoing takes place in all institutions and the army should not be expected to be wholly free of them. Institutions where wrongdoing does take place are chastised. The army cannot be an exception to this rule. I am inclined to endorse the ancient Greek maxim that excess even of virtue is to be avoided. Ideological extremism is particularly subversive of society’s good order. In the Islamic as well as secular ethic, moderation is recommended as the wiser course of action. Militant extremists such as the Taliban and al Qaeda are working to destroy the ongoing political and social order in Pakistan. It is in our enlightened self-interest to combat and defeat these movements. It should be noted that extremism is a state of mind cultivated by preachers and other ideologues. Their influence may decline with the spread of education, which enables people to begin to understand that ground realities may be seen from a variety of perspectives, all of which may be efficacious. The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net