The recent activism on the part of Pakistans disparate opposition has raised the issue that whether Pakistan is returning to the politics of the 1990s when anti-PPP parties used to get together temporarily to pull down the PPP government. Are these parties on the go again? The answer is that they want to go for the kill, but as the circumstances have changed since the 1990s, they will be inclined towards building enough pressure to paralyse, if not oust, the PPP-led federal government.
Two types of activities are noticeable: efforts to unify different PML factions and the stepped up PML(N) campaign against the PPP and especially President Asif Ali Zardari, emphasising the federal governments failure to control prices and check corruption and inability to ensure good governance.
Four factions of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), known for their negative disposition towards the PPP are endeavouring to unite under the leadership of the Pir of Pagara who pursues a dual track policy of being a critic of the PPP leadership but maintaining a dubious political partnership with the PPP.
The unification effort will be of no political consequence unless the PML(Q) and the PML(N) join it. The PML(Q) leadership was involved in the first exploratory effort for unification. Later, it decided to keep its options open because the PPP established contact with its top leaders, the Chaudhry brothers. They are likely to sit on the fence between the PPP government and the leaders working for unification of the PML. The breakaway group of the PML(Q), known as the Like-Minded faction, is also looking for a better bargain from any political quarter. Thus, the unification effort cannot mature and build pressure on the PPP federal government unless it brings the remaining factions into its fold.
The PML(N) has no reason at this stage to join the Pir of Pagara-led PML entourage because the former is the largest PML faction with more representation in the two houses of the parliament and the Punjab Assembly than any other faction. It does not gain much by joining the unification efforts. Rather, the smaller factions need the PML(N) to increase their political clout. Further, Nawaz Sharif loses his leadership to the Pir of Pagara if the PML(N) joins the unified PML. This would be a major gain for the Pir of Pagara whose political standing is limited to three districts of Sindh. The Sharif brothers lose more by joining the unified PML because their PML does not need the support of other factions to pursue its agenda effectively.
However, the PML(N) would not mind if other factions merge with it. Its leadership is willing to welcome the Like-minded group or the PML(Q) members on a selective basis. If this happens the leadership of Nawaz Sharif will be strengthened.
It seems that the latest effort to unify the PML will fizzle out like the similar efforts made in the past. The PML(N) is likely to win over some members of other factions, strengthening its political standing in the Punjab. The unified PML under the Pir of Pagara is not expected to gain enough political clout to challenge the PPP-led federal government. However, its leaders would continue to criticize the PPP for making their presence felt.
The most interesting development is the growing hostility in the attitude of the PML(N) leaders towards the PPP. Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif have made several statements over the last one month publicly accusing President Zardari of amassing wealth outside Pakistan by getting kickbacks from official deals. They demanded the return of such looted wealth to the people of Pakistan. Chaudhry Nisar Ali and other key leaders are now taking the PPP to task for all the ills of Pakistan, starting from the price hike and law and order situation to the pressures from the IMF.
While some of the PML(N) leaders have demanded midterm elections to avert Pakistans slide into anarchy, others are talking of the possibilities of a bloody revolution in Pakistan. The PPP leaders have come out with equally tough rejoinders. Of late, the erstwhile soft-spoken prime minister resorted to sharp responses on the floor of the National Assembly.
Nawaz Sharif is now pursuing a two-track policy of tough talking about the working of the federal government and proposing a Charter for Pakistan for the next 25 years. One wonders if the PPP will take the Charter offer seriously against the backdrop of the PML(N)s current onslaught to pull down the government. The PML(N) should talk of cooperation within the framework of the constitution rather than proposing a new charter. Further, all such issues need to be taken up in the parliament rather than working towards a new declaration outside the parliament.
In the past, the unification efforts were sponsored by the ISI to build pressure on the PPP. However, it is difficult to suggest if the army or intelligence establishment is at the back of the latest effort. It seems that the opposition parties, especially the PML(N), have somehow come to the conclusion that the establishment is unhappy with policy management by the federal government and thus decided to increase pressure on the government.
The major opposition expectation was that the superior judiciary, in a bid to pursue judicial activism, would deliver a judgment embarrassing the government or disqualify President Zardari from holding office, or force the government to initiate court proceedings against him in Switzerland. They were encouraged in their expectations by the remarks of some judges in the course of the court proceedings, as reported in the press. However, this did not happen. The federal government and the superior judiciary showed restraint.
The PML(N) has, therefore, decided to go ahead all alone, hoping that other political forces would join its venture to pull down the government. They are hopeful that the courts will continue to keep the federal government under pressure.
Any attempt to seek the solution of Pakistans current political and economic predicament outside the parliament or through non-elected institutions and processes may accentuate the crisis of governance and political management and prove detrimental to the political forces.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.