Split puts Pakistan on rocky road

By M Ilyas Khan BBC News

Pakistan Peoples Party now faces a stronger opposition without the PML-N

When Pakistan's four-party ruling alliance took power just under five months ago, there was hardly any parliamentary opposition left in the country.

They had completely trounced the allies of former President Pervez Musharraf in the 18 February elections.

But since then, their only success has been to force Mr Musharraf out of office.

Other than that, the two largest parties in the alliance, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), have been squabbling over one thing or another, leaving the country's worsening economic problems and a rising tide of Islamic militancy unattended.

Analysts are now split over what the PML-N's decision to quit the alliance would mean for the future of the country.

Some expect democracy to weaken and ultimately give in to the country's most powerful institution, the military.

Others say the split may help the party in power, the PPP, to focus more clearly on problems at hand and also strike a new balance in its relations with an expanded opposition.

Key issues

The PML-N has given two reasons for its decision to quit the government.

Pakistani lawyers have backed the restoration of sacked judges

One, that the PPP failed to honour the commitment it made to restore the top judges who were sacked by Mr Musharraf when he imposed emergency rule last November.

Second, the PPP chief, Asif Zardari, has decided to run for president in violation of an agreement that the next president would be a non-partisan individual.

The PML-N joined the alliance in March to achieve two stated objectives; the restoration of judges and the impeachment of Mr Musharraf, who had toppled the PML-N's government in a military coup in 1999.

The PPP was lukewarm to both issues, as were the two smaller partners in power, the Awami National Party and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazal.

But there was a third aim to which all four had clearly subscribed. It was to cut the constitutional powers of the president to sack the government and the parliament.

Differences emerged over which issue to take up first.

The PML-N wanted the restoration of judges to top the agenda, and insisted that this should be done through an executive decree that would declare the act of their sacking illegal.

Lawyer movement

By simple logic of such a decree, Mr Musharraf would have become liable to be impeached, and later tried in a court of law for violating the constitution.

The PPP, which has often found itself on the wrong side of the country's powerful military establishment, had its reservations.

PPP insiders say the plan the party tried to sell to the PML-N took into account the sensitivities of both the military and the Western powers, notably the US and UK, which are the likely sources of Pakistan's economic lifeline in coming days.

The plan was based on a constitutional reform package that would cut presidential powers and lay down the rules for an independent judiciary with clauses to prevent it from endorsing a military takeover in future.

Such an arrangement would have stripped Mr Musharraf of his powers but allowed him to choose his own time to quit, instead of sending him out with a blow.

It would also have subjected the restoration of judges to a sobering process of constitutional amendments that could have barred the judges whose impartiality may have been stained by months of agitation against the Musharraf regime.

The agitation has been led by the lawyers, and is backed by various religious and political groups that see the country's fight against militancy as a sell out to the United States.

Analysts generally agree that the PML-N's decision to quit the alliance is not likely to affect Mr Zardari's chances of winning the presidential election.

But it is certain to deprive the coalition of the two-thirds majority it would have needed to cut the president's powers.

Many say Mr Zardari launched the bid to capture the presidency because with the presidential powers still intact, the party is unlikely to trust a "non-partisan" individual with the country's most powerful post.

The PML-N's decision is likely to push the party more firmly into the lap of the pro-religion parties that have been agitating for the judges' restoration.

Punjab question

The party is likely to come under pressure from them in coming days to oppose military action against the militants, and also to push a harder line on the peace process with India.

But it would be equally concerned with the safety of its own government in Punjab, the country's largest and politically important province where it rules in alliance with PPP.

If PPP were to pull out of the coalition in Punjab, the PML-N would find it difficult to maintain its majority there. A powerful president in the centre, and a hostile PPP governor in the province would be an added disadvantage.

Many analysts believe that if Mr Zardari wins the presidency, he may be able to forge a working relationship with PML-N, based on mutual co-operation in Punjab and at the centre.

But there are many in Pakistan who dread a reversion to the acrimony of the 1990s which decimated the political forces and culminated in the military coup of 1999.

In the highly unlikely case of Mr Zardari losing the presidential election, the country's drift towards pro-religion, anti-West policies will be hard to stem, at least in the early stages.

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version