The Great Debate UK
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan’s political crisis
Never in the history of Pakistan has a democratically elected civilian government served out its full term and then been replaced by another one, also through democratic elections. It is that context that makes the latest political crisis in Pakistan so important.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani is scrambling to save his PPP-led government after it lost its parliamentary majority when its coalition partner, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), announced it would go into opposition. A smaller religious party, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), already quit the coalition last month. If the government falls and elections are held ahead of schedule in 2013, the opportunity for Pakistan to have a government which serves its full term will be lost.
The prevailing view among political analysts appears to be that the government is now less likely to last until 2013, even if it manages to survive in the short term. But given the peculiar nature of Pakistani politics, where the military exerts a powerful role behind the scenes, no one is predicting anything with any certainty.
The main opposition leader, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has shown little enthusiasm for forcing an early election which could propel his Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) into power at a time when the country faces huge economic and security problems. Better to wait it out until an election in 2013 that his PML-N is seen as likely to win. Having been ousted in a coup in 1999, Sharif also remains deeply suspicious of the army, and he has ruled out supporting any moves against the government that might be orchestrated by the military. Giving democracy time to bed down, by allowing the government led by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) to serve its full term, could set a useful precedent for a future PML-N administration.
The army itself has shown no inclination to run the country directly, and it already controls the issues that matter most to it - foreign and security policy. It has barely disguised its frustration with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari -- who also leads the PPP -- particularly after he travelled to France and Britain last summer while the country suffered from devastating floods. But that does not translate into wanting to see Sharif back in power. According to a U.S. embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani made it clear to U.S. officials that "regardless of how much he disliked Zardari, he distrusted Nawaz (Sharif) even more".
Another option, possibly more palatable to the army, would be an alternative coalition of smaller political parties which might be able to challenge both Zardari and Sharif in the next election. But that will take time to fall into place, possibly right up to 2013, if at all. Don't rule anybody out, however unlikely they seem now, as part of an alternative coalition. That includes former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, who set his sights very firmly on 2013 when he launched his political party in London in October.
A couple of final points. We don't actually know for sure whether there is a groundswell of popular support in favour of ditching the current government, though there is, as Nadeem Paracha argued in Dawn, a great deal of populist sloganeering on television channels about the state of the country. "Akin to a black comedy is the fact that most TV anchors and hosts that go on spouting all these concerns – unemployment, inflation, drone attacks, ‘good governance’, Aafia ki wapsi (jailed Pakistani scientist Aafia Siddiqui) etc. – are sitting pretty with hefty salaries and perks, and, what some would suggest, an agenda to safeguard the interests of some of the most anti-democracy classes in this country i.e., the military, the mullah and large sections of the upper and middle-classes."
Having studied the article and the available comments on the article and the knowledge of the Pakistan’s Politics it is not fair to make a sweeping remark. I would suggest that the best would be to find out what is wrong with Army and the Political Leaders of Pakistan that they both failed to run the government and establish democracy in real meaning of the term.
Pakistan is in trouble no doubt but for whom the entire situation has deteriorated, the army or the politicians are the questions. Democracy is not the fruit that grows on tree.
In West, all say their country are democratic, but is that notion true in all respect. No, it is not true. Sorry to say it they too are not fully democratic as the definition of democracy: “For the People, By the People, and of the people”. How could one adjust the wrong doings of the government looting of government treasury fund by the politicians and government officials in collusion and claims it to be democratic act. So also discriminatory Justice System, racism, Religious intolerance are not democratic acts but these are until now prevalent in the country.
Are these democratic if not what is democratic and what is democracy Killing people and declaring war against sovereign state on false pretext could be the acts of a democratic country or to pursue a double standard for Christian, Muslims and Jews covertly most of the time and openly sometimes can not be the acts of a democratic country. Finally, supporting Political, military, civil forces and civilians committing crime against human rights are not fit for a democratic country, which advocates democracy.
Therefore, before pointing finger on others is it not wise to search self. Now coming to the question of nuclear arsenal safety of Pakistan because of the political instability in the country has no basis to think of that because of the assurance given by the government repeatedly. It is not enough to say this may happen, that may happen, because of the fact that many can hypothetically happen but it does not in reality.
Which country is safe having nuclear arsenals? I would say none. Do any of my friends know how many nuclear bombs Israel possess? No none knows not even US Government know, where as US finances, supplies food, gives American’s taxed paid money with which it buys latest sophisticated armaments to commit genocide recently. Is it safe to have nuclear bombs in the hands of a genocide committal country?
It is strongly believed that because J. F. Kennedy refused to allow Israel to have nuclear establishment was assassinated, leave aside the killing of Indira Ghandi, Bhutto and others.
Think of the safety of nuclear arms in the hand of the most dangerous terrorist nation. Why worry about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals falling in the hands of the terrorists. The nuclear arsenals are already in the hands of the terrorist nation. First, My friend Steve Coll should write about all countries possessing nuclear Bomb to be disarmed irrespective of countries big or small and help the US President’s endeavor to make the world totally free of nuclear arsenals instead of pin pricking a particular country without any cogent hard fact except on hypothesis of “Ifs” and “Buts”