Share this story!            

VIEW: Post-earthquake political trends —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

The presidency and army authorities hope that the two mainstream political parties, i.e. PPP and PMLN, which are not very active in relief and rehabilitation work, will lose credibility. The major risk is that their hopes will not materialise. What if the army’s performance is tainted by issues like non-transparency and the lack of political support? In such a situation the presidency and the army will face the blame

The statements of the government and the opposition leaders prove that they hold divergent views on managing rescue, relief and reconstruction in the earthquake affected areas. These differences are not likely to go away because these views represent divergent perspectives on governance and political management.

The official perspective can be described as the management and bureaucratic model dominated by the military which offers a limited role to co-opted civilians. The other perspective gives primacy to the political and places premium on participatory and consultative processes involving the bureaucratic/military apparatus of the state and the elected political leaders and the community. The latter is a partnership concept whereas the former is a command model with selective participation of the political/civilian leaders.

The proceedings of the National Assembly and the Senate show that the opposition leaders are critical of the government’s handling of post earthquake affairs. They highlight the army’s delayed response to the tragedy, the army-dominated administrative set up for relief and reconstruction, bypassing the prime minister and cabinet in initial decision-making and non-involvement of the parliament. They are also advocating transparency and accountability of the donated funds and diversion of funds from defence expenditure and the construction of the army headquarters in Islamabad to relief and rehabilitation.

The presidency has made some adjustments in the management of earthquake related issues by assigning a more active role to the prime minister and the cabinet. Civilian bureaucracy has also been given a conspicuous role. However, the primacy of the army has been maintained.

The government, especially the presidency, was irked by the decision of opposition (ARD and MMA) to stay away from the International Donors’ Conference (November 19) which the former interpreted as an attempt to delegitimise its efforts. On November 23, President General Pervez Musharraf criticised the opposition for not cooperating with the government for the Donors’ Conference.

He said that with the exception of the opposition everybody at home and abroad supported the relief and rehabilitation efforts. “The success of the donors’ conference has silenced them for they cannot think of what to do now.” A day later, the federal minister for parliamentary affairs defended the president’s statement arguing that the president’s remarks were “true and based on facts”.

The president’s remarks were ill timed in that the parliamentary committee set up by the prime minister was to hold its first meeting the same day. The opposition leaders representing the two major opposition alliances, ARD and MMA, attended the meeting to voice their concerns rather than formally join it. The cautious flexibility on the part of the opposition was a positive development.

They could have also attended the donors’ conference after outlining their reservations on the government’s management of relief and rehabilitation work. However they didn’t, exposing themselves to allegations of trying to undermine the government’s credibility. Their latest decision to attend the first meeting of the parliamentary committee may help bridge differences.

The opposition believes that the parliamentary committee’s role is a non-effective role. They want to revise its terms of reference, enabling the parliamentary committee to play “the main role in the rehabilitation work and ensure financial transparency”. They do not give much credence to the government’s offer to institute an audit of the expenditure and administrative checks to ensure transparency. The government is also willing to provide information to the parliament on these matters.

If a consensus does not develop between the government and the opposition on the role of the parliament and its committee, the opposition may stay away from the committee and use the parliament and the media to voice their concerns about the government’s management of relief and rehabilitation work.

The presidency’s reluctance to let the prime minister, parliament and civilian leaders take a leading role reflects President Pervez Musharraf’s distrust of the political elite, especially the opposition. The three principles of his governance style are unity of command, centralisation and the primacy of the army — the civilian bureaucracy provides policy input and performs support and implementation functions.

The selected political elite has a secondary role within this framework. The civilian government and the co-opted political elite make policy input, manage day-to-day affairs, mobilise public support for the policies and defend these inside and outside parliament. Those questioning the legitimacy of these arrangements are excluded and others who oppose them but are not perceived as a serious and immediate threat are allowed a limited role.

Given this framework of governance it is understandable that the presidency and the army will initiate and manage relief and rehabilitation. The civilian government headed by the prime minister and the civilian bureaucracy is the junior partner.

The parliament and its committee are not expected to play the commanding role in managing relief and rehabilitation work for two reasons. First, the parliament occupies a non-salient role in the post-military rule political arrangements. It has not been able to carve out an autonomous and assertive role. One can’t expect a reversal of this trend after the earthquake.

Second, the government and the opposition have not been able to develop a smooth working relationship in the parliament. The opposition has made the government’s life difficult inside the house by walkouts, boycotts, desk thumping and other means. They strongly criticise the president, the military and the civilian government.

Due to their uncooperative behaviour, President Musharraf has not delivered his mandatory address to the joint session of the parliament for the second and third parliamentary years. The first session of fourth parliamentary year will resume in December. The government and especially the presidency view the opposition as a source of trouble and an obstacle to good governance.

The presidency is not expected to allow the parliamentary committee to exercise effective control over relief and rehabilitation. It can give them a consultative and advisory role but it cannot transfer the initiative to the parliament. The presidency appears to be concerned by the opposition tirade against assigning primacy to the army in relief and rehabilitation. The opposition demands for an effective parliamentary role conflict with the basic principle of the Musharraf governance model.

The presidency and army authorities are convinced that they can rely on the military’s organisational capacity and technological skills to undertake relief and rehabilitation work so effectively that the opposition parties will become more irrelevant. They hope that the two mainstream political parties, i.e. PPP and PMLN, which are not very active in relief and rehabilitation work, will lose credibility. The major risk is that their hopes will not materialise.

What if the army’s performance is tainted by issues like non-transparency and the lack of political support? In such a situation the presidency and the army will face the blame. The risks of doing it alone are greater than those of working in partnership with the civilian political leaders.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Home | Editorial

Share this story!