|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
focus Anniversary of
despair interview In
the frontline of defence Acceptable
to all
focus Historically, the Baloch have been reluctant to engage with the West and especially the United States. When American journalist Mary Ann Weaver visited Balochistan in the early 1980s, she met with Khan Dawood Jan Beglar Begi, the ruler of the former princely state of Kalat. In her book, ‘Pakistan: In the shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan’, she wrote Beglar Begi told her that “the US government is always looking for a diversionary way of coming in. In Balochistan we are all allergic to the United States. We are against you. You never try to understand us. You always try to be a nanny, or come marching in with a big stick.” Such sentiments did not change over the last three decades. A little research about how much the US administration knew about Balochistan or its issues reveals that different American administrations were aware of the Balochistan insurgencies but were never bothered with the issue. A few years ago, the US
public and press got familiar with Balochistan’s provincial capital Quetta
because of its fame as a Taliban sanctuary. Various think tanks held seminars
about Mullah Omer’s Quetta Shura. Just in 2009, a secret cable sent to
senior diplomats in Washington by the US Embassy in Kabul quoted Afghan
Minister of Interior Hanif Atmar that there was a refugee camp in Kandahar
that “serves 400 to 500 Balochi and Sindhi rebels who fled Pakistan
following former President Musharraf’s crackdown on their separatist
movements.” This one communiqué, part of the document dump released by Wikileaks, was the only cable out of over 600 related to Pakistan that referred to the troubled province of “Balochistan” (or “Baluchistan,” as one diplomat spelled it.) In an interview to promote his book, ‘The Future of Pakistan’, Stephen Cohen highlighted that the US is incoherent when it comes to Pakistan. Cohen, who is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said “the problem is that the US government itself is sort of disorganised to deal with Pakistan and all of South Asia. The Department of Defense has several Pakistan policies, the State Department has at least two Pakistan policies, and I don’t think the White House has any Pakistan policy, except an Afghan policy.” Pakistan expert Bilal Qureshi, who writes for Foreign Policy Blogs, observes that “new technology and social media has also played its role to create awareness about the issues that never made to the national scene in Pakistan, helping the US look into matters considered Pakistan’s internal problems.” There are also theories floating around that since Pakistan was not a faithful ally, the United States wants to give it a tough time, Qureshi said. He was of the view that interests of other regional players like China, India, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia make the issue of Balochistan more complicated than ever. Now if the Americans start looking into this a little deeper, what change the heart of the Baloch? Malik Siraj Akbar, who authored ‘The Redefined Dimensions of Baloch Nationalist Movement’ says that the “brutal murder of Sardar Akbar Bugti is considered to be the last straw for the Baloch nationalists”. Malik, who was granted asylum by the US last year, said, “the nationalists believe that if a person like Bugti — who fell in and out of favour with the Pakistani establishment could meet such a fate, there’s no chance for others.” Attributing the efforts of a number of Baloch organisations working in the US, Canada and London to creating awareness about the situation, he said, “Balochis have historically been pro-Soviet but today there is an increasing realisation among the Baloch that they need to get closer to the US.” Given America’s indifference to Pakistan’s troubled province, many experts on US-Pakistan relations were surprised when the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation held a hearing about Balochistan last week. Officially, Congressional hearings are held not only to collect information for legislative action, but also to affect change by focusing attention on a particular issue. “Public exposure of a problem at an oversight and investigative hearing can be a particularly effective technique”, according to the rules set forth to conduct a hearing. The Subcommittee’s tactic was so effective in the case of Balochistan that it created a significant buzz, not only in Pakistan but also in the Obama administration. Prior to the proceedings, the State Department spokesperson Victoria Noland clarified that the hearings don’t necessarily imply that the US government endorses one view or another. “I’d underscore that the State Department is not participating or involved in this hearing,” said Noland, stressing that the US encourages all the parties in Balochistan to work out their differences peacefully and through a valid political process. The Subcommittee’s chairman, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, characterised Balochistan as a turbulent land and said that Baloch have seen little benefit from the development of the natural gas, coal, gold, uranium and copper that are produced in their province. Congressman Rohrabacher, who a few days earlier, introduced legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Shakeel Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who identified Osama bin Laden, said that Islamabad has refused to concede any legitimacy to Baloch nationalism or to engage Baloch leadership in serious negotiations. “Its response has been based on brute force, including extra-judicial killings,” Congressman Rohrabacher said in his opening remarks. While repeatedly pronouncing the name of the province “Balookistan”, Congressman Rohrabacher also admitted that the Subcommittee wasn’t clear on whom to summon to testify. “We know so little about it that we didn’t know who to invite and there were some suggestions that were sent to me over the internet — so that there’s more representation of a cross-section of views.” The congressional staff started with three witnesses and ended up with five. The small Baloch community living in the United States, excited that Congress was focusing attention on the province’s issues, played a vital role in pointing out that a hearing on Balochistan would not make sense without Baloch representation. The five witnesses included assistant professor at Georgetown University, C. Christine Fair; military analyst Ralph Peters; director of International Advocacy for Amnesty International US , T. Kumar; counsel at Entwistle & Cappucci, Hossein Bor; and director, Asia division, Human Rights Watch Ali, Dayan Hasan. Christine Fair remained very observant and neutral in her testimony when she said that “because the representation in the National Assembly is based on population it means Balochistan can never have any heft in the National Assembly. While we focus on State sponsored human rights abuses, which are numerous, I do want to point out that this isn’t the only kind of violence which is happening in Balochistan. There are also target killings that are carried out by Baloch insurgents as well.” Her unwillingness to take sides resulted in vehement criticism by some on the internet. Other witnesses took a more emotional approach. Hossein Bor, who was introduced as an energy advisor and who has written on the Middle East, presented a scenario of a province whose bountiful deposits of natural resources are exploited by Pakistan, resulting in little benefit to the Baloch. “Even the British colonialists were not so greedy and brutal,” he said. Referring to Pakistan, Ralph Peters said, “we pretend it’s a legitimate state — it’s a miniature empire with artificial borders.” He went on to say that now is the time to change the borders. Human Rights Watch (HRW) debated whether to join the hearing or not. Eventually the group recognised participation would be beneficial. “Torture is an international jurisdiction,” HRW representative Ali Dayan Hasan told the Pakistani media later. “I would like to clarify, like we did at the hearing, that we take no position on the issue of independence. It is a Pakistani province as recognised internationally, and it is Pakistan’s duty as a State to provide basic human and constitutional rights to Balochi citizens,” he said. Moreover, “the rights favoured by the International Human Rights Convention also apply to Pakistan, and Pakistani institutions need to realise that the world will not accept such abuses,” he added. At the hearing, Hasan pointed out that his organisation has documented abuses and attacks by Baloch nationalist militants against educational personnel and other non-Baloch residents of the province. “Approximately 40 percent of the population of the province, which are Punjabi and Urdu speaking settlers, are living equally in fear of attack from Baloch nationalists,” he said. Amnesty International took almost the same human rights abuses stand at the hearing, but added that the US arms were used against Baloch. Malik Siraj Akbar, who also runs the internet newspaper Baloch Hal, called the Congressional hearing a landmark, saying that it essentially condemned Pakistan’s violation of human rights against Baloch. In an email exchange with TNS, he said, “the Baloch case gained more weight against Pakistan’s official reaction to the hearing considering the participation and testimonies of neutral and trusted organisations like the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It is immature on the part of the Baloch as well as on the part of Pakistan to take this hearing as an effort to support Balochistan’s independence movement. It was intended to highlight the human rights issues only.” The Pakistan Embassy was quick to respond to this hearing, warning the US that the inquiry will have serious repercussions for Pakistan-US relations. In a strongly worded statement issued late Thursday, Feb 9, the Embassy spokesperson said that the Pakistani government strongly rejects the “purpose and findings” of the hearing, and considers it an “ill-advised and ill-considered move.” The Embassy spokesperson stated it was regrettable that “the legislature of a country that calls itself a friend of Pakistan should allow itself to be used as a platform by those advocating the dismemberment of Pakistan and provide justification to terrorists attempting to hold Balochistan, and Pakistan, hostage.” While the Pakistan Embassy reacted sternly stating that the hearing was marked by a blatant disregard for history and inflammatory use of selective facts, there were others who called the hearing and the reaction that followed “ridiculous”. Dr Marvin Weinbaum, the Scholar-in-Residence at the Middle East Institute, told TNS that “the hearing does not mean a thing,” and nobody took it seriously except Pakistan. He said that “everything that takes place here, in the US, is read by Pakistan as an official policy.” Explaining his point, he said, “they think that nothing happens that’s not important, but the fact is that there’s a lobby that pushes for Baloch nationalists, and then Congressmen who want to embarrass the administration by claiming that their foreign policy has failed.” “Balochistan is Pakistan’s territory, and the US does not need to open up new problems with Pakistan,” Dr Weinbaum concluded. The writer is Jang/Geo correspondent in Washington
Anniversary
of despair
On this day, four years ago, hope was reborn. The day was preceded by a sleepless night as millions followed the general election results on television, mesmerised by the power of the ballot, excited and shaken by the fall of one after another stalwart of the dictator’s regime, and buoyed by the widening lead of two centrist, mainstream political parties — PPP and Nawaz League — the two bitter rivals of the past who stood united to usher in an era of democracy, progress, and above all, stability. Leader of the king’s party, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, had accepted defeat ‘with grace and open heart’ and made it clear his party would occupy opposition benches in the forthcoming parliament. The coalition government of the then NWFP, made up of religious parties under the banner of MMA, was routed by the left-wing Awami National Party. The entire old guard seemed to be falling like autumn leaves on a windy day. The general with power to manipulate our lives and our vote, and his system, had been voted out. A new dawn was on the horizon, a coup had been consummated, tomorrow belonged to us, the people of Pakistan who’d now rule the country through elected representatives, instead of colonels and generals. The common Pakistani
rubbished ‘enlightened moderation’, ‘real democracy’ and
‘liberalism’ of the general as mere slogans they’d believed in five
years ago, but not any more. They wanted change on the ground. Change for
better. A real change. They were heard loud and clear, and acknowledged by all political leaders. Asif Zardari, the accidental leader of PPP made clear he will not run for office, and instead will play a “Sonia Gandhi-like” role, overseeing the party and acting as an advisory figure. He also reiterated his stance not to include politicians in the new set-up who had been allied with the dictator. Nawaz Sharif said the PPP as the largest elected party had the right to form government and he was willing to accept the position of junior partner and a supporter of ‘project democracy’. Javed Hashmi termed the election results ‘the last chance’ the people of Pakistan had given the politicians, and urged all leaders to deliver clean, transparent and impartial governance or lose people’s trust in democracy and even politics. Television channels, two in particular that had been launched shortly before the elections, ran these glowing, pro-people, too-good-to-be-true statements and promises by leading politicians with a promise cum thinly veiled caution of their own: “We have recorded your words for posterity and will remind you of these in the days to come”. In the last four years there have been several instances, too many in fact, when the words spoken by these leaders in February and March of 2008 needed to be replayed. In particular, the advice Asfandyar Wali Khan had given Zardari in those heady days: “Reconciliation is fine, but please remember there is a hairline difference between reconciliation and beghairti’. Zardari made his party twist his arm into accepting the highest job in the country. He kept several key figures and policies from Musharraf’s era and then made the entire king’s party a partner of his government. He offered every corrupt person in the country the gift of NRO; very rogue group or party, the policy of reconciliation; and the common citizen, crafty slogans like ‘khappey’. He then set about pulling the rug from under the feet of Shahbaz Sharif and his elected government in Punjab. For four years the PPP government has been digging holes for itself and then struggling to climb out of them. It has patronised institutional corruption, lorded over the disintegration of state enterprise, further eroded the writ of the state by capitulating to extremists at home and world powers abroad, and above all, pushed the common man into an ever deeper morass of poverty, oppression, illiteracy, and lack of basic necessities of life. Yes, it gets the credit for four pieces of legislation, but don’t expect appreciation for paper-pushing until the bulk of population is focused on the daily struggle to make both ends meet and preserving basic human dignity. Today, the prime minister stands charged with contempt of the highest court of the land, a majority of ministers and hand-picked officials have been exposed as mere racketeers, and President Zardari, who enjoyed people’s respect for a few months when he used to talk like a statesman back in 2008, is once again made into the mascot for corruption that he’s been always perceived to be. Today, four years later, we find ourselves devoid of hope again. It’s time our leaders gave us another lollipop of hope and drag us into another election. interview A recent research paper titled “Expanding the Middle Class in Pakistan” by Dr Durre Nayab points to the rise in Pakistan’s middle class in the coming years. The research is based on the Pakistan Social and Living Measurement Survey (PSLM) conducted in 2007-08. Nayab is currently working at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) as Chief of Research, Demography, and is also the Director, Centre of Population, Health and Social Policy at the Institute. Nayab did her PhD in demography from the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. She has contributed a number of publications to national and international journals. She has also done various researches, including her work on the demographic dividend in Pakistan. In an interview with The
News on Sunday, she talks at length about the middle class in Pakistan. By Waqar Gillani The News on Sunday (TNS): What constitutes the middle class and how did it emerge in Pakistan? Durre Nayab (DN): The middle class, generally, is increasingly seen as a group gaining political influence that can be associated with the progressively larger role they are playing in the public and services sectors. The middle class is also linked with the nature of government the country has and the role of the people to push for an inclusive system, according to different definitions. An Indian schoolteacher with an annual income of $2,500 is considered middle class, but for an American family the amount may have to be around $20,000 before it considers itself “middle class”, making any income based universal definition meaningless. The size of middle class in Pakistan is more than other countries in South Asia except Sri Lanka. Actually, social realities are difficult to define. And even tougher to measure and quantify the term “middle class”. TNS: What is the main objective of the research paper based on the PSLM survey? Was it to see the trends and layers of middle class in Pakistan? To what extent did you succeed in achieving the objective? DN: The term middle class is one that is oft repeated not just in social science literature but in our everyday language as well, but there still is ambiguity about what the term actually refers to. The aim of the paper was to estimate the size of middle class in Pakistan with a more clear, comprehensive and precise definition. There is a variety of definitions available to measure the class size but a majority of them are unidimensional in nature, focusing solely on household income or expenditure. My paper takes a more holistic approach by suggesting a multidimensional measure to estimate the size of the middle class in Pakistan or in any country for that matter. The Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) survey was used for the purpose as it provides a good opportunity to apply this suggested measure. The PSLM has a nationally representative sample, and has information on all the variables required for the estimation, namely, income, education, occupation, possession of durable goods and housing. Given the kind of response I got after the paper was launched, I believe, I succeeded in achieving my aim of suggesting a sound methodology to measure the middle class. TNS: Why is it difficult to define the Pakistani middle class? DN: The difficulty to define the middle class is not peculiar to Pakistan. The main difficulty is in the way the middle class is conceptualised. Once the concept is clear, measurement does not remain that difficult. With time somehow the term “middle class” has begun to be confused with the term “middle income”. I personally feel that these are two different terms; not entirely separable but different. Any household’s income level does contribute to its standing in the “class” ladder but it does not solely define it. To me, the term “middle class” has sociological connotations to it, contrary to “middle income” which is purely an economic term. Considering how I conceptualise “class”, the nearest definition would have to be a multidimensional one having both social and economic connotations to it. TNS: Is middle class shrinking in Pakistan or expanding? What are your findings? DN: What I am going to say might not be very popular, as we are becoming too inclined to news that is of gloom and doom in nature, but the size of the middle class is increasing in Pakistan. Irrespective of the definition you apply, whether it is a unidimensional one (as used by the Asian Development Bank) or a holistic one like the one suggested in my paper, the size of the middle class is in no way shrinking in Pakistan. The recent study by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), using a definition solely based on household expenditure, also showed that the size of the middle class in Pakistan is much bigger than that of India — in proportion of course, not numbers. With growing education, expansion of formal occupations, increasing possession of household durables and increasing income levels, the size of the middle class is ought to grow even if we use the multidimensional definition as the one suggested in my paper. Despite all the pessimism around, there is nothing to suggest that Pakistan is not improving in any of the mentioned areas, albeit slower than desired. TNS: Your study seconds the view that the middle class is expanding in Pakistan? How is this possible when inflation is high, economy is in a shambles and per capita income and GDP ratios are low? DN: My paper attempts to dispel exactly this view of considering the middle class as purely economic in nature, as like instances where it is equated with the “middle income”. One’s “class” does not change with every fluctuation in income, inflation or GDP growth. With the kind of multidimensional definition, I am suggesting, do you think a household will lose its education, nature of occupation and household possessions with every price hike? The answer is obviously no. The middle class can feel the pinch in maintaining its lifestyle with such economic shocks but will not lose its status as quickly as one is made to believe. Class, with all its socio-economic nuances, is not something that is transitory. TNS: To some people coming from the middle class the term is a stigma. Is that so? DN: The term middle class is neither a stigma nor a shelter. It is a class which most people like to identify themselves with. Surveys conducted on the “perceived class” of any person, instead of any objective criteria, show that even in most of the developed countries majority of the people identify themselves as being part of the middle class despite having wide disparities among their income levels. As I said earlier, class is not just about income, poverty and economic wellbeing, but has social implications attached to it. TNS: What is the break-up of classes in Pakistan in terms of percentage, especially when we know approximately 35 per cent people form the middle class? DN: Not surprisingly, majority (64 percent) of the population fall in the lower classes of which a predominant proportion (42 percent) is of those in the ‘lower lower’ class. The upper class forms a very small proportion (less than 1 percent), with, as you have mentioned, the remaining 35 percent being in the middle class (including ‘lower middle’, ‘middle middle’ and ‘upper middle’ classes). I must add here that the middle class is more of an urban phenomenon than a rural one with its presence being much higher in the former. TNS: Do you see a shrinking or expanding middle class under the current economic conditions? DN: The middle class, when considered with all its multidimensionality, is bound to grow in Pakistan. No matter how slowly, but factors like education, lifestyle, housing conditions and income are bound to improve in the country leading to an increasing size of the middle class. Even the most pessimistic person, I feel, would find it hard to prove otherwise.
At last week’s gathering of the banned militant groups under the banner of Difa-e-Pakistan Conference in Karachi, the participants stood united — in extending protection to Islamic militants and hatred of the West It was really hard to spot a Pakistan flag in a huge gathering of hardline Islamic groups at the mausoleum of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Karachi last Sunday. The participants stood united — in extending protection to Islamic militants and hatred of the West. The gathering under the banner of Difa-e-Pakistan Conference (Pakistan Defence Conference), an alliance of Taliban like-minded hardliners was the fourth in a series of public rallies in the major cities of Pakistan. Some of these organisations are banned by the government. Maulana Samiul Haq, a
Deoband cleric and Taliban sympathiser; Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, JuD chief and
suspected mastermind of Mumbai attacks in 2009; Maulana Ahmad Ludhianvi,
chief of defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, an organisation whose splinter
groups are actively engaged in terrorism in Pakistan under the banner of
different groups of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi; Ijazul-Haq, son of former military
dictator Ziaul Haq; Sheikh Rasheed, head of Awami Muslim League and a
supporter of Jihad-e-Kashmir; Syed Munawwar Hassan, chief of Jamaat-e-Islami
which openly and publicly extends all moral support to Taliban in Afghanistan
and jihadis in Kashmir; Lt Gen (retd) Hameed Gul, Taliban mentor and Maulana
Tahir Ashrafi, former advisor to Punjab governor and a cleric said to be
closed to the establishment, were some of the high-profile leaders of this
alliance. The alliance’s declared agenda is to oust America from the region, break Pakistan-US ties, back Taliban militants, force the government to revoke the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India and not let the Nato supplies pass through Pakistan. These organisations are now openly advocating their larger agenda in public — fighting jihad in Kashmir and supporting Taliban. Their rallies are also questioning the government’s position on their status as defunct. Mazhar Abbas, former secretary general of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, says these things are not new on Pakistan’s political horizon. “They’re coming in the open with the passage of time and now this is up to the state to clear the status of these organisations,” he says, adding, it contradicts the government’s claims that some of these organisations are banned.” Abbas says everyone knows that the JuD’s main agenda is jihad in Kashmir and these groups are insisting the civilian governments not to improve ties with India as happened during the Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto regimes. He says the state has opted a policy of ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’ that is creating confusion. These religious groups have also allegedly threatened private television channels for asking some straight questions about the alliance. They have publicly warned media during the conference in Karachi. One of the speakers had warned, “We are watching that the pro-western parties are getting extensive coverage by media while we are not being aired by them. We warn media that if we are not given proper coverage we will make this ground (where the conference was being held) a graveyard of media.” Even though Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) was the ‘host’ party for the Karachi event, Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) seemed to have taken over the management of the rally. Hafiz Saeed, addressing the rally, had said the US was leaving Afghanistan after facing a serious defeat. Other speakers talked about India’s role in Kashmir and even some paid tribute to Taliban leader Mulla Omar. This is the same JuD which had earlier declared that taking pictures is not allowed in lslam, but now they insist and even force media to show their faces on television and in newspapers. “It is good that shadow outfits are coming to the surface and becoming a reality by taking public position on issues,” views analyst and columnist Ayaz Amir. “It will be better if they announce to participate in the coming elections to see whether their point of view has public support or not.” He says they will be more careful in future as they know that the vibrant media has also become a reality. The provincial and federal governments’ failure to stop these organisations from issuing public warnings perhaps shows their strength. Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s warning that no banned group will be allowed to hold public rallies was trashed when the alliance successfully held its Karachi gathering and announced the next one in Quetta in the coming days. — By Waqar Gillani vaqargillani@gmail.com caption Hand in hand: leaders of the alliance.
Acceptable
to all The passage of 20th Amendment Bill in the National Assembly, with more than two-thirds majority, is a welcome development — and perhaps a step towards reconciliation among political parties for strengthening democracy and ensuring transparency in the upcoming elections. Those who did not vote in favour of the bill, did not oppose it either. After marathon rounds of discussions spanning weeks, the parties involved agreed to give legality to the elections held in the absence of a fully functional Election Commission. They also agreed on a formula to put a neutral interim setup in place as a first step towards holding of free and fair elections. The objection, if any, has come from the parties not represented in the National Assembly and former parliamentarians like Shah Mahmood Qureshi. They feel left out and want an All Parties Conference (APC) to decide the matter instead of the ruling alliance and the opposition in the parliament. Constitutional experts believe the desired 20th Amendment in the Constitution will achieve much more than what it was aimed at. The bill was introduced by the ruling PPP to give legal cover to the elections held under an incomplete EC and ensure restoration of 28 parliamentarians, suspended by the Supreme Court. The party needed support of the PML-N to get the bill passed as it had lost the two-thirds majority which it enjoyed earlier with the help of coalition partners. The suspension of four PPP MNAs and division of PML-Q in three different factions forced the former to extend an olive branch to the PML-N. The PML-N counted on the opportunity and presented its demands on how to formulate an unbiased interim setup acceptable to all. The lower house has passed a bill which, on becoming an Act, will restore the membership of suspended members and eliminate the role of the president and governors in appointing caretaker prime minister and chief ministers respectively. So far, it’s the president who appoints the caretaker prime minister in consultation with the outgoing prime minister and the leader of the opposition. A similar process is followed in the provinces where the governors, in consultation with the outgoing chief ministers and leaders of the opposition, appoint caretaker chief ministers. Ideally, the president and the provincial governors are believed to be politically neutral so that their appointees and consultations become a tool to form consensus among political forces. But things on the ground are different. The opposition parties are highly uncomfortable with the idea of President Zardari, who is co-chairperson of the PPP, appointing caretaker prime minister especially when the suggested consultation is nothing more than a customary practice. The opposition in the incumbent assembly will have a say in the consultation as per the revised mechanism of forming an interim setup. It says that after the dissolution of the cabinet, the outgoing prime minister and the outgoing leader of the opposition, on the advice of the president within three days, will develop consensus on the name of the caretaker prime minister. If they fail to develop consensus on the name, the Speaker of the National Assembly will constitute an eight-member committee on the fourth day, which will comprise four members each of the opposition and the ruling alliance. If this committee also fails to evolve a consensus on the interim setup, the matter will be referred to the Election Commission, which will then be the final authority to send its nomination for the caretaker prime minister to the president who will notify the name. A similar procedure will be followed at the provincial level. Political analysts hope this arrangement will help satisfy those, like PTI chief Imran Khan, who have threatened to boycott elections if they are held under President Asif Zardari. Now the president is in no position to influence the interim setup and elections. The analysts think the passage of 18th and 19th Amendments show there is a realisation among the parliamentarians that the parliament as an institution needs to be strengthened to ward off undue influence of other institutions of the state. However, the constitutional amendment proposed by the MQM for new provinces may get a setback in this scenario. The party calls for doing away with the condition of seeking a province’s approval by two-thirds majority if its boundaries have to be changed. The PPP may not take the risk of estranging the PML-N by supporting this demand as it is especially designed to bypass the ruling PML-N in Punjab and the ANP in KPK in the division of these provinces.
|
|
