Why does Pakistan need a crisis management mechanism?

Why do political parties of Pakistan and other state institutions lack capability and capacity to deal with a crisis

Since its inception in August 1947, Pakistan has been grappling with crisis after crisis — of many types. The prevailing political landscape further exemplifies this. However, a crisis is both a challenge and an opportunity. Tunnel vision and the inability to think out of the box result in misunderstanding and mismanaging the crisis. If a country is a fragile, failing or failed state, it means it is incapable of managing crises.

Mark Amstutz defined crisis as “a situation involving a threat to a country’s vital interests, limited time constraints, the potential use of force, and the involvement of a government’s top leadership.” According to the Oxford definition, crisis is “a decisive moment, time of danger and great difficulty, the turning point.” A crisis also means a situation when there is a grave danger and threat of the outbreak of violence and war. The fundamental elements contributing to a crisis include fragile decision-making, weak nerves, confusion, dearth of courage, loss of time, and control over events along with meagre leadership qualities. Management of crisis means when the parties concerned are mindful of skilful decision-making, timeline, patience, perseverance, shrewdness, using diplomacy and best practices. Crisis management mechanisms can only take place when there is awareness about a crisis, insight, analytical skills, critical thinking, teamwork, the right kind of choices, and institutions have control over events.

The term ‘mother of all crises’ is relevant in today’s Pakistan when the country is grappling with a tug of war between the government and opposition. If both sides remain adamant, there is a likelihood of large-scale chaos and instability. Ultimately, the 220 million people of Pakistan will suffer. When the two sides have crossed all limits of immaturity and indecency, the outcome will be internal chaos, tarnishing Pakistan’s image globally.

Is crisis in-built in Pakistani society and have people become immune to the periodic surfacing of events, which destabilise the normal way of life? Why is there an absence of a crisis management mechanism, which can give early warning and take timely steps for management? Why do political parties of Pakistan and other state institutions lack the capability and capacity to deal with a crisis and fail to manage it promptly?

If the party is over and Prime Minister Imran Khan is losing power, will such a change manage the crisis, or will it trigger another crisis? When former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced a grave crisis in the form of the agitation launched by the Pakistan National Alliance against alleged rigging in the March 1977 elections, why was he unable to manage the crisis effectively? If both the government and the opposition have taken an egocentric approach on the no-confidence resolution tabled in the National Assembly against Prime Minister Imran, why is there an absence of mediators? When the opposition rightfully presented a resolution on a vote of non-confidence against the Prime Minister, the government should have faced the challenge with courage and grace. However, the dissident PTI members of the National Assembly and the use of abusive language against the opposition reflect panic and insecurity in the rank and file of PTI leadership.

The no-confidence motion is a part of the normal political process and is constitutionally legal. It should have been allowed to take place without any hurdles. However, insecurity and lust for power have permeated the ruling party and it is unable to reconcile with the fact that its leader has lost a majority in the National Assembly. In its 75-year history, Pakistan has never witnessed such an unprecedented political polarisation at the expense of democracy and the political process.

There are three dangers emanating from the prevailing crises, which urgently require an effective crisis management mechanism. First, the issues that both the government and opposition parties should have focused on have been entirely disregarded. The lawmakers have failed to prioritise the sharp escalation in prices of essential commodities including fuel, electricity and gas prices, corruption, nepotism, bad governance, absence of the rule of law and foreign policy challenges. Instead, the opposition is focused on removing the Prime Minister from power while the government wants to stay in power. Lust for power and the politics of patronage further augment the level of crises. When there is the absence of qualified, honest, intelligent and visionary leadership the outcome is mismanagement of crisis, which was reflected in the 1971 East Pakistan and 1977 government-opposition crisis.

Pakistan’s ranking of 144 in the human development index and its poor record in human security, human rights, and perception corruption index is an outcome of the non-serious and unprofessional attitude of both the government and the opposition. Other state institutions and actors have failed to play a viable role in the management of crisis because they cannot understand the issues at the grassroots level.

Second, the absence of towering personalities or organisations that can act as a buffer between the two warring parties will further aggravate the prevailing crisis. It appears that there is a leadership vacuum because there is no societal force that can exert pressure on the government and the opposition to refrain from acts that can damage the country’s global image and the economy. Had the Prime Minister and his government focused on ameliorating the socio-economic conditions of people instead of targeting key opposition leaders by using NAB and FIA, the present crisis would not have taken such a threatening course. However, the vindictive and ego-centric approach taken by the Prime Minister forced opposition parties to unite and place a no-confidence motion in the National Assembly. Now four years down the lane, the credibility of PTI’s regime is being questioned because the party wasted a valuable opportunity to unleash the process of qualitative change in society by focusing on resolving real issues.

Third, the required skills, knowledge and expertise about crisis and crisis management is a plus point in dealing with a situation which, if not properly dealt with, can cause colossal damage to the country’s economy. The non-serious approach taken by stakeholders including lawmakers in understanding the dynamics of political crises is putting the country’s survival at stake.

The country is running out of time to manage the prevailing political crisis and if a professional approach is not pursued, everyone should be prepared to face serious consequences. The political parties must follow the example of the judiciary offering mediation to political leaders to follow a prudent, tolerant and sane approach on issues that cause fragmentation. Both the government and the opposition must adopt a wise and responsible approach to cooperating.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 27^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.