THE government’s reaction to Nawaz Sharif’s scorcher of a speech at the opposition’s multiparty conference on Sunday is sadly not unexpected in the current polarised atmosphere, but that makes it no less objectionable.
At a press conference on Monday, senior federal ministers including Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Asad Umar, Fawad Chaudhry and Shibli Faraz accused the speakers at the MPC, particularly the former premier, of being ‘anti-Pakistan’. They claimed the opposition was promoting the enemy’s agenda by levelling allegations against national institutions like the army, NAB and ECP. Mr Umar also said the MPC was proof that Prime Minister Imran Khan was right when he said at the beginning of his tenure that “the opposition has everything at stake … and when accountability moves forward, they will all get together”.
With the political discourse having become increasingly reductive, it now takes very little for wild allegations of being ‘anti-state’ to be bandied about. The shameful precedent that began with the sister of this country’s founder being declared a foreign agent in a state-sponsored advertisement campaign during Gen Ayub Khan’s government has come of age in a political arena where healthy debate seems a passé concept. That said, the ministers’ contention that the opposition have joined hands in order to neutralise the corruption charges against them is not without merit.
The prime minister has also repeatedly alleged the same self-interest on their part, particularly in connection with the passage of FATF-related legislation. There are serious charges of corruption against several leading opposition figures, including Mr Sharif, and they must face them in a court of law, regardless of the outcome. That will increase their stature and lend credibility to their claims of fighting for democracy. A stint in prison, even on trumped-up charges, has rarely done a politician’s career any harm — quite the contrary in fact.
Meanwhile, if, as his ministers maintain, the prime minister is indeed the one in the driving seat, he should put a stop to his predecessor being denounced as ‘anti-state’ and accused of trying to please India by criticising the army. It is a repugnant line of attack. Certainly, there are serious differences between the government and the opposition on a variety of issues.
The former appears hell-bent on pursuing the current mode of accountability while the latter believes it is being unfairly hounded and that the government would not last a day without the support of extra-constitutional forces. Instead of preaching to the choir, both sides should start a healthy political ‘fight’ that draws the line at accusing each other of being unpatriotic or working against Pakistan. They would do well to consider that it serves our enemies well when our leaders engage in such recrimination. We lost this country’s eastern wing nearly four decades ago amidst precisely such vicious rhetoric and politics of vilification. This must stop now.
GB as a province?
IN a major development, all political parties have agreed to accord Gilgit-Baltistan the status of a province. According to this understanding, the parties have decided they will take this significant step after the elections in GB that are due shortly. The opposition had demanded that integrating GB into the federation should not be treated as a partisan issue and therefore should wait so electioneering does not impact the debate adversely. It will require a constitutional amendment which will pass smoothly once the parties have agreed on the exact parameters of this step. This has been a long-standing demand of the people of GB because they have been in a constitutional limbo for decades. This has led to deep grievances and political unrest that have continued to fester in the absence of any serious attempt by Islamabad to address them. In this sense, the decision to make GB a province is a welcome step. However, there are caveats. The final status of GB is connected to the ultimate resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The main reason that Pakistan had not integrated GB into the federation was to ensure that such a step should not impact the disputed status of Kashmir as per the resolutions of the United Nations. In August last year, the BJP government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi annexed India-held Kashmir by revoking its special status. There is concern that by integrating GB as a province, Pakistan may weaken its case in the way that India has. However, the problem may be addressed if Pakistan can say GB’s status as a province will be a provisional one and the final status will depend on the resolution of the Kashmir issue. It could keep our legal position on Kashmir intact while providing the people of GB the full constitutional status they have always deserved.
The political leadership should tackle this issue with maturity and adopt an approach that is non-partisan. There should be a full debate in parliament and all legal and international aspects of the matter should be discussed in detail. The final amendment should have a watertight text that is vetted by experts of international law keeping in mind the requirements of the UN resolutions on Kashmir. Once done, the amendment should enjoy unanimous support to announce to the world that Pakistan stands firmly behind this decision. This is a momentous step and should be accorded the attention it deserves.
Anger against KE
THE rowdy behaviour of participants at a hearing organised by power-sector regulator Nepra to seek public opinion on its proposal to end K-Electric’s monopoly over the distribution of electricity among the residents of Karachi took the focus off the real issue: how to resolve the city’s power woes in a sustainable manner. Instead, the verbal clash that ensued between two groups of political and civil society activists led the Nepra chief to first suspend the proceedings and then adjourn the hearing for a later date in Islamabad. Unfortunately, the choice of venue will not make it possible for Karachi residents who want to discuss the pros and cons of KE’s monopoly to contribute to the discussion. There is no doubt that emotions against the country’s only privatised distribution company are running high because of the days-long blackout in many parts of the city during the recent torrential rains. Public anger against the utility is totally understandable. Yet the issue needs a dispassionate and informed discussion so that a solution can be found.
Until recently, KE was praised by many for improving service delivery and ending blackouts in many areas. The company has invested significant sums to increase its own generation and improve its distribution network and reduce outages since privatisation. But it is also true that the dilapidated electricity distribution network still requires large investments to remedy the problems. KE claims its planned infrastructure investment will end blackouts in 95pc of the city by 2023, when its monopoly status expires. There is a caveat though in the shape of timely approvals of projects by the government and other agencies. Indeed, there’s no alternative to market competition when it comes to improving service delivery. But we are still far from developing a framework to have a competitive retail electricity market. Until that stage arrives, the regulator would do well to ensure that KE executes its infrastructure development investments on a fast-track basis, and that it is held accountable if it fails to make good on its commitments.
