With such heated statements being exchanged, all institutions are losing a sense of balance and while the government takes a lead on it, many of the statements issued by the army and the Supreme Court are not really reflective of the comments that would warrant such institutions’ stature and domain
It seems like a tiff between two rowdy and raucous teenagers. Both are adamant and stubborn, both are insistent and persistent, both are complaining and criticising. Unfortunately, this is not a story of newly growing up adolescents going through teething problems and hormonal riot, but the major institutions of Pakistan manned by people who have spent the better part of their life in the most honourable of institutions and positions. The constant bickering of the government with the army and with the Supreme Court has not only become disgraceful but destabilising as well. The exchange of words on all sides is abnormal and not within the code of political conduct. However, the constant friction between the major national institutions has created a culture of fear and uncertainty where the only people benefitting are the media moguls who enjoy the undivided attention of consumers always glued to the TV screens with apprehensive suspense of what can go wrong further.
The clash of the institutions is a sad reflection of the political immaturity of the people involved in these really base brawls. The government’s one-point agenda to continue ruling despite everything has become a bone of contention in every sphere of the political economy. Being named as the ‘people’s party’, it has a perception now of being the people’s enemy. There is a conflict of interest that has now become so apparent that even the telecom companies have failed to keep up with the jokes forwarded daily on the bitter mockery bestowed on the leaders in return for the disastrous governance of all institutions providing service delivery to the public. The public outbursts have ranged from protests to suicides to killings against the misery caused by absence of electricity, gas, trains, etc. The government has given heed to these protests by providing short-term relief and huge promises only to default on them every single time. This has added to the disillusionment and anger. When the leadership of a country thinks that either we can benefit or the public can benefit, it really goes into a win-lose mindset that in the long run is always self-defeating. Lessons to be learned are all around from Egypt to Tunisia but the comparison may not be impactful on our leaders who may be admiring the three-decade reign and saying that if those leaders could have their way despite the public unrest for three plus decades, why can they not enjoy this friction for three plus years.
Similarly, the same spirit of ‘me vs you’ prevails between the government and the armed forces. Even before the Memogate, things have not been cordial. The government has been confused on its policy on how to relate with this important institution. Having backed them in the war on terror for the US, they found the army changing colours on the Pak-US relationship post-Osama Bin Laden invasion by the US in Abbottabad. The government, very much inclined to toe the US’s line, found it difficult to counter both the US aggression and the armed forces’ aggression. The split was evident as the All Parties Conference (APC) was held and strict action was promised against American incursion. The army already mollified by the American humiliation of not taking them into confidence and later the uncalled for NATO attack on our soldiers was adamant not to relent to the American government’s insistence of giving in to their demands. As the government became insecure about their ability to survive on merit, they resorted to American backing and thus the Memogate scandal became a bone of heavy contention between the two sides. This standoff has now become an indecent battle where the heads of both institutions are daily giving statements that signify a complete lack of trust and tolerance.
As if this was not enough, the Supreme Court reignited the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) tussle between the government and the judiciary. Allegations and accusations are being hurled from both ends. The prime minister is livid with the Supreme Court’s statement about his dishonesty while the court is upset at consecutive contempt of court and dismissal of its orders by the state. With such heated statements being exchanged, all institutions are losing a sense of balance and while the government takes a lead on it, many of the statements issued by the army and the Supreme Court are not really reflective of the comments that would warrant such institutions’ stature and domain. That is always the danger when issues become heated and emotions rule the vocabulary.
This has created confrontational lobbies where instead of looking at the longer term impact of such corrosive relations, the whole focus is to prove the other party wrong. This puts further pressure on an already fragile and deteriorating political economy. Who benefits from this inner focus are all the external forces who are waiting for weak spots to put accelerated pressure on a country already split by its internal conflicts. This win-lose strategy is not new. Previously it was a British patented strategy used to take over lands of abundance. Make them fight, weaken them and rule them. More recently, this has become an American modus operandi. They will keep giving statements of not interfering yet they will see which faction is the weakest and can be bought, support them, till it is time to drop them and look anew. From Iraq to Egypt, their paid nominees were nourished till they outlived their usage. Similarly, any leader in Pakistan must realise that the Americans or any other external forces will not interfere if the counter-strategy for divide and rule is adopted and that is ‘unite and rule’. One recent example of this was the APC in which when all forces united, the Americans had to give up the Shamsi Airbase and the drone attacks have become almost negligible.
However, when leaders are not secure of their position they feel that the only way to secure their own position is to weaken the position of those opposing them. Thus, it results in the win-lose mindset that instead of thinking about solutions, parties think about how to create bigger problems to make their own problems look insignificant. This mentality of scarcity, unfortunately, causes not only their own downfall but the downfall of the nation as well. For a nation to be secure, those who are leading must have the security of earning their title and position. Without that it will be a constant game of securing their position at the cost of the insecurity of the nation.
It seems like a tiff between two rowdy and raucous teenagers. Both are adamant and stubborn, both are insistent and persistent, both are complaining and criticising. Unfortunately, this is not a story of newly growing up adolescents going through teething problems and hormonal riot, but the major institutions of Pakistan manned by people who have spent the better part of their life in the most honourable of institutions and positions. The constant bickering of the government with the army and with the Supreme Court has not only become disgraceful but destabilising as well. The exchange of words on all sides is abnormal and not within the code of political conduct. However, the constant friction between the major national institutions has created a culture of fear and uncertainty where the only people benefitting are the media moguls who enjoy the undivided attention of consumers always glued to the TV screens with apprehensive suspense of what can go wrong further.
The clash of the institutions is a sad reflection of the political immaturity of the people involved in these really base brawls. The government’s one-point agenda to continue ruling despite everything has become a bone of contention in every sphere of the political economy. Being named as the ‘people’s party’, it has a perception now of being the people’s enemy. There is a conflict of interest that has now become so apparent that even the telecom companies have failed to keep up with the jokes forwarded daily on the bitter mockery bestowed on the leaders in return for the disastrous governance of all institutions providing service delivery to the public. The public outbursts have ranged from protests to suicides to killings against the misery caused by absence of electricity, gas, trains, etc. The government has given heed to these protests by providing short-term relief and huge promises only to default on them every single time. This has added to the disillusionment and anger. When the leadership of a country thinks that either we can benefit or the public can benefit, it really goes into a win-lose mindset that in the long run is always self-defeating. Lessons to be learned are all around from Egypt to Tunisia but the comparison may not be impactful on our leaders who may be admiring the three-decade reign and saying that if those leaders could have their way despite the public unrest for three plus decades, why can they not enjoy this friction for three plus years.
Similarly, the same spirit of ‘me vs you’ prevails between the government and the armed forces. Even before the Memogate, things have not been cordial. The government has been confused on its policy on how to relate with this important institution. Having backed them in the war on terror for the US, they found the army changing colours on the Pak-US relationship post-Osama Bin Laden invasion by the US in Abbottabad. The government, very much inclined to toe the US’s line, found it difficult to counter both the US aggression and the armed forces’ aggression. The split was evident as the All Parties Conference (APC) was held and strict action was promised against American incursion. The army already mollified by the American humiliation of not taking them into confidence and later the uncalled for NATO attack on our soldiers was adamant not to relent to the American government’s insistence of giving in to their demands. As the government became insecure about their ability to survive on merit, they resorted to American backing and thus the Memogate scandal became a bone of heavy contention between the two sides. This standoff has now become an indecent battle where the heads of both institutions are daily giving statements that signify a complete lack of trust and tolerance.
As if this was not enough, the Supreme Court reignited the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) tussle between the government and the judiciary. Allegations and accusations are being hurled from both ends. The prime minister is livid with the Supreme Court’s statement about his dishonesty while the court is upset at consecutive contempt of court and dismissal of its orders by the state. With such heated statements being exchanged, all institutions are losing a sense of balance and while the government takes a lead on it, many of the statements issued by the army and the Supreme Court are not really reflective of the comments that would warrant such institutions’ stature and domain. That is always the danger when issues become heated and emotions rule the vocabulary.
This has created confrontational lobbies where instead of looking at the longer term impact of such corrosive relations, the whole focus is to prove the other party wrong. This puts further pressure on an already fragile and deteriorating political economy. Who benefits from this inner focus are all the external forces who are waiting for weak spots to put accelerated pressure on a country already split by its internal conflicts. This win-lose strategy is not new. Previously it was a British patented strategy used to take over lands of abundance. Make them fight, weaken them and rule them. More recently, this has become an American modus operandi. They will keep giving statements of not interfering yet they will see which faction is the weakest and can be bought, support them, till it is time to drop them and look anew. From Iraq to Egypt, their paid nominees were nourished till they outlived their usage. Similarly, any leader in Pakistan must realise that the Americans or any other external forces will not interfere if the counter-strategy for divide and rule is adopted and that is ‘unite and rule’. One recent example of this was the APC in which when all forces united, the Americans had to give up the Shamsi Airbase and the drone attacks have become almost negligible.
However, when leaders are not secure of their position they feel that the only way to secure their own position is to weaken the position of those opposing them. Thus, it results in the win-lose mindset that instead of thinking about solutions, parties think about how to create bigger problems to make their own problems look insignificant. This mentality of scarcity, unfortunately, causes not only their own downfall but the downfall of the nation as well. For a nation to be secure, those who are leading must have the security of earning their title and position. Without that it will be a constant game of securing their position at the cost of the insecurity of the nation.
1 comments:
Thanks for another informative site. The place else may I am getting that type of info written in such a perfect means? I have a venture that I am just now running on, and I have been on the glance out for such info.
DC Sport EX-5016 Stainless Steel Round Muffler and Slant Cut Exhaust Tip
Post a Comment