"All matters must be decided in the parliament"
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed
The News on Sunday: How do you view the news reports about some forces trying to get the order of the restoration of CJP reversed?
Justice (r) Tariq Mehmood: It would be the most unfortunate thing to happen if we do not learn anything from what we have been through already. Instead of hatching conspiracies, the PPP government should have said it has realised what the priorities of the people are. Unfortunately it made it a matter of ego.

media
Balance or power
The critical issue is whether media is being hailed for efficiency or being complimented for partisanship?
By I. A. Rehman
The media, specially its electronic component, has received enthusiastic applause for its contribution to the success of the campaign for the restoration of judges. In particular, the media coverage of the Long March on March 15 has been unreservedly acclaimed. All this is honey to the media people's ears.

ppp
Is the party over?
The way the PPP has dealt with key issues, it has only managed to become a vanguard for status quo
By Adnan Rehmat
The Pakistan People's Party has many strengths: it is a survivor having surmounted some vicious witch-hunts by brutish dictators as well as machinations of more publicly acceptable meanies; it has been owned by the country's armies of the poor; it bravely professes liberal and secular ideals in a conservative milieu; in a man's world it has given the country the leadership of women that even its opponents respect; it proffers ideals and promises that have universal appeal in a multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. And, perhaps, most importantly, in a land where people forget quickly and are even quicker to withdraw support, it has been entrusted by a majority of voting voters no less than five times in the last 35 years to make life better for them even though it has failed them each time.

Deadlocked!
Punjab may stay as a stumbling block in the weeks to come
The power struggle in Punjab has begun anew. All three major political parties -- PML-N, PPP and PML-Q -- are considering 'available options' to form their government in Punjab. Allegations and counter allegations are the order of the day, as members of these parties get involved in a political wrangling of sorts.

Nothing succeeds like success. So we too should celebrate this momentous achievement: a befitting finale to a just struggle; a wrong righted; an anomaly removed.

But, while the restoration of all unlawfully ousted judges is a decision that everyone in this country has every reason to be joyous about, the truth is that we have come back from the brink. A crisis has been averted, no doubt, but the sheer possibility of what could have happened is unnerving.

Reputations have been made and unmade during this crisis. But the situation merits some considered analyses of whether the course opted for was indeed the best; whether such judgments about people and institutions are worthy and permanent; and whether the credits taken are due or not.

The many fathers of this victory include: lawyers, judiciary, political parties, media, military, people of Pakistan. The list has obviously been extended to outside actors based in the US and UK. Hopefully, all these have emerged wiser from the crisis and are better equipped for the challenges ahead.

We begin with the hope that the restoration of judges would preclude the possibility of military coups in the future. The military would take a back seat for the next ten to fifteen years during which this country will find the direction it badly needs.

But need we underestimate the power of the military, considering the role it did play even in the present crisis? After the July 20, 2007, judgement that restored the chief justice, and a little before the November 3 coup when Musharraf's eligibility as a presidential candidate was being questioned in the Supreme Court, the lawyers cried hoarse that another martial law in this country was unthinkable. But we did get one, even if in the name of emergency.

Learning from that particular episode, the political parties must now collectively try to resolve all issues in the parliament instead of overburdening the courts. The present situation demands a constitutional amendment with immediate effect to discourage the likes of Maulvi Iqbal Haider and Shahid Orakzai and by extension Malik Qayyum and Sharifuddin Peerzada. They must remember that Musharraf was eventually ousted through the parliament and not by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Charter of Democracy (CoD) seems to have emerged as a consensus document, to which the major political parties owe allegiance. That should be the starting point for all unresolved issues, including the status of various sets of judges in the existing judiciary. The role of military, the balance of powers between the president and prime minister, the appointment of chief election commissioner must each be decided according to the CoD. Thereafter, the constitution of Pakistan must replace it as the prime document to run the affairs of the state.

On its part, the judiciary will now have to think about how to sustain the course of its independence beyond the first stage i.e. restoration which has been effected now. The media will have to think about how to stay efficient and non-partisan in the future. It will have to ask itself if it is okay to always blame the government of high-handedness when it has failed to evolve a code of ethics of its own.

Among the political parties, the PML-N has emerged not just as an upholder of righteousness but as a resistance party, something it wasn't exactly known for before. But it too has to ask itself if agitating the streets against a democratically elected set-up in this manner was justified and whether it had exhausted all other options of dialogue?

PPP, the major loser in this crisis, must initiate a serious introspection. By going against the wishes of the people, it did put majority of its own supporters in an uncomfortable position. Can it survive as a unified party in the presence of the existing mechanism of decision-making? Considering the enormity of gap that has fallen its way in the absence of Benazir Bhutto, it may well be advised to make the central executive committee a meaningful body where the party takes decisions collectively.

The challenges ahead for various actors are the subject of this Special Report.

So what exactly is the significance of this? The judge who dared the powers that be is back, again. For the record, this is the fifth battle won for Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry against those who have variously belittled him as 'just an individual', 'a PCO judge', and only 'fighting to keep his job'.

Iftikhar Chaudhry's first victory came on July 20, 2007, when the Supreme Court of Pakistan reinstated him by a thumping 10-3 majority, notwithstanding the overt and covert opposition of the then president General Pervez Musharraf. His second victory was the return of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan. Here is what she said in a blog post she contributed to Huffington Post on Sep 1, 2007:

"My party was engaged in a dialogue with the regime of General Musharraf, but discussions didn't move the regime concretely towards a democratic reform. In the summer of 2007, after the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the birth of judicial activism, the dialogue with General Musharraf took a more substantive turn…."

His third victory was the routing of Musharraf's political allies in the general election of Feb 18, 2008 - epitomised in the new prime minister ordering an end to his detention on March 24, 2008.

His fourth victory was Musharraf's ouster from power. Irrespective of how some people may want to view it, there is no denying that Musharraf's exit was a corollary of the popular heartburn over his Nov 3 2007 martial law.

So this, his second reinstatement, is his fifth battlefield victory. Will, however, this ever be translated into a war won? That remains to be seen, and there is already talk of the slips betwixt the cup and the lip.

Before we can start wondering as to where to next, we must try and nail down the development itself. Was it an outright victory for the lawyers' movement? Was it an instance of people power winning over the Establishment? Was it a manifestation of the tyranny of the mob? Was it democracy at work, government bowing to the wishes of the people?

Let us own up that for the moment at least, March 16 will continue to be many things to many people, and understandably, too. We are a fragmented nation at best. Party lines are way above the honest views of reality and fossilised viewpoints take precedence over reason. Polarisation is too intense to give way to synthesis just yet.

On the other hand, March 16 seems to have taken on a life of its own - witness the desperate maneuvering on the part of President Zardari to align himself with the movement retrospectively. Can you beat that? Here is a cause that even the presidential palace is eager to get on the right side of, even if in hindsight!

Is that an indication of how the matter will crystallise once the dust kicked up by the multitudes of the Long March settles and the air is clear of the flares and the smokescreens used by the spin doctors serving various interests?

It will crystallise as a victory for Pakistan shared by every political force, every pressure group and, indeed, every family and every individual alive. And there are no provisos here, not ifs and buts.

This is not to say it is going to be smooth sailing from this point on. In all probability, someone somewhere is scheming and plotting right now to take this victory away from the people of Pakistan - to lead it astray, to run it aground, to sabotage it.

However, from the looks of it, those so minded will find that the march of constitutionalism is inexorable. If they lack the prudence to go with the tide, their inevitable lot will be to follow Musharraf down the alley of ignominy. Pakistan has become, and there is no undoing it.

Inevitably, where there is a victory, there is occasion for recognition. Who, then, are our heroes? Actually, it really did take all sorts. The foremost of our warriors, however, were politicians. It is time we remembered Benazir Bhutto, that brilliant politician we lost to bigotry - time we harked back to the Charter of Democracy.

The great majority among us tends to believe it all started with Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's nay to General Musharraf on March 9, 2007. That, however, is not the case. Actually, the D-Day was May 14, 2006, when the Charter was signed in London. The Charter said, among other things:

"No judge shall take oath under any Provisional Constitutional Order or any other oath that is contradictory to the exact language of the original oath prescribed in the Constitution of 1973."

This is how the judicial coup d'état led by Justice Chaudhry was engineered by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, both breaking the bitter bread of forced exile back then. It is no coincidence that all the six authors of the Charter stood by the lawyers' movement through thick and thin - and that one of them, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, continued to be its heart and soul all along. The other five were Raza Rabbani and Dr Safdar Abbasi of the PPP; and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Ahsan Iqbal and Ishaq Dar of the PML-N.

Also justifying top honours for politicians for this victory is Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. We all know how he ended the judges' detention first thing after being elected to the prime ministerial office. His role in arriving at the final resolution of the matter is no secret either.

Next on the roll of honour should be our bench and bar, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry being the foremost among the lot. The importance to the movement of Justice Chaudhry's valiant stand of March 9, 2007 - an act unprecedented in our history up until that time - cannot be overemphasised. However, his daring would have been in vain had not the bench and the bar rallied behind him.

The media took it up from that point - probably even before that; for lawyers across Pakistan depended for their information on the media as much as the rest of us did. In particular, our electronic media did a wonderful job of bridging the information gap by overcoming the literacy barrier.

Who can forget that reprehensible image of a cop pulling the Chief Justice by the hair - shot by a budding photojournalist? Who can forget the pictures of women activists being thrashed and humiliated? Who can forget the pitched battles fought between the police in full right gear on the one side and lawyers and activists on the other? Who can forget the storming of the Geo offices by uniformed thugs - just because Geo was beaming their heinous deeds for the world to see?

And who can discount the role the righteous anger we all felt over it all had to play in rallying us behind the struggle? For, we all did indeed rally behind it. Restoration of the judiciary was one of the rare issues over which the majority of Pakistanis transcended all social, political, economic and ethnic divides.

Urban yuppies and cabbies, housewives and 'activist women clad in designer sunglasses', corporate executives and day labourers, posh schoolchildren and nerdy tech-types - we all chipped in picketing, rallying, chanting slogans, organising instant mobs, blogging, discussing, pressing on.

Finally, the Long March would not have turned out the way it did were it not for the silent but vital contribution from our military leadership. We are so given to seeing the military in a bad light that we cannot at once discern when it plays a positive role.

True, there have been reports of General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani's frantic shuttling between the President and the Prime Minister as the drama surrounding the Long March drew to a close. It has been remarked that the Chief of Army Staff employed suasion for the solution that finally surfaced, but precious little besides has been said.

Knowing what we know of our military, it is safe to assume that General Kayani enjoyed unconditional backing of his top brass. Also, one may say, our military leadership takes a strategic view of any given situation. Can we grant, then, that the military used suasion from a strategic viewpoint? If yes, the era of military adventurism in the name of national security may well have come to an end. For, our military supported the cause of constitutionalism with full knowledge of its consequence.

The return of Justice Chaudhry cannot fail to put a question mark on Musharraf's second martial law; no one can be under an illusion as to this - least of all our military. By weighing on the side of the constitution and the law, is our military attempting to block the way of future adventurism by military leaders? Why the hell not?

All things considered, we cannot be far from becoming a working democracy, and high time, too. Pakistan is a nuclear power, not a banana republic. Abandoning Pakistan to arbitrary rule can spell doom for the world. Let the law reign supreme here and we can start working with the rest of the world to build a safer, orderly tomorrow.

From street to parliament

Dubbed by the PML-N leadership as Pakistan's Orange Revolution, the Long March culminated in Mian Nawaz Sharif addressing a huge gathering of an excited mob of party workers and making the glorious declaration that Pakistan had "changed today".

"This success is only the first step; we've a lot left to do," he boomed. "I congratulate the entire nation on the restoration of the judiciary. Now you should brace yourself for a fight with this rotting system."

Political analysts also view the Long March as a milestone but, at the same time, believe it has exposed the weaknesses of state institutions like the Parliament.

According to Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi, renowned political analyst, apparently the pressure of the masses forced the government to change its stance on judiciary; but actually it was the Army Chief who influenced the decision.

"It (the decision) has further strengthened the army clout in Pakistan. It has also given a chance to the political leadership of the country to return to parliament, their true platform, where they should address their issues within the democratic framework.

"These are crucial times for us," added Dr Rizvi. "We can either be led towards true democracy or towards a complete chaos. If the political parties have come to believe that the parliament is of secondary importance and that amassing people on the streets is a shortcut to resolving issues, it is a very dangerous tendency."

Senator Raja Zafarul Haq, Chairman PML-N, talking to TNS, rejected such notions as misleading, "We have said categorically that the Long March was not meant to destabilise the government. If a 'third force' had tried to intervene, we would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the other political forces around.

"Mian Nawaz Sharif has already announced that he wants the (present) government to complete its tenure. We are not demanding mid-term elections."

The senator added that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani had invited the Sharif brothers to discuss all legislative and administrative issues across the table. "We only demand a revision of the Seventeenth Amendment and other constitutional reforms through the parliament. The ball now is in the government's court. We want the government to implement the Charter of Democracy in its true spirit and make all appointments including that of the Chief Election Commissioner accordingly."

Raza Zafarul Haq also calls for bringing on board the smaller parties as well as those that boycotted the Feb-18 elections.

The smaller parties, on the other hand, it seems are not happy with the role the PML-N played on March 15. "We were not taken into confidence that the March was being called off; it was a one-sided affair," says Farooq Tariq, spokesperson of Labour Party Pakistan (LPP), talking to TNS.

According to Farooq, Nawaz Sharif did not apprise his allies of the change of plan, "He was due at GPO Chowk where he was supposed to address the masses, but he headed towards G T Road without informing us."

He says that the LPP only received a message of thanks from the lawyers' side; nothing more nor less. "Both the PPP and the PML-N were too caught up with their own apprehensions (about the Long March). Both are capitalistic parties and cannot afford the mobilisation of the masses beyond a certain point. Nawaz Sharif opted for Long March as a last resort and was constantly looking for an opportunity to call it off, because if the masses had reached Islamabad, agitation would be considered the norm -- something the PML-N, too, does not desire."

The LPP leader says the Long March succeeded "only partially. It achieved its purpose (of the restoration of judiciary), but by calling it off abruptly the popular belief in street power was damaged."

Jamaat e Islami (JI), the second largest ally of the PML-N in the Long March, is also not happy with the decision. "A team of lawyers came to see Qazi sahib and it was decided that a national coordination committee would be formed that would consist of representatives of all stakeholders -- the PML-N, the lawyers, Tehreek-e-Insaaf (TI), the JI and the LPP -- before the final call is made," says Liaqat Baloch, Naib Ameer, JI, Pakistan, talking to TNS. "I was representing the JI but nobody bothered to inform me and the March was cancelled midstream.

"Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar called me later in the night (of March 15) and told me that the PM had agreed to restore judges. They also talked to Qazi sahib and it was decided that nothing less than the restoration of judiciary to its Nov-2 position would be acceptable. The next strategy was to be announced after the PM's speech. But nobody contacted us later, and, before we knew, the lawyers' leadership as well as the PML-N had called off the March."

Liaqat Baloch does not buy the fact that the Long March achieved its goals. "It weakened the government to a great extent. Had we stepped up pressure, things would look much better today."

Engineer Amir Muqam, President PML-Q, NWFP chapter, and a sitting MNA, thinks the success of the Long March is democracy's win. "It became possible because of the intervention of the Army Chief and the PM; we shouldn't forget to give them credit.

"Time has proved that PML-Q is not out to grab power; we have stuck to principles and still want to perform our role as an opposition party. But the PPP and the PML-N are causing hindrances."

The News on Sunday: How do you view the news reports about some forces trying to get the order of the restoration of CJP reversed?

Justice (r) Tariq Mehmood: It would be the most unfortunate thing to happen if we do not learn anything from what we have been through already. Instead of hatching conspiracies, the PPP government should have said it has realised what the priorities of the people are. Unfortunately it made it a matter of ego.

I would suggest the rulers to put an end to confrontation and let the institution of judiciary function independently. We have suffered a lot during the last years; there must be an end to all this.

TNS: Do you think that the restoration will bring to an end all the confrontation going on for two years?

TM: You cannot say that the lawyers' movement has achieved all its objectives. I know there is a bumpy road ahead but at the same time I think that a change in the attitude of all the parties to the dispute can make wonders. If we can enter into a truce with militants in Swat, why can't our rulers surrender to the popular and legitimate demand of the masses?

I don't think the rulers have the vision to realise that they cannot withstand public pressure. I have seen the attitude of people change overnight. In the past they would envy people who had huge houses, luxury cars and hefty bank balances but now they honour people who have stuck to their principled stance.

I wish our rulers realise this and stop backing Mr Nobodies who are filing petitions against popular decision. Why is it so that every time these are the same people filing such petitions? No doubt they are only the tools; there are other 'real' forces behind them.

TNS: What role do you foresee for the judiciary in future, considering the high expectations of people?

TM: There should be less pressure on the judges, especially the CJ, and they must be given time to straighten things out. There are many mends to be made internally before the external matters are tackled. Aitzaz has rightly said that the CJ will hopefully not hear NRO and Sharifs' eligibility cases himself. As for Zardari, he must not fear Iftikhar Chaudhry as he himself is an elected president of Pakistan.

To end the politics of confrontation, I think review petition can be heard by a larger bench and decision against Sharifs' eligibility be suspended. This can also be done by sending the case back to the tribunal supposed to hear it.

TNS: What solution do you have in your mind to end this state of confrontation?

TM: My suggestion is that instead of fighting on streets and listening to legal wizards who are always bending the constitution to suit their masters, the matters should be decided in the parliament. I am sure effective legislation can be done within no time to find solutions to so many contentious issues if the government decides to accept restoration decision with an open heart.

I would also praise the media for enabling people to differentiate right from wrong. We have seen many civil servants defy illegal orders even at the risk of losing jobs. I would share it with you that a superintendent of police (SP) in plain clothes offered to take me to Islamabad in his official vehicle during the long march. When I told him that he could lose his job over this, he said he was least concerned about it.

I would also clarify that we have not fought for the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry. Our struggled was aimed at conveying the message across that the people of Pakistan will not tolerate any attack on the independence of judiciary or supremacy of the parliament. Alhamdulillah we have been successful in getting this registered and will keep on resisting any moves against these

The media, specially its electronic component, has received enthusiastic applause for its contribution to the success of the campaign for the restoration of judges. In particular, the media coverage of the Long March on March 15 has been unreservedly acclaimed. All this is honey to the media people's ears.

Only incorrigible cynics will dismiss this praise as undeserved. But when it is said that the media played the leading role in turning the Long March into an all-conquering force, the media will do well by itself to appraise its performance. The critical issue it has to ask itself is whether it is being hailed for efficiency in discharging its duties or whether it is being complimented for partisanship.

The media's conduct in any crisis situation can take a variety of forms. It can be inefficient and non-partisan, or inefficient and partisan, or efficient and partisan, or efficient and non-partisan. The Pakistani readers/audiences are aware of all these forms of media performance. While, theoretically, it is possible to advance efficiency without partisanship as the ideal for a responsible media, adherence to this ideal becomes difficult in a sharply polarised society. Still, media cannot afford to forget that partisanship can sometimes obliterate the distinction between truth and concoction.

It seems, therefore, necessary that Pakistan's media community should adopt the international practice of defining standards that it shall always strive to attain. The need for a code of professional ethics has been under discussion in media circles for quite some time. The recent events have underlined the necessity of expeditiously completing this task.

The Pakistan media has almost always been the victim of excesses by governments, democratic as well as dictatorial, though the former cannot be as highhanded as the latter. (The difference between the two, that should have a bearing on the media's attitude to the two forms of governance, can be realised by comparing the Musharraf regime's ban on TV live coverage and success in throttling Geo for several months and the present government's pathetic attempts to contain Geo News.) As a result, the media has developed a persecution syndrome that has bred an exaggerated feeling of self-righteousness on the one hand, and an aversion to self-criticism on the other hand. Neither can be defended all the time, and the present appears to be a good opportunity for the media to do some soul-searching.

All over the world the dog-bites-man stories are dismissed as hack-work for apprentices while those entitled to bylines in bold letters are stirred only by the scent of a man-bites-dog story. The more enterprising ones do not hesitate, especially in countries such as Pakistan where electronic media is in its adolescence, to conjure up improbable events and developments.

In these countries statements issued all the time by state functionaries, political parties/groups, civil society organisations and eminent individuals are traded as news and views worth reporting. Not all of these people and associations owe their status as experts to their own accomplishments. Quite a few of them owe their position to their availability to media anchors and the latter's somewhat arbitrary decision to treat their words as reportable. In such cases the media is not content to report an event as it would appear to a neutral observer, it determines how that event should be seen by anyone.

While dealing with statements voluntarily made the media is not bound to accommodate all of them uniformly; it exercises its discretion to indicate the status of a statement by the choice of its display and the column-length allotted to it. The media people compromise their editorial prerogative when they ask all kinds of people to give their views on anything and everything under the sun. In such situations the media could invite criticism for manufacturing opinion, which is not the same thing as moulding of the public opinion. The latter exercise only involves marshalling of facts and their interpretation and leaving the conclusion to the people. The media leaders may well ask themselves whether they help the people form their opinions or whether they pass on fully formulated opinions that their audiences should adopt forthwith.

There is considerable confusion as to what is meant by public. There is a tendency among newspaper and TV reporters to hold that the public means only the citizens living in their neighbourhood or passing through it. Quite often the population of villages and urban slums is not elevated to the status of the public.

Similarly, conclusions are sometimes based on partial interviews. For instance, the reaction of a person participating in the Long March could not be taken as the public response to the Long March call because he had made his position clear by joining the procession. A complete assessment demanded inclusion of views of those who did not join the march. Half-truths are often as misleading as falsehood.

Some time ago, criticism of TV anchors who prematurely became experts on all possible issues degenerated into a barren name-calling contest. The grievance against verdicts pronounced on complex issues by poorly informed persons is not unfounded. Nobody should have expected otherwise in a situation created by the obvious failure of plans for human and skill development of communicators to match the exponential explosion of the media facilities. No attempt to muzzle the youthful media persons will be justified as wise or realistic. All human beings, especially politicians and media people, are liable to lose balance after tasting power and both need professional training and some basic lessons in achieving greatness through humility.

During the recent happenings one sometimes came across references in the press as well as on the TV to the need for guarantees from Double A (Army and America). Everybody knows the bitter facts about the Pakistan state. The references to these As were often made in a manner implying approval of their intervention in national politics. This could mean legitimising such interventions in the eyes of the ordinary citizens. No media person indulging in obsequiousness to the traditional agents of extra-constitutional interventions in Pakistan's affairs can in the same breath swear fidelity to democracy.

All these matters can begin to be resolved through a code of ethics based on a broadest possible consensus among all parties concerned. A major stumbling block barring progress in this direction has been the inability of the major stakeholders to see justice and fair play beyond their own concerns or interests. The state conceives of a code of ethics as a means to tame the media in its own favour. The codes incorporated in the Press Council Ordinance and the Pemra laws are glaring examples. The state wants a media that should not only be its slave but should also increase the people's servility to its factotums. The code drafted by the broadcasters suffered from unnecessary deference to the authorities' coarse habits. The working journalists feel no party is giving their views due weight or proper representation on the implementing bodies.

A time has come when media proprietors, editors/professional controllers and working journalists should sit down together and prepare a comprehensive code. Such a code may put less emphasis on don'ts than on the positive features of a free and responsible media, such as truthfulness, balanced coverage of events, separation of editorial comment from objective reporting, and transparency about ideological/political affiliations. No harm in espousing a political party's/government's/association's cause provided a statement about such alignment is on record and partisan requirements are not presented as national imperatives. No small task in a country where the most anti-people operations are defended as dictates of national interest.

The Pakistan People's Party has many strengths: it is a survivor having surmounted some vicious witch-hunts by brutish dictators as well as machinations of more publicly acceptable meanies; it has been owned by the country's armies of the poor; it bravely professes liberal and secular ideals in a conservative milieu; in a man's world it has given the country the leadership of women that even its opponents respect; it proffers ideals and promises that have universal appeal in a multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. And, perhaps, most importantly, in a land where people forget quickly and are even quicker to withdraw support, it has been entrusted by a majority of voting voters no less than five times in the last 35 years to make life better for them even though it has failed them each time.

Understood that more than ideals it is interests that make the world go round but the PPP that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto built seems so far removed from reality today and its image of the defender of the underdog and the fighter of losing causes, and is doing things that are even stretching incredulity. For a party that needs to convince no one of its shining, unmatched history of resisting the Establishment, it is making an art out of maintaining the status quo even as its main (albeit reluctant) political foe steals the thunder from it in articulating the popular sentiment and spearheading causes espousing timeless appeal.

In a democracy the majority party in parliament, or a coalition of a simple majority, gets the right to impose its vision and values even if they run contrary to the views or beliefs of other parties that fail to win the right to access to state resources needed to put them into practice. However, in a democracy, the chief winner comes to power only after being given a mandate. The PPP would have us believe it's the other way round.

The way that the PPP of today has dealt with key issues in its first year in office has ended up converting it into a party that uses state resources in the interests of the establishment -- and worse, personal -- over what is in the interests of the voters it represents. From firming up the independence of judiciary to constitutional reforms and from strengthening the parliament to strengthening the federation, it has spectacularly failed on all these key counts despite having the needed numbers to keep these promises. And, in the process, it has managed to do to itself what Messrs Zia and Musharraf couldn't -- become a vanguard for status quo rather than for change that is sweeping Pakistan.

Granted the PPP went into a tailspin with Benazir's outrageous political elimination but the mandate did not change with her death and the country's most influential political party came out of the larger than life shadow of the charismatic Bhuttos without whom the idea of Pakistan seems so different. And yet a party that has made an art of survival and adapting itself out of setbacks and championing renewal started withering away at the moment that was supposed to be the beginning of a glorious era of change.

Despite generous support from its formidable political rival (let's not forget the rise of the PML-N lies in the failure of the PPP organisation in Punjab), the PPP slipped at what was supposed to be the most golden moment in its history since Bhutto senior's judicial murder: in power after 13 years with a mandate and necessary numbers and support in parliament to restore the original 1973 constitution.

Something must be wrong with a party that does not elect its most respectable and popular leader. While Benazir had few parallels in the whole of the country, leave alone her own party, after her death if it cannot offer up the likes of Raza Rabbani and Aitzaz Ahsan for leadership, especially when they are respected by even their political foes, then why does it surprise us that the party failed its fundamental test of putting itself in the right hands. If spending the numbers of years in jail (whether rightly or wrongly is not even under debate here) is the yardstick by which a politician's leadership qualities and eligibility to lead political parties and countries are measured, then Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a spectacular failure.

For once there wasn't even the lineage issue at hand -- the final legally eligible Bhutto (bar Sanam who is fiercely apolitical) was dead and a non-Bhutto had to be chosen for the first time in the party's life as its leader come what may. Even if Benazir had said Zardari was dependable, it didn't have to be him (after all she was snubbed at her desire of keeping her son out of politics) -- that he has singularly managed to make PPP the most unpopular mainstream party (the recent polls confirm this) within one year goes only to prove this. An under-age Bhutto (Bilawal) was enough at the symbolic helm but why need a proxy-Bhutto in the driver's seat if the party was really as strong and resilient as it was supposed to be?

People vote for political parties that have leaders they believe can deliver for them and kdep their word. Voters trust their leaders as they trust their own family members. If they fail, they lose their right to lead. The political parties are fuelled by voters' trust and must be accountable for keeping their promises and delivering on the mandate given them.

By that yardstick, how many of PPP voters will vote back for the party if elections are held any time soon? It's amazing to see that whenever people have broken away from the PPP, they have largely done so due to in-house differences and for lack of pluralism and dissent within the party. It's even more amazing this time round because ministers and senior office bearers are resigning while in power!

There must be something wrong with a party that keeps its best, brightest and most respected away from the party centre and forces them into the margins. The likes of Aitzaz Ahsan, Raza Rabbani, Safdar Abbasi, Enver Baig, Naheed Khan -- all known for their unflinching loyalty and integrity (they don't even have token corruption cases against them!) even in the times of duress -- have become pariahs and are badmouthed by lesser party mortals. How can a party shun these stalwarts who don't even abandon the party in a huff even when they are decried unlike the lesser likes of Farooq Leghari, Aftab Sherpao and Salman Taseer who went for greener pastures?

A party is as good as the promises it keeps and helps create and facilitate conditions in which the people can tap opportunities to keep pace with change and retain the edge they need to get ahead in life. A party that stands for (intentionally, inadvertently or out of carelessness) the status quo cannot last long.

The last time the PPP was in power there were 15 million fewer Pakistanis and now 65 per cent of Pakistanis are under 18 (the voting age) who do not have any recollection of Benazir in action (they only saw her for a few weeks in late 2007 before she was killed) or of Nawaz Sharif in power. Can't the PPP understand that the demographics, communications, thinking, priorities and life have changed so much in Pakistan these past 13 years and it cannot preside over a new Pakistan with old world approaches, priorities and leadership styles?

In today's Pakistan you can't make promises of cleaning up the distortions in constitution, facilitate a new social contract, guarantee equal rights, opportunities and justice for all, a more representative and accountable government that puts people at the centre of all national enterprise and not keep these promises and get away with it. The new Pakistan is not about whether the murders of Bhutto and Benazir can be avenged or not or whether Nawaz or Taseer or Altaf or Asfandyar are right or wrong; it's about what is right or wrong for the people who are sending parties to power to exercise it on their behalf, not use it for their personal privilege.

Iftikhar Chaudhry and Nawaz Sharif and Aitzaz Ahsan are not popular as alternatives to Zardari but as potential representatives who can put themselves in danger and personal deprivation for others. These are people who have led by example. If the PPP does not understand this and focuses on the raison d'etre of being in office, the party is over.

The power struggle in Punjab has begun anew. All three major political parties -- PML-N, PPP and PML-Q -- are considering 'available options' to form their government in Punjab. Allegations and counter allegations are the order of the day, as members of these parties get involved in a political wrangling of sorts.

The PML-N does not want to lose Punjab at any cost. Its leadership is using all available options. With 169 MPAs in the House of 371, they need to show a strength of at least 186 members to be able to form a government in Punjab. As of now, three members of the PML-F and two members of the MMA in the Punjab Assembly are supporting the PML-N which is still short of 12 votes to a simple majority. PML-Q's forward bloc is also supporting them which makes their tally more than 200. The million-dollar question is: will the forward bloc be able to support them as, constitutionally speaking, a member cannot go against the party line on the vote of confidence or no-confidence and if he does, the defection clause applies on him.

A coalition government between PPP and PML-Q is on the cards too high-level meetings are said to be taking place in this regard. There is only one hurdle in their way: PML-Q's forward bloc.

According to Atta Maneka, leader of the PML-Q forward bloc in Punjab Assembly, "more than 30 MPAs are still with us. We will support the PML-N in Punjab but not a PPP-PML-Q government."

According to him, a deal has already been inked between Asif Zardari and the Chaudhries who are going to formally announce their coalition in Punjab after a meeting of the Central Executive Committee of PML-Q is held on March 22.

Maneka added that the much-tomtommed 'review petition' was a sham.

On the other hand, well-placed sources in PPP and PML-Q claim that President Zardari and the Chaudhries have already chalked out a plan to counter the said forward bloc. It has been decided that the president will promulgate an ordinance to stop the members of the forward bloc from voting for any person other than the one decided upon by the parliamentary party in the assembly. It is after the ordinance is in place that the governor's rule will also be lifted and the PML-N will be invited to form a government which they (the PML-N) will fail to do, without the forward bloc. So, ultimately a PPP-PML-Q government will be formed in Punjab.

The president also allowed Salman Taseer to carry on with his duties after the Long March, only because the Chaudhries wanted him in the Governor's House.

General Samiullah Khan, Secretary PPP, says that the majority of MPAs are not ready to form a coalition government with the PML-N again because of the latter's "irresponsible and ruthless behaviour towards the PPP leadership during the Long March. PPP will try to form a government with the help of PML-Q in Punjab and if it does not succeed in doing so, it will sit on opposition benches."

According to him, the PML-N leadership is promoting the culture of horse-trading by encourging the PML-Q forward bloc.

The PML-N denies all allegations. It also demands an immediate end to the governor's rule in Punjab. "The governor rule was imposed in Punjab only to facilitate horse-trading and to form a forward bloc in the PML-N. Once the PPP fails to do so, it will put the entire blame on the PML-N for the same," says Rana Sanaullah, former law minister Punjab, talking exclusively to TNS.

Sanaullah admits that the top leadership of the PML-Q wants to form a coalition with the PPP in Punjab "but the majority of their party members is not in favour of the alliance".

The forward bloc's support to the PML-N is based on principles, he says. "We are out of the corridors of power for the last one month; if they are still with us, what does it show?"

He says that another 20 MPAs of the PML-Q in Punjab are in contact with the PML-N leadership. "If the PPP and the PML-Q have doubts about our claims, they should move a vote of no-confidence against the PML-N speaker in the Punjab Assembly and it will become clear which party has the majority."

"The governor, under article 130 of the Constitution, is bound to invite the majority party to form a government."

In a press meet, Salman Taseer said that the governor's rule would come to an end within 24 hours of the PML-N or, for that matter, any party showing majority in the House. He also exhorted the members of the assembly to discourage forward blocs which had led to horse-trading.

It seems Punjab is headed for a new political deadlock of sorts. To quote veteran journalist and news analyst Chaudhry Khadim Hussain, "PPP has fewer options left in Punjab as their coalition with PML-Q does not seem practicable. And if the two main parties opt for an aggressive strategy towards the forward bloc, it is going to help neither."

-- Aoun Sahi