|
Abbas Nasir Published May 29, 2022
IN removing part of the unfunded fuel subsidy the PTI gave in February this year as it felt the heat ahead of the March no-confidence move, the coalition government seems to have earned itself a reprieve against the backdrop of news reports that its end could be as close as a week away.
It was not just these media reports: some cabinet members were saying the same. The reason? Two factors were at play. The first: a large chunk of the PML-N, including their leader Nawaz Sharif, were reluctant to be left stranded with the economic baggage of the PTI with just a year and a half in which to clear the mess.
Even more significantly, as Imran Khan’s pressure tactics seemed to be forcing a change in the resolve of the military establishment, and the latter was starting to think aloud in terms of an election sooner than scheduled next year, the PML-N’s view was cemented that it couldn’t roll out painful economic measures and then go to the electorate, with no time at all to placate the masses.
Editorial: The govt's relief package is a step in the right direction but mere allocation of funds is not enough
The extra urgency about the need for a ‘fight or flight’ response was obviously dictated by the plummeting forex reserves, which currently represent under two months of imports with every other access to dollars blocked by the suspension of the IMF programme.
Despite the government signalling that it is in for the long haul, scepticism abounds about its long-term prospects.
And it was clear that IMF was not willing to rethink its firm stance (debunking, as a Dawn colleague says, the ‘US-backed regime change’ theory, as the US calls the shots in the international financial institution) on the withdrawal of the unfunded subsidy at a time global fuel prices are still rising.
The subsidy was opening up a yawning resource gap, as it was costing an estimated Rs2.5 billion a day. It was clear this was an indulgence that could end up in bankruptcy for the country, and the spectre of a default was looming.
It was against this backdrop that exactly two weeks ago today, amid reports of ‘interviews of potential caretakers at the GHQ’, it was said in these columns that there were two options before the government as the sands of time were running out.
Also read: ‘Inconvenient truths’ fuel capital rumour mill
“The first is to quickly push through the electoral reforms needed to ensure a free, fair and transparent election and call for the dissolution of the National Assembly and leave it to the Election Commission of Pakistan to deal with the fallout.
“The other is to think over the span of the next 16 months and decide what must be done to set the house in order and place the country’s needs and wants above political interests, but offer targeted relief to the most vulnerable, the poor, the shirtless.”
This week’s cut in the fuel subsidy and the targeted cash subsidy to the poorest sections of society to be able to, at least partially, offset the inflation that will inevitably follow, suggests that the coalition has opted for the second of the two options that were discussed here.
The PML-N leadership says there is consensus among the party high command as well as the rank and file that a decision on announcing the date of a new election can’t be made at gunpoint. That would, in their view, be seen as a sign of capitulation by their supporters and thus not be politically viable.
Imran Khan jettisoned his last ‘march on the capital’, short of its final destination, after calling for supporters to gather in D-Chowk, prompting friends and foes alike to once again conjecture about the possible cause(s).
Expectedly, the PML-N celebrated this change in plan and attributed it to ‘IK’s failure to gather the promised two million supporters and he had no other option, left as he was with a few thousand’, despite what was seen as a favourable Supreme Court decision ordering the removal of all obstacles from the path of the agitating marchers.
But this has not doused speculation among those commentators who were predicting a sudden death of the coalition, as they still maintain that the National Assembly or at least the Punjab Assembly would be dissolved, caretakers inducted and elections held and a new government in place by late October this year.
Some of these analysts say that Imran Khan pulled back from the precipice after being dissuaded by powerful friends on a reassurance that elections will be announced over the next month or two, suggesting to him that he will again get the opportunity to appoint the new army chief in November if he wins, as he has seemingly long coveted doing.
Despite the coalition government now signalling that it is in for the long haul, scepticism abounds about its long-term prospects. It is not just about what Imran Khan will do next. There are other factors too. It isn’t clear whether PPP Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar was speaking for his party or sharing his own concerns when he tweeted: “The theory goes roughly like this: let’s do what the IMF says, give a tough budget & we’ll give relief to the public next year, then we’ll happily head to elections. Sure but how certain [a]r[e] we that [the] boys will let us reach the finish line?”
He is not alone. Many commentators are echoing this sentiment and saying that the government will have the rug pulled from under it by the establishment if it does not voluntarily go for fresh elections in a couple of months, particularly if Imran Khan ups his tempo again.
It is true the political engineers are not historically renowned for visionary decisions, but they must also understand the impact of another disruption so soon on the risk- and uncertainty-averse economy. Ergo, I believe this government holds its fate in its own hands. Its performance will dictate whether it’ll face the guillotine.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2022
Muhammad Amir Rana Published May 29, 2022
POLICING is never an easy task, and it gets harder during times of sociopolitical unrest. It tests the law enforcers’ professional capabilities, character, morale and, most importantly, how they get around their political, religious, ethnic, and social biases while performing their duties. Their personal biases and partisan tendencies along with concerns about ‘public image’ usually constrain their capacities to maintain the rule of law.
Apart from political considerations, the way the police in Punjab and Islamabad handled the PTI’s long march this week will add to their confidence and morale. The police have been under immense pressure since the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan entered the political and religious arena. The TLP-led violent demonstrations inevitably ended with agreements that supported the radical group. The police suffered the most during these protests: not only did they lose many of their personnel, but most of the time they were sidelined and paramilitary forces given the mandate of policing. Overall, state institutions and political governments also did not help the police in marshalling the required response and preserving their self-esteem.
However, the police appear to have dealt with the recent political crisis more confidently, which has played a role in forcing the winding up of the PTI’s long march within a day. Political pundits may count the backdoor efforts, low participation of the public, and the role of the judiciary as factors, but the credit for restricting the protesters within a limit goes to the police.
Read: How Imran’s march came to an abrupt end
The police too suffered losses, with three cops losing their lives while performing their duties and several others seriously wounded and also humiliated. Punjab police alone estimated the cost of material losses at around Rs15 million — as protesters had set many vehicles on fire — aside from the cost of transportation and tear gas. According to a media report, it cost the government Rs149m to maintain law and order in the capital during the long march. However, that is much less than the cost of deploying paramilitary troops to maintain law and order.
Empowering civilian security institutions is imperative for sustainable rule of law.
It was the unprecedented terrorism challenge in many parts of the country that forced the state to take enhanced operational measures, including the deployment of paramilitary forces. Karachi was an exception, where the Sindh Rangers were given diverse responsibilities to tackle organised crime and violent ethnopolitical conflict; ultimately, however, the strategy has weakened the police structure in the metropolitan city. A similar but complex situation exists in Balochistan and the tribal districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where extraordinary circumstances have led the Frontier Corps and the army, respectively, to take control of security and law enforcement parallel to existing, though weak, law-enforcement structures.
The capacity building of law-enforcement agencies, especially the police, is a long-standing issue. In addition to capacity problems, the police are also under-resourced and lack the required equipment. However, instead of addressing these issues and allocating additional resources to the police, the federal and provincial governments prefer to engage paramilitary forces in critical political situations and anti-crime campaigns. Empowering civilian security institutions and restoring the paramilitary forces to their original purpose is imperative to enable a stable and sustainable rule of law in the country.
Also read: Who ‘green-lit’ govt action against PTI?
The police as an institution can absorb the masses’ anger, which no other security institution can even think of. Whenever military and paramilitary forces are deployed in urban areas, there is a political cost. If they cannot afford the cost to save their image, the state institutions are compelled to compromise, and ultimately this capitulation encourages the actors of instability. Many police officers believe that had they been entrusted with controlling the TLP-led protests, they would have tackled them better. But the state institutions either did not trust the police or had some other considerations in mind.
Apart from policing, the issue of provocative speech also needs to be addressed. In countering extremism, the state institutions have taken a few initiatives to keep a check on hate speech. However, a more comprehensive framework is needed as there is no check on provocative political speech. The opposition believes it is their constitutional right to say whatsoever they want to in public gatherings without considering the consequences. The political leadership may use provocative language to charge the crowd rather than out of any malign intent. However, when they use expressions such as ‘khooni inqilab’ (bloody revolution), ‘jalao gherao’ (burn and lay siege to), and ‘ghassito’ (drag) the opponents, it has an impact on the minds of the masses. They should be mindful about how mob psychology works.
Using rhetoric, foul language, and provocative speech is not confined to any one political or religious party; all are culprits at different levels. Though certain laws exist to check provocative speech and police often register cases, the judiciary has not taken such charges seriously and ultimately has disposed of such cases on political grounds.
Parliament can play a role in introducing a code of civility which binds all political and religious actors to not violate the law. Such a code can be introduced with a few punitive actions, including suspension of parliament membership for a few weeks to a year, heavy fines while submitting nomination papers, etc. However, a code to exploit religion for political gain should be stringent, and it cannot come through the legislative process. It will need an accord among all political actors to say they will avoid using religion, which can provoke the sentiments of the masses.
It is unfortunate that almost every political party has suffered because of misuse of religious narratives. Even then, none of them has sensitised their leadership about the issue, which is breeding hate and increasing intolerance in society. This matter does not fall within the scope of normal policing, but it hurts the police most because in the eyes of a layperson, the police is a symbol of the state, and it is the state, they believe, that is the oppressor.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2022
|
