With one voice, the IMF officials, the multinationals and the local business community are asking the government to take steps to end the continuing ” political uncertainty’ as soon as possible. While maintaining “cautious optimism” the executives of American firms reckon that the positive outlook cannot last for an indefinite period of ambiguity

The president of the American Business Council Iqbal Bengali has advised the government todo “ whatever it deems necessary “ to pull the country out of current impasse. But the local business community has gone a step further by proposing that national politics “needs a paradigm shift”. The recent Supreme Court judgement has given” an opportunity to re-profile the existing political system”, says the president of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr Majyd Aziz.

The visiting IMF team, holding talks with officials in Islamabad, is reported to have advised the government to end political uncertainty quickly. And the stock market has indicated its preference to a dialogue between President Musharraf and PPP ChairmanBenazir Bhutto.

Business concerns are legitimate as politics and economics, so deeply linked with each other, are not moving in tandem. Worldwide, political and sovereign risks are reflected in daily transactions in the foreign exchange and securities markets, in their own restricted field of speculative business activity. Oil business thrives on political premiums.

But if the economy is market-driven, as in the case of Pakistan also, political risks are minimised. Much of the decision- making is in the hands of the market players and not with the government which has turned into an enabler and facilitator for business.. For example, the annual national budgets have lost much of their significance because of the nearly two decades of liberalisation, de-regulation and privatisation. ..Foreign exchange rates are determined not by official devaluation decisions but by market forces and a prudently managed float of the rupee by an autonomous State Bank. These things will not change no matter what political course the country takes.

And there are no substantial political risks in the transition to democracy and these are likely to disappear with a more representative government assuming power after the elections . Hiccups occur when mindsets do not change as fast as changing political realities. But any deviation from the constitutionalcourse is unlikely as it would be an admission of the failure of the existing political dispensation and the crisis may deepen further. The military uniform is no longer an asset, it has turned into a political liability. And whatever change may take place, it would be through the ballotbox and not through the street power.

The present quasi- democratic and quasi-military dispensation has run its full course, after alternating between civilian and military rules over the past several decades. It was only 6-7 months back that the government claimed that it had evolved what it described as “sustainable democracy, little realising that the existing political dispensation was on the verge of a crisis.

The mode of governance has created social exclusion and political polarisation. Institutions are not working. One has just to look at how PIA, KESC, Wapda etc. are functioning after nine years of “solid reforms.”

The militancy is on the rise. Armed conflict is “politics by other means” A weak political non-representative dispensation cannot check the rise of radicalism. The mode of governance cannot improve without the executive becoming answerable to an independent judiciary, .a sovereign parliament and an empowered electorate.

As in the case of quasi-civilian democracy, the current economic model seems to have run its course. Today ‘s economic growth, driven by a buoyant but not robust external sector, has strong similarities with Ayub Khan’s development decade financed by heavy foreign debts. The consequencesthat flowed from Ayub’s rule are too well-known to be recounted here. It is the external capital and financial inflows which are taking care of the huge trade and current account deficits, with the growth both in industry and export receding.

Privatisation has now taken a back seat. The question arises, how long will the foreign money continue to pour in when investments in the past nine years have largely gone into industrial consolidation rather than expansionto meet domestic demand.

The policy of fewer but stronger banks has led to the charge of cartelisation of banks. About 50 per cent of the shares of the entire banking and financial system are held by foreigners Too much foreign stakes create imbalances in the economy and curb citizen based democracy.

In a situation so created, private sector technocracies tend to grudge competition. In fact the undesirable features of current phase of globalisation has brought back nationalism and populism , generally rejected both by business and economists. And more important, politics is back as the principal social force, pointing to the need for re-inventing the world. The basis for change is provided by national, democratic and egalitarian aspirations.

The country has moved from one crisis to another with mounting intensity because of the failure of the ruling elite to adjust to changing ground realities. It is time for the “creative destruction “ of the archaic features of the status quo. To quote Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, “ those who cling to the status quo as if it were immutable, hasten the collapse of the status quo. The imponderables in the situation are growing and the computerised certainties are diminishing.”