Well said Dogar Sahib. I hope & wish politicians respect public opinion. I donot think any body can doubt why people have voted out Q league. If Politicains donot learn lessons now, they will be replaced soon or will be governed by Musharaf. May Allah give them Hidayat, Amen!

why? why? why?... how long is a piece of string?
The voice of people is not heard, not acted upon..so why the same old faces again and again? Out with the old and in with the new.

well Mr. Dogar U have asked absolutely right questions from the current top leader-
ship.....but the fact is that people here in pakistan now have become oppurtunists
as do the politicians.... ah lets pray for some miracle, but i dont agree with Tabinda
as the system requires complete change

What would you like to keep from the old system...I would love to know.

A majority of the TV anchors are taking a biased position on the issue of the restoration on the judges; the purpose is to highlight one party as more committed to the restoration of judges and therefore more ‘honorable’. This is contrary to the actual position of the two parties whose leaders have repeatedly expressed their commitment to restore the judges; the differences apparently are on the fate of President Musharraf, once a pre November 3 judiciary is restored, who contrary to some analyses is still entrenched in the system and backed by powers we all know well. Therefore, even though Parvez Musharraf will be amenable to ‘conditional’ restoration of the pre November 3 judiciary, he will not allow a free judiciary to tighten the noose of ‘ehtesab’ around his neck. The line of action taken by another dictator when there was one coffin and two potential occupants gives us a clear  insight into the lengths that dictators can go for self-preservation with the backing of a super power (see The Leopard and the Fox by Tariq Ali).

The PPP-PML-N coalition although on a bumpy ground is (was?) the best thing that happened to Pakistan in a long time. The coalition should avoid a confrontationist course and help along the process of gradual weakening of President Musharraf and withdrawal of Army from politics. It is only the coalition that can handle the tough challenges that Pakistan faces today: the insurgency in Balochistan, Talibanization of the North West and an increasingly vulnerable economy. The media, the ultra right wing representatives of the ‘status quo’ and their friends and supporters must stop using false interpretations of ‘principles’, ‘ethics’ and ‘shame' to drive a wedge between the coalition partners. PPP should avoid stupid mistakes and PML-N should stop invoking ‘honor’ for narrow political interests. PPP and PML-N must cleave together to save Pakistan. We hope that the politicians will rise above partisan politics and make the right decisions in the larger national interest.  

Betrayal in Pakistan
Why the “gradualists” were wrong.

In the days following the election I received a good deal of mail from “gradualists” who felt that “precipitate action” at this sensitive juncture would somehow disrupt the supposedly “delicate” process of transition to democracy in Pakistan. I was among those who insisted that such “gradualism” would NOT lead to transition to democracy. Rather, it would lead BACK to rule by secret agencies and behind the scenes operatives. [More]

I believed that the corruptocracy that rules Pakistan (and has ruled Pakistan for most of its existence) was only temporarily off balance because of their unexpected rout in elections that  they thought they had “pre-rigged” to get “positive results”. I thought we should take advantage of their temporary disorientation to restore the judiciary and thus strike a decisive blow for rule of law. This would make future adventures by the corruptocracy that much harder. It would also have set in motion a transition towards positive change in the political parties, who would have had to adjust to bare minimum rule of law, but would have tolerated this “inconvenience” in exchange for liberation from the shackles of the secret agencies.

In real terms, they would still have been winners. They could have continued to make money illegally, but as in India, they would have to accept some very basic rules about the process of elections and change of government by popular mandate….a change that may have brought short term grief to some of them, but long-term benefits to all of them. Only the most extreme criminal organizations (like the MQM) would have had to drastically change their modus operandi. Everyone else could have managed the “transition to constitutional rule” without unbearable pain.. But this happy outcome would become less and less likely with every passing week as the old corruptocracy would regain its balance to some extent.

Unfortunately, the leadership of the various political parties and especially the leadership of the PPP, has proven itself unready for this task and has fallen in with the old establishment for more of the same. This will now count as yet another missed opportunity for Pakistan.
The silver lining (of sorts) is the simple fact that the powers that be who arranged this betrayal (the army high command and the US viceroy’s office above all) are proven failures at the task of governance. By using the most corrupt politicians to further their interests, they also pick the ones least capable of delivering good outcomes in terms of governance.

In the last cycle, Musharraf, his corpse commanders and the CIA’s station chief relied on the choudhries and patriots and MQM and look where we are today. This time, they want to use Zardari’s PPP, the MQM and ANP plus leftovers from the PMLQ and JUI and the concoction will be even worse. I foresee absolutely NO possibility that ali baba and chalees chor will deliver. The Nawaz league should pull out of the central govt. at the first opportune moment if they are to be on the right side of the next popular earthquake. I used to say that Kiyani will eat this dish when its fully cooked, but I think he wont get the chance. We hope the “transition” to come will not be violent. But if it is, we should all know who is responsible for messing up the last opportunity for peaceful progress…

Omar

A TV anchor  in the program ‘Capital Talk’, talking to a GEO TV correspondent in Dubai while the talks between the leadership of PML-N and PPP were in progress asked whether the leaders were meeting foreigners in Dubai. He determined the color of skin of those who were meeting the two leaders and then on the basis of extremely sketchy and vague information concluded that one party was oriented toward the ‘East’ while the other was oriented toward the ‘West’. Later when he was in Dubai himself and had talked personally to the two leaders, he conveyed an entirely different picture of the situation. He said that the leaders of two coalition parties were committed to the restoration of judges and had made significant progress in reaching an agreement on the modalities involved. What the TV anchor omitted to do was to apologize for the inaccurate information and ludicrous reasoning that he had used in his earlier talk show.

The use of a so-called loyalty to ‘East’ or ‘West’ or to an Indian, American or Zionist lobby by the journalists in order to confer ‘honor’ on  political actors of their choice is not new in Pakistan’s politics. Journalists sympathetic to a military-ISI combine backed by a conservative IJI with its strident, orthodox JI component had used similar tactics to destabilize the PPP governments in the past.

Benazir Bhutto was not allowed to follow an independent policy in foreign or domestic affairs by the military-ISI-Islamist conglomerate sympathetic to the world view of their spiritual mentor, Zia-ul-Haq. Continual intrigues and maneuvering by behind the scenes king makers gave little room to a nascent political and democratic process to grow and mature. During her first tenure, Bhutto had wanted to initiate peaceful relations and trade and economic ties with India. She was designated a ‘security risk’, ‘soft on India’ and ‘sympathetic to an Indo-Zionist lobby' by PML-N and its fundamentalist supporters in IJI. The Islamist journalists who got entrenched in the print media in the time of Zia-ul-Haq played the trumpet in tandem with the designs of the military and mosque combine. Benazir Bhutto publicly challenged the machinations of Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Mirza Aslam Beg who had planned to oust her from power from the day she had taken office. She ended up being dismissed by the protégés and spiritual followers of Zia-ul-Huq.

In the subsequent tenure of Nawaz Sharif  (who had  flourished under the aegis of a brutal military dictatorship), the military and ISI continued with their grand design of achieving an  ‘Islamic Revival’ by supporting a myriad number of militant organizations to conduct covert insurgencies across Pakistan’s borders. A Jihadi culture flourished; Pakistan became a fully militarized society by 1998 and sectarian terrorism became rampant. (special reports on the Jihadi organizations operating from Pakistan’s soil to support militant operations across Pakistan’s borders were published by Newsline and Herald in 1998, which prophetically warned that the immense jihadi infrastructure being created under the auspices of the State and its extremist Islamist allies would one day turn against the state itself, as it did eventually.)

During his second stint in power, the economic imperatives of running a state compelled a pro-business Nawaz to seek normalization of relations with India (after having accused Benazir of being soft on India while he was in opposition). Nawaz Sharif started ‘bus diplomacy’ with India  notwithstanding the crusading zeal and strong arm tactics of JI.  JI’s firebrand leaders, who wanted to liberate Kashmir through violent means, chose to organize a protest rally in Lahore during Vajpai’s visit to Lahore. The process of normalization of relations with India that Nawaz Sharif had undertaken was rolled back by the adventurism of Parvez Muharraf who took Pakistan into yet another war with India on Kashmir. During the initial years of his military rule the jihadist organizations continued to flourish unfettered till a dramatic policy reversal took place after the events of 9/11 under pressure from the US. (see Pakisatn Between Mosque and Military by Hussain Haqani)

The Islamists publicly offered their support to the military regime after the military take-over of October 1999. (Musharraf had proved his jihadist credentials by his misadventure in Kargil and therefore he was welcomed by the extremist ‘Islamists’). All major political parties including PTI and JI participated in 2002 general elections (under a sitting Army Chief), which was the most rigged election in the recent history of Pakistan. The two leaders of the most popular political parties that represent the largest segments of the electorate between them were not allowed to participate in the general elections and political workers of both parties were coerced, cajoled and bribed into joining the King’s Party. PTI also publicly welcomed the October 1999 military coup and  supported Parvez Musharraf in the referendum of April 2002 (see Jemima’s article in Daily Independent, 18th Feb 2008). This was the time when American atrocities were at their peak in Afghanistan and daisy cutter bombs were being rained on innocent Afghan men, women and children. Pakistan had given staging, basing, intelligence sharing and over flight facilities to the NATO forces.).

Musharraf regime had undertaken a policy reversal with regard to the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 but continued to support the militant organizations operating in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir from Pkistani soil. After the terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament sponsored by Jaish-e-Mohammad in 2002, India gathered its troops on Pakistan’s borders and war was averted through America’s intervention. ISI sponsored militancy in Kashmir continued till the American pressure finally prevailed in 2004 and the military regime was forced to reverse its policy of aiding militants’ infiltration into the Indian held Kashmir from Pakistan.. The ‘Islamists’ and militant elements were extremely disappointed by this sensible turnaround in policy and started to distance themselves from Musharraf. The trenchant rhetoric against the illegality of Muharraf’s regime that the Islamic parties started to use then could not have been motivated by love of democracy alone as MMA had voted for Muharraf’s package of constitutional amendments in 2003. (JI was part of Zia-ul-Haq’s cabinet during the crucial period of the trial and execution of  Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto through an illegal and engineered judicial process). In fact what was at stake was a grand ‘pan-Islamist’ vision and the liberation of Muslim lands by militant means that the Islamists had hoped to achieve with the connivance of another military dictator (this is not a justification for Musharraf’s rule).

Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were first contacted by the military regime for some kind of a ‘compromise’ in 2002. Exile of PML-N leadership, after they were indicted for ‘sedition’ and hijacking, was also the result of a ‘deal’ with the military regime. The representatives of Musharaf remained in touch with PML-N leaders during their exile (see Nawaz Sharif’s interview with Suhail Waraich published in ‘Ghaddar Kaun’ in which Nawaz expressed his willingness to negotiate with Musharraf). Benazir started talks with Parvez Muharraf for a negotiated return to democracy in 2007 without compromising on national interests as she made her cooperation conditional on his resignation as army chief and holding free, fair and transparent elections (see Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto).

In February 2008, an overwhelming public opinion rejected the call of boycott given by the APDM leaders and expressed its will to overthrow Musharraf’s regime through the vehicle of elections. The stance taken by Benazir was vindicated by the Feb 18th election results which were generally accepted by all actors across the political spectrum.

Those who had predicted an ‘unholy alliance’ between PPP and Musharraf did not apologize for their faulty assessments when PPP started drawing close to PML-N after she came back to Pakistan on 18th October. She demanded that PML-leaders be allowed to return to Pakistan and participate in the general elections (something that PTI and JI had not done for PPP and PML-N in 2002; in fact they hoped to benefit from the absence of the popular political leaders, MMA did emerge as one of the largest political alliances in the National Assembly, formed a government in NWFP  to the detriment of the secular forces in NWFP and contributed to the rise of Fazlullah in Swat. See Harold Dec 2007). Later, Benazir revived contacts with PML-N leadership; the two leaders formed a charter of demands to pressure Musharraf to hold fair elections; seat adjustments between PPP and PML-N especially in Sind were made and the process of reconciliation started by Benazir culminated in PPP and PML-N forming a coalition government after the general elections.

PPP under Benazir Bhutto espoused a modern and secular  agenda unless forced to do otherwise by an army-intelligence-Islamist conglomeration. PML-N although generally perceived as a moderate party, has a conservative cultural agenda and is given to blackmail by its orthodox allies such as JI. Yet PPP and PML-N have similar economic, political and foreign policies and their alliance is good for Pakistan because together they can steer Pakistan away from the extremists' designs of taking Pakistan into the Middle Ages.  But once again PPP is being reviled as ‘dishonorable’ ‘pro America’, ‘unprincipled’ and ‘corrupt’. Unfortunately the most strident rhetoric is coming from  a  supposedly liberal quarter, that is, PTI. PTI Chairman’s oratory about ‘our- people- being- killed’, ‘rule of law’ and ‘corruptocracy’ at a time when it is politically expedient (he had supported Musharraf when the killing in Afghanistan was at its peak in 2002), and about an ‘indecent’ alliance of Benazir with America and Musharraf, (he had supported Musharraf in a fraudulent referendum and had participated in the most flawed election of Pakistan’s recent history) is far from ‘idealistic’ and is clearly extremely opportunistic. He has used invective, selective moral judgments, factually incorrect and morally untenable statements to malign the only major political party that has stood for secular, liberal and progressive values especially under Benazir’s leadership (PPP was the only opposition party to vote for Women’s Protection Bill in 2006, MMA foamed at the mouth and PML-N abstained from voting).  On 19th October, a day after the heinous attack on PPP’s convoy, Imran Khan blamed the carnage on Benazir by  quoting her statements about AQ Khan, out of context. On the other hand he stands squarely behind Qazi Hussain Ahmed, often calling him principled, ideological and a man of integrity without caring to define ideology. JI led by Qazi Hussain Ahmed publicly vows to take women into a ‘separate’ realm if voted into power and supports the methods used by  Hizbul Mujahideen, Hamas and the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Munawar Hassan’s interview on Business Plus, April 2008.)

Pakistan is faced with serious challenges. There are food and electricity shortages, Balochistan is up in arms, Al-Qaeda is stationed in our tribal areas with a vision for Pakistan’s future, inflation is spiraling out of control and the economy is under severe strain The democratic process initiated after the 18th Feb elections is on extremely shaky grounds. Establishing the supremacy and sovereignty of the parliament represented by moderate and progressive elements along with a strong and independent judiciary are essential prerequisites to set Pakistan on the course of economic and political stability. Achieving one without the other will not be possible; therefore, all basic requirements of a strong and stable political system must be reconciled without endangering one for the other.
  
Unfortunately, none of the civilian governments that have ruled Pakistan have  stayed clear of charges of massive corruption, nepotism and politics of using selective state patronage for political gains. But over the last 60 years the  imbalances in the state structure created by the collusion of an overweening civil-military beaurocracy and non-electable actors had narrowed the options for civilian governments to ensure good governance.  Corruption should not be condoned but the only way to weed it out is by allowing space for a democratic and political process to continue and strengthen norms, procedures and institutions that establish the rule of law. Repeated military intervention, infighting of political parties and  manipulation by military-intelligence-Islamist-jihadist apparatus has prevented a genuine democratic process to take root in Pakistan. The current political dispensation has emerged after Pakistan has endured a series of immensely traumatic events. It would be in the larger national interest for PPP and the PMLN to stick together despite differences in detail about the judges’ restoration than to break up and allow vested interests, pressure groups, and terrorists to jump into the fray once again to start manipulating and scheming for their narrow interests. The window of opportunity is indeed narrow and the incipient democratic process must not be allowed to unravel over petty differences and partisan politics.

What would you like to keep from the old system...I would love to know.

The comments by you are the most idiotic and childish that i ve ever seen. come on and grow up, dont take Pakistanis too light!!!! this is 4 you and the other idiots like you.