HOUSE OF FEUD (published in the Dawn)

IT is not unusual for the opposition to create a rumpus (دنگا فساد)in parliament, but the spectacle of the treasury benches disrupting a session is shocking. Almost a week into the budget session, the National Assembly has yet to initiate the debate on the finance bill. Such rowdiness (طوفانِ بدتمیزی) stalling (روک دینا) the proceedings has rarely been witnessed, making a mockery of the nation’s highest elected body. 

What with the opposition protesting over the non-production of their detained leaders and the speaker refusing to bend, there is no sign yet of rationality returning to the house soon. The government may still be able to bulldoze the finance bill through, but it will not end the stand-off(تناو اور لڑائی کی صورتحال). 

While the combined opposition has upped the ante (کوشش یا مزاحمت بڑھا دینا:محاورہ)inside and outside parliament, the prime minister, too, is in an extremely combative (لڑایئ پر مبنی)mood. In fact, his tone has become more belligerent (دشمنی پر مبنی). Instead of defusing the situation, Imran Khan wants his lawmakers to take a more aggressive stance and block the opposition speeches in the National Assembly. 

For the lawmakers to trade barbs (ایک دوسرے پر زبانی حملے کرنا)and call each other ‘thieves’ and ‘robbers’ is extremely disgraceful. The sanctity of parliament has seldom been so badly violated, with its members displaying banners and often getting into a scuffle(لڑائی). Such ugly scenes have almost become routine, and do little to inspire public confidence in the elected institution. 

 In the last 10 months, there has hardly been any serious debate on critical policy matters inside the NA. In the last 10 months, there has hardly been any serious debate on critical policy matters inside the National Assembly, let alone legislative business. Of course, the responsibility lies with both sides, but certainly the treasury benches are more to blame for this state of affairs. Instead of defusing the situation, some ministers are more interested in provoking the opposition

The spectacle at the budget speech of slogan-chanting opposition politicians trying to obstruct Minister Hammad Azhar’s speech and almost coming to blows with PTI lawmakers was a shameful one. Surely, such scenes are not new in our parliamentary history, but one expected sobriety from the MNAs after the third democratic transition. It is perhaps true that the performance of the current parliament is worse than that of the last two assemblies. 

It is highly irrational for the ruling party to oppose production orders for the members in the custody of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). It’s a complete departure from past tradition, and the stance of the speaker, who is supposed to be impartial, has been highly controversial. 

One cannot understand the logic behind the decision to not let the detained members who are not even convicted (الزام ثابت ہونا)to attend parliament. The problem with Imran Khan is that for him, everyone else in parliament, except for his own party members, is corrupt and should not be there. This sense of self-righteousness and mulishness( ڈھیٹ پنا، گدھے یا خچر جیسا رویہ) is partly responsible for the increasing political tensions; it is also undermining elected democratic institutions. 

Not satisfied with NAB going after the opposition leaders, Imran Khan now wants to set up a commission to probe the debt problem and what he describes as the ‘misuse of borrowed money’ by previous governments. Indeed, the massive debt piled up over the past years has contributed to the country’s worst financial crisis. But the latter has more to do with flawed economic and fiscal(حکومتی خزانہ) policies pursued by successive governments, and is not necessarily linked to corruption. Economists and financial experts, rather than military and civilian intelligence agencies as suggested by the prime minister, must examine the issue of debt. The purpose should be to find the solution to the problem and not to use it for a political witch-hunt. 

Imran Khan has a tendency to see things from a very narrow prism. He has a very simplistic approach to dealing with complex issues. That has also been a major reason for his blundering through since taking the reins of power. More dangerous, however, is his government’s growing dependence on intelligence and security agencies and involving them even in areas beyond their mandate and expertise. 

His midnight television address last week was a national embarrassment. One fails to understand the rationale behind threatening the opposition, hours after the announcement of the budget. One expected the prime minister to explain to the people why tough financial measures were needed and to mobilise public opinion in favour of the reform programme. 

Instead, the entire focus of his rambling (بے تکی باتیں کرنا)and disjointed talk was on the ‘misdeeds’ of the previous governments. He said after having stabilised the economy he would concentrate his efforts on accelerating the anti-corruption drive. However, the claim of putting the economy back on track is premature; it will be a long while before the financial crisis is over. 

True, it is a daunting (حوصلہ آزمانے والا، مشکل)challenge for the PTI government to clear the financial mess that it has inherited, and it needs to take tough and unpopular reform measures. But Imran Khan’s confrontationist approach makes the task for the government that much harder. 

For these tough but necessary budgetary actions, the government needs to lower the political temperature instead of raising it. Indeed, the economy may be showing a few signs of recovery, but continuing political instability could affect its revival. By rendering parliament irrelevant, the government is attempting to rely on unelected institutions. Technocrats are useful for providing expertise in certain fields but they should not be allowed to dominate decisions and run the government. 

Some unconfirmed reports suggest the government is planning to set up an ‘economic security council’ that would include the top security leadership. Such a move could only weaken the civilian authority and formally expand the role of the military although the latter’s shadow has already lengthened under the PTI government. The latest change in the leadership of the country’s premier intelligence agency has also raised eyebrows. The development has become more significant given the emerging opposition alliance. The concerns may be exaggerated (مبالغے پر مبنی), but perceptions (سمجھ) are important. 

Economic and political stability are interlinked. Strengthening the civilian democratic process is a prerequisite (ضروری)for economic recovery. It is in the interest of the government to lower tensions inside and outside parliament. A combative approach will harm the government more. It is imperative to restore the sanctity of parliament and its role as a representative body. 

The writer is an author and a journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

Twitter: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, June 19th, 2019

Target Iran?

IRAN raised the stakes in its game of chicken with the United States this week by announcing its intention for uranium enhancement beyond what is permitted under the nuclear deal concluded in 2015.

At the same time, it suggested that it would change its mind about violating the agreement if the European signatories were willing to circumvent (کسی مصیبت سے بچ نکلنا)the sanctions imposed by Washington after it unilaterally(یک طرفہ) withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

American hypocrisy (ریا کاری)was on brazen(بے شرمی پر مبنی) display when it threatened dire punishment aga­inst Iran for failing to abide by the terms of the JCPOA after the US administration itself had pulled out from what Donald Trump considered “a very bad deal”. It did so only after Rex Tillerson was replaced by Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, and the national security establishment was weaponised with the return of the old warhorse John Bolton, who has long held the view that the only way of dealing with Tehran is to bomb Iran.

Washington has predictably(جس کا پہلے سے اندازہ ہو) blamed Tehran for last week’s attacks on shipping in the Gulf of Oman, as it did in the context of similar incidents last month. The “evidence” it has offered thus far has, however, failed to convince even some of its closest allies. This includes a fuzzy (دھندلی)video of a purportedly(جیسا کہ بتایا گیا ہے) Iranian boat removing an unexploded limpet mine (ایک سمندری بم کی قسم)from one of the vessels, even though the ship’s Japanese owner says his crew witnessed missiles whizzing through the air.

 The Iranian leaders won’t be penning any love letters to Trump.

The fact that the Japanese oil-carrier came under attack while Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was holding talks in Tehran with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran’s clerical establishment, led some observers to conclude that it was highly unlikely any wing of Iran’s military would attempt such a discourteous gesture.

Besides, one can hardly overlook the fact that Bolton’s innate(پیدائشی یا کسی کی ذات میں روزِ اول سے موجود) hostility towards Iran is shared by America’s leading allies in the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia, Israel and the UAE. In fact, for the decade or so preceding the JCPOA, the possibility of an Israeli-led strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities remained on the radar, and both Israel and the Saudis were equally miffed(ناراض) about the agreement. It is certainly not inconceivable that one of the three would seek to manufacture a provocation with the intention of providing Washington with a casus belli (کسی کے خلاف جنگ شروع کرنے کا جواز).

What’s more, the justifiable scepticism (شک) of most Western allies is based not merely on the Trump administration’s habitual duplicity (بناوٹ یا ریا کاری)but also on a verifiable trajectory(واقعات کا بہاو) of the US tendency to mislead the world in making the case for military assaults that stretches well within living memory from the Gulf of Tonkin ‘incident’ in 1964, which facilitated the Lyndon Johnson administration’s aggression against North Vietnam, to the plethora of false ‘evidence’ cited in pursuit of the 2003 Iraq war.

It must, however, be acknowledged that the JCPOA has never been popular with Iranian hardliners, and the domestic success of President Hassan Rouhani’s diplomatic engagement was always contingent (منحصر)on a steady flow of economic benefits. These never came up to Iranian expectations. The trend has lately been reversed, with US sanctions crippling Iran’s economy, not least because European and various other forums have been intimidated into ceasing to do business with Iran. The curbs on oil exports are particularly devastating — and it should come as no surprise that the Saudis have increased production in order to profit from Iran’s discomfiture(بے اطمینانی اور تکلیف).

It would then hardly be illogical for an economically ostracised (جس کو معاشرے سے کاٹ دیا گیا ہو)Iran to demonstrate its ability to disrupt international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. But would it do so? The command structure of the Ira­nian Revolutionary Guard Corps presumably does not rely too much on authorisation from the elected government, and the force is believed to exercise control over regional militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The Houthis have lately been particularly audacious (نڈر)in seeking to extend the war in Yemen into Saudi territory.

Although most of the major parties in the brewing confrontation (پیدا ہوتی ہوئی دشمنی)have said they do not want war (with the notable exception of Bolton and Benjamin Netanyahu), the Middle East is poised at another dangerous juncture(صورتحال، واقعات کا ایک خاص موڑ). The obvious alternative to war is peace, but that requires talks, and although both Trump and Pompeo have raised the prospect of unconditional negotiations, Iran will be disinclined to publicly take up the offer without at least some token concessions from the world’s biggest bully. Neither Rouhani nor Khamenei bears any resemblance to Kim Jong-un — the Iranian leaders won’t be penning any love letters to Trump.

Abe’s mediation (مصالحتی) mission was ostensibly(بظاہر) an abject (یکسر)failure, and although there’s always a vague possibility of behind-the-scenes talk, even that seems unlikely for now. As things stand, it’s anybody’s guess whether better sense will prevail. One can only hope the situation won’t seem equally dire(تشویشناک) next week. 

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, June 19th, 2019