Political musical chairs

POLITICAL parties with a negotiating position in the new parliament are in the process of trying to assess where they will stand at the time of transfer of power. The situation is fluid and the outlook uncertain. Everyone agrees that no single party will be able to form a government on its own at the centre. Several combinations are possible, but the probable contours of a stable coalition are still hazy. In view of the composition of the new parliament, one proposal is that all major parties should group themselves in some kind of a national government. This will be justifiable only if there is prior unanimity among the components on a well defined set of principles, such as the full restoration of people’s sovereignty without any role for the military. For various reasons, particularly the attitude of one of the major stakeholders, the PML(Q), agreement on an agenda like this seems unlikely. One problem for both the PPP and the PML(Q) is whether to enter into an arrangement with the religious right-wing as represented in the MMA or seek to govern without it. Problems can arise either way. It is clear that unless one or another of the numerically more important parties reconciles itself to sitting in the opposition, the process of government formation may turn out to be a messy affair. The role of the parliamentary opposition will thus be crucial in determining the stability of whichever combination first gets a chance to rule and in preventing the establishment from playing ducks and drakes again with another elected assembly.

The right of the opposition in a parliamentary set-up to try to unseat the government is incontestable. But this does not necessarily mean a constant state of confrontation between the government and the opposition. What it does imply is that the opposition, with considered and mature criticism of government policies and lapses, should try to convince the people that it is better able to lead than the administration in power and then wait for the next election to test its popularity and credentials. In the meantime, being in opposition provides a party with the opportunity to organize itself and reach out to its constituents (if it is not prevented from doing so by the government, which has happened all too often in the past). Unburdened by the constraints of office, the opposition can adopt a far more principled stand on many issues and ensure that these are publicly debated. In our peculiar circumstances, the opposition can attempt to prevent further encroachments on the people’s right to govern by also convincing the military that unfettered democratic rule is Pakistan’s only hope of getting on in this highly complex and rapidly changing 21st-century world.

One can go on and on with the sermonizing on the do’s and don’ts of government-making and democratic governance at this critical stage in the country’s political transition. The basic thing is that only careful and responsible behaviour on the part of all those now engaged in the game of political musical chairs can forestall the collapse of another civilian interregnum in our political life. We all know who will have the last laugh in that case. We need a government that has at least a minimum of natural affinity among its components and an opposition that is seriously interested in safeguarding the welfare of the people. The challenge is formidable. Whether the actors on the political stage will prove tall enough to measure up to the challenge remains to be seen.

Iraq: no consensus at UN

THE US draft resolution on Iraq is understandably having rough sailing in the UN Security Council. No consensus has yet emerged, because three of the five permanent members are opposed to the kind of war authorization the US wants from the world body. Only Britain supports the Bush administration on such a dangerous proposal as a UN mandate for a military attack straight away regardless of culpability. France, Russia and China remain opposed to war unless there is some justification for it on the basis of findings of UN weapons inspectors who are supposed to go back to Iraq soon. Russia and China both want a diplomatic solution, while France believes in a two-resolution solution, the second one authorizing military action only if Iraq fails to abide by the first one calling for unhindered access to all suspected weapon sites for inspection. This approach is based on common sense and objectivity.

The Bush administration has failed to convince the world that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Sections of public opinion and lawmakers even in the US and Britain doubt if Baghdad has any WMDs or is capable of developing them. Besides, Iraq’s offer to allow “unfettered” access to UN arms inspectors has removed any justification for military action on mere presumption of guilt. If there are any WMDs in Iraq or the Saddam regime is trying to develop some, surely the UN inspectors would be able to detect these and report to the world body. It is only if Iraq does not cooperate with the inspectors or refuses to comply with the demand for thorough inspection that military action would be justified. Under the present circumstances, with Baghdad willing for full inspection, there is no need or justification at all for a punishing military offensive. Neither does the plea of a regime change in Baghdad as a ground for military invasion make any sense at all. Surely, it is for the Iraqi people to decide what kind of government they want to have. If the US were to attack Iraq because it is ruled by a dictator, then there are dozens of states which Washington would have to attack and punish for reasons of consistency.

Bone affliction risks

MILLIONS of people, particularly women over the age of 50, are at risk from osteoporosis, a relatively unknown but lethal disease that is rapidly spreading across the globe. According to the Osteoporosis Society of Pakistan, almost 8.5 million women in this country risk falling prey to this debilitating bone disease. Osteoporosis is a condition in which the bones become weak and brittle because of a lack of calcium, making victims susceptible to hip fractures. There has been an alarming worldwide rise in the number of hip fracture cases caused by osteoporosis, half of which occur in Asia. While men too can fall victim to the disease, a vast majority of those with the affliction are middle-aged or older women. A number of factors are involved, but in poor countries such as Pakistan, the main causes are early or frequent pregnancies, and lack of proper diet and exercise. The World Health Organization has declared October 20 as World Osteoporosis Day to draw attention to the disease. The government and NGOs can play a part by spreading awareness about the disease to halt its spread. Awareness programmes could focus on simple measures that could be taken to prevent the disease, such as discouraging pregnancies at a very young age, encouraging the spacing of births and initiating steps to increase the intake of milk and milk products.