Come Back, Mr Prime Minister
The prime minister and the PML-N are the most pronounced examples of inertia and governance without accountability.
The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore saroop.ijaz@tribune.com.pk
US President Harry S Truman kept a sign at his desk which said, ‘The buck stops here’. The idea behind the sign and the phrase is really simple, namely that there is one individual atop of the government who has to make decisions and accept responsibility for them. It does not mean micromanaging; it just signifies a sense of moral responsibility and seriousness. One cannot be certain of what sign, if any, is on the desk of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. An appropriate one would, however, be ‘This is not my problem’, since this is Mian Sahib’s approach and answer to most questions. Mian Sahib is on a leave of absence and meanwhile, the ‘buck’ is in perpetual circular rotation.
The question of talks or not is an ideological one. However, once the decision is made, as in the present case of conducting talks, then the federal government in general and Mian Sahib in particular, should hold the baton and accept both the potential success and failure of the strategy. The prime minister has no intention of doing that. The formation of a committee is all warm and fuzzy and gives the impression of doing something; however, that is all it is, giving the impression, etc. Whereas much can be said about the composition of the committee and the individuals selected, one can leave it to those who know these individuals better. However, one general principle seems to have been very deliberately compromised, namely representation.
Talks, everybody now agrees are the ‘solution’. Very well, yet, it might be useful to remind ourselves of what the ‘problem’ is. It is a conflict between the ‘State’ and ‘Non- state’ actors. Where exactly is the ‘State’ in this committee? It is not only that the other party to the negotiations might not take the committee in the present form seriously. More significantly, the prime minister, the government and perhaps, the state is now just afraid. Afraid, of course, of armed adversaries, however even more, afraid of ‘failure’.
That is what it is; Mian Sahib is so afraid of failure, of taking the wrong decisions, that he has made the decision of making no decisions. If there are to be negotiations, they have to be led by the federal government and the composition of the committee should represent that. Death by inaction is what stares us plainly in the face.
Mian Nawaz Sharif was a businessman before he was a politician. Mian Shahbaz Sharif is nothing, if not a very good administrator/manager. Mian Shahbaz Sharif runs a province through the bureaucracy (side point, hence there are very poor betting odds for any civil service reform or even talk of it) and technocrats and has little patience for public representatives or the tedium of dealing with the provincial assembly, etc. The ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to delegate it to someone else, to get rid of the problem by making it someone else’s problem, to bring in the experts, basically do anything except do something yourself. Above all, the ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to privatise; to privatise not only the airlines and Railways, but national security, even the very existence of the State itself. Alas, if only peace was as easy as engaging the right consultants or shall we say, contractors for the task. Conflicts require leaders, which are bit more than corporate managers.
The PML-N went to the elections on a non-ideological campaign. The promise was never any higher principle or rights, it was efficiency. Let us for the moment, defer comment on how efficiently the State is being run (or perhaps, it is a rhetorical question to begin with). However, there is a spectacular confusion on efficiency and the perception of it. The PML-N knows marketing and the value of optics. However, the campaign season is over; and Mian Sahib now finds himself with a country to run and the country can’t seem to find Mian Sahib. The answer to the question of militancy lies not in the selection process of a dream team of master negotiators. It lies in having the nerve to make tough choices and sticking by the consequences. Balochistan will not become an island of tranquillity and peace by metro buses and motorways. The power crisis or circular debt will not go away by finding the right whizz tycoons to take care of the matter. All of this requires serious policymaking and owning up to the consequences of these policies. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen anytime soon.
Exhibit A is Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. The interior minister may look all business and no nonsense. Yet, the fact of the matter remains, that a counterterrorism policy was promised and was supposed to be delivered long ago, and it has not. There is no good reason for Chaudhry Nisar Ali not to be a part of the negotiating team. He is in charge of law and order, and this is what the committee seeks to address. Additionally, he will have some explaining to do if they fail, unlike the present members of the committee, who will if God forbid all of this fails, can and will shrug their shoulders and go home. Freelance experts are not going to get us through this.
The prime minister and the PML-N are the most pronounced examples of inertia and governance without accountability. However, on the question of talks, while most agree that there should be talks, none appear willing to volunteer themselves for the task. Mr Imran Khan should offer to help. Perhaps, publicly insist on being part of the negotiation process and ask for specific powers and authority to conduct these negotiations. The catch here is, if Mr Khan does that, then he accepts the consequences of whatever happens when the talks are over. Mr Khan does not want that. He wants to be the bystander critic. He is in for tough competition, since it seems we have a bystander prime minister to match.
Mr Prime Minister, come back to your job, all is forgiven. The people of this country voted for you to be a leader and it is only reasonable to expect that you at least try.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2014.
The question of talks or not is an ideological one. However, once the decision is made, as in the present case of conducting talks, then the federal government in general and Mian Sahib in particular, should hold the baton and accept both the potential success and failure of the strategy. The prime minister has no intention of doing that. The formation of a committee is all warm and fuzzy and gives the impression of doing something; however, that is all it is, giving the impression, etc. Whereas much can be said about the composition of the committee and the individuals selected, one can leave it to those who know these individuals better. However, one general principle seems to have been very deliberately compromised, namely representation.
Talks, everybody now agrees are the ‘solution’. Very well, yet, it might be useful to remind ourselves of what the ‘problem’ is. It is a conflict between the ‘State’ and ‘Non- state’ actors. Where exactly is the ‘State’ in this committee? It is not only that the other party to the negotiations might not take the committee in the present form seriously. More significantly, the prime minister, the government and perhaps, the state is now just afraid. Afraid, of course, of armed adversaries, however even more, afraid of ‘failure’.
That is what it is; Mian Sahib is so afraid of failure, of taking the wrong decisions, that he has made the decision of making no decisions. If there are to be negotiations, they have to be led by the federal government and the composition of the committee should represent that. Death by inaction is what stares us plainly in the face.
Mian Nawaz Sharif was a businessman before he was a politician. Mian Shahbaz Sharif is nothing, if not a very good administrator/manager. Mian Shahbaz Sharif runs a province through the bureaucracy (side point, hence there are very poor betting odds for any civil service reform or even talk of it) and technocrats and has little patience for public representatives or the tedium of dealing with the provincial assembly, etc. The ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to delegate it to someone else, to get rid of the problem by making it someone else’s problem, to bring in the experts, basically do anything except do something yourself. Above all, the ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to privatise; to privatise not only the airlines and Railways, but national security, even the very existence of the State itself. Alas, if only peace was as easy as engaging the right consultants or shall we say, contractors for the task. Conflicts require leaders, which are bit more than corporate managers.
The PML-N went to the elections on a non-ideological campaign. The promise was never any higher principle or rights, it was efficiency. Let us for the moment, defer comment on how efficiently the State is being run (or perhaps, it is a rhetorical question to begin with). However, there is a spectacular confusion on efficiency and the perception of it. The PML-N knows marketing and the value of optics. However, the campaign season is over; and Mian Sahib now finds himself with a country to run and the country can’t seem to find Mian Sahib. The answer to the question of militancy lies not in the selection process of a dream team of master negotiators. It lies in having the nerve to make tough choices and sticking by the consequences. Balochistan will not become an island of tranquillity and peace by metro buses and motorways. The power crisis or circular debt will not go away by finding the right whizz tycoons to take care of the matter. All of this requires serious policymaking and owning up to the consequences of these policies. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen anytime soon.
Exhibit A is Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. The interior minister may look all business and no nonsense. Yet, the fact of the matter remains, that a counterterrorism policy was promised and was supposed to be delivered long ago, and it has not. There is no good reason for Chaudhry Nisar Ali not to be a part of the negotiating team. He is in charge of law and order, and this is what the committee seeks to address. Additionally, he will have some explaining to do if they fail, unlike the present members of the committee, who will if God forbid all of this fails, can and will shrug their shoulders and go home. Freelance experts are not going to get us through this.
The prime minister and the PML-N are the most pronounced examples of inertia and governance without accountability. However, on the question of talks, while most agree that there should be talks, none appear willing to volunteer themselves for the task. Mr Imran Khan should offer to help. Perhaps, publicly insist on being part of the negotiation process and ask for specific powers and authority to conduct these negotiations. The catch here is, if Mr Khan does that, then he accepts the consequences of whatever happens when the talks are over. Mr Khan does not want that. He wants to be the bystander critic. He is in for tough competition, since it seems we have a bystander prime minister to match.
Mr Prime Minister, come back to your job, all is forgiven. The people of this country voted for you to be a leader and it is only reasonable to expect that you at least try.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2014.