THE opposition’s multiparty conference scheduled to take place in Islamabad today is a significant event by all standards. The speech by former prime minister and PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif is expected to be the star attraction. The opposition parties led by the PML-N, PPP and the JUI-F among others have been struggling in the last two years to forge a united strategy against the PTI government. The competing and often conflicting agendas of these parties and their respective leaderships have hindered the process of unified action in parliament and outside in the streets. When JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman staged a well-attended dharna outside Islamabad late last year, other opposition parties failed to join up with him and finally he had to return empty-handed. Since then, there have been multiple occasions when opposition parties have let each other down, or failed to agree on a common goal, much to the relief of the government. To add to these woes, the opposition has also been unable to develop a potent narrative against the government despite the latter’s unsatisfactory record of governance at the federal and provincial levels.
Today’s MPC provides the opposition an opportunity to set aside its differences, reach an agreement on a line of action and map out a strategy that is practical and implementable. It will also give Nawaz Sharif a platform to spell out for his party, and for the opposition in general, how he wants to take on the government. This is particularly important because Mr Sharif has remained silent for more than two years while his party has vacillated between the determined position of his daughter and the cautious politics of his brother. This has resulted in ambiguity within the rank and file of the party. What Mr Sharif says today may end this confusion and make it clear what the PML-N stands for at this moment in time. It will also be quite apparent whether other opposition parties are willing to go along with whatever position he adopts, especially if it pertains to the role of the establishment.
If the opposition parties announce a joint plan of action today, it would have a significant bearing on the politics of the next three years. It is no secret that the government will gain a majority in the Senate after the elections in March next year. This means the opposition will not be in a position to defeat the government inside parliament. Unless they have a plan that can deliver results within the next six months, chances are the opposition will settle for a strategy that can be sustained for a longer period. This could mean a greater emphasis on action outside parliament. In any case, one can expect the opposition to get more proactive and ratchet up the political temperature after today’s meeting.
Russian ‘interference’
IN the cold world of realpolitik both democracies and authoritarian states use propaganda and psychological warfare to discredit and dishearten opponents. As the US presidential election approaches, there are growing voices emerging from the American intelligence community that point to Russian, Chinese and Iranian ‘interference’ in the November polls. Recently, the FBI chief claimed that there was a “steady drumbeat of misinformation” emanating from Russia targeting Donald Trump’s Democratic challenger Joe Biden, as well as the legitimacy of the American political process. American intelligence agencies have also alleged that Moscow worked to support Mr Trump in the 2016 polls and discredit Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton.
Unsavoury as these claims are, the fact is that states all over the world employ such underhand methods to influence events and populations beyond their borders. For example, during the Cold War, the exchange of propaganda between the US and the Soviets was intense, as both sides worked overtime to demonise each other in the public view. However, this is not to say that these methods are legitimate; sovereignty should be an inviolable principle in the realm of international relations, and foreign interference in elections cannot be tolerated. Moscow should not be meddling in Washington’s internal matters and the American people should be the ones deciding the future of their country. Yet as the past few decades have shown, America has used the very same tactics that many within the US establishment are criticising their foreign rivals of deploying. Across the mostly developing world, the US has worked hard to help tinpot dictators keen to serve it, while bringing down democratic governments that refused to toe its line. This has been a steady pattern in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Whether it was the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq’s elected government in Iran — an Anglo-American adventure — or the invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada in 1983 by the US to get rid of a leftist government, America has long meddled in the affairs of sovereign states, all the while throwing international law to the wind. More recently, there were claims that Mr Trump wanted to “take out” Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad, before the plan was vetoed by the then US defence chief. Indeed, all states must respect the bounds of international law and the principle of non-interference, especially those powerful states that have a history of flouting such conventions.
Penniless lawmakers?
THOSE who decide what part of their incomes the citizens of this country should give in taxes to finance the affairs of the state brazenly avoid paying their own share, in spite of living a life of privilege and luxury. What else defines the elite capture of the state if not this? Few parliamentarians, if any, might have felt remorse when finance adviser Hafeez Sheikh disclosed on Friday that 311 members of the National Assembly and 90 senators had collectively paid just Rs800m in taxes on their income during the tax year 2018. Members of the provincial assemblies have together paid even less — Rs340m, according to the sixth tax directory released by the FBR. Many legislators, including two federal ministers, Faisal Vawda and Zartaj Gul, did not pay any income tax at all while the likes of Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind deposited Rs400, Zulfiqar Bachani Rs388 and Kanwal Shozab Rs165. Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar, too, did not earn enough to qualify as a taxpayer.
It is unfair to accuse legislators of avoiding taxes. There is every possibility that their incomes fell below the taxable threshold or were exempt from tax payment. Yet the luxurious lifestyle of a vast majority of legislators from the treasury and opposition benches tells a different story. The imported cars they drive, the large homes they live in, the schools their children go to, their foreign vacations and multiple pilgrimages create doubt in the minds of the people who pay more income tax despite being unable to afford a decent education for their children or healthcare costs. The tax directory is important for the sake of transparency and accountability but it is not enough. The FBR’s job is to audit the legislators’ returns and ensure that the taxes they paid matches their lifestyles. Where their incomes are tax-exempt, it is advisable to review those exemptions. Legislators must pay their share of taxes and willingly present themselves for audit if the tax culture is to be promoted in the country.
