But pronouncements like this go only as far as populism can take the country and its people. One wrong done to the exchequer cannot be righted by committing another. If a multi-storey luxury structure for the chief executive of the province was extremely undesirable, the idea of turning it into a university is preposterous. No one would quarrel with the idea of setting up an institution to teach women information technology. But has it to be in the way it is planned? It will not just need more money for converting a purpose-built office into a university requiring classrooms, labs and lecture halls. It will also bring hundreds of students and teachers, as well as their chaperons and transport, six days a week into a residential area where the physical environment has remained relatively unharmed. But most importantly it revives the tragic memories of the 1990s when every incoming government would first change, modify or demolish whatever its predecessor had done — no matter whether right or wrong. Haven’t the bigwigs of the current dispensation promised that those bitter days were already behind them? Haven’t they said that they would not indulge in one-upmanship in claiming credit and apportioning blame?

THE proverbial champagne bottle for the transition to democracy seems to have been uncorked a bit too early and its fizz and flavour seem to be going out before people are ready to savour the taste.

Something funny seems to have happened on the way from the election booths to the corridors of power, which were intruded upon by visiting foreign dignitaries who wanted to delineate a Washington-scripted path, prolonging the transfer of power to more than two months.

Even then the new rulers find themselves powerless on many issues both at the centre and in the provinces. The judges’ issue continues to hang fire. The MQM’s off-again, on-again reconciliation with the PPP continues to puzzle both the public and political pundits. All this has increased political uncertainty and confusion.

While patience is being advised by those who have assumed the reins of power, those who had voted to throw out the old order and usher in a new one, are disappointed to see many old faces, the continuity of many failed policies, little change in ground realities and not enough recognisable change in the old ways of governance, except to make superficial waves. Some are beginning to share Shakespeare’s lament in Macbeth: “From that spring whence comfort seemed to come, discomfort swells.” People are impatient for the promised change.

After the euphoria about reconciliation in the wake of unanimous elections of speakers, deputy speakers and leaders of the House at the centre and in most provinces, visible signs of fissures and attempts to derail the train of democracy appeared right from the day it steamed off the station.

The forcible eviction of Justice Ramday from the judges’ colony was the first sign that the old guards of the establishment were up to some mischief and wanted to provoke the lawyers to take action which would create a rift between the two coalition partners.

This attempt was firmly and promptly nipped in the bud by the new government’s advisor in the ministry of interior, who was presciently installed to guard the tracks. The Arbab Rahim and Sher Afgan Niazi incidents took some time to engineer, but both eventually backfired, though not without causing initial damage to the reputation of both the PPP and the lawyers’ movement and considerable loss of life and limb in Karachi in their aftermath. Such incidents are unlikely to stop until the present climate of political uncertainty disappears.

In the meantime, bread (which fewer can afford enough of) and butter (which only a few could ever afford) issues continue unabated, with the price of atta touching a new high (of Rs185-190 for a 10kg bag of wheat flour No 2.5) and the petrol prices being slated for a further upward revision and the load-shedding in some areas reaching almost half a day.

The riots in Multan by power-loom workers who lost their livelihoods because of load-shedding, could spread all over the country, especially as the summer sets in, if drastic measures are not undertaken to ensure a minimum of 18 hours of power supply and the burden of shortages is not more equitably shared.

Mr Ayaz Amir’s half-serious plea to the prime minister to use candlelight seems to have been taken with misplaced seriousness by burdening his hometown, rather than his workplace, with additional load-shedding. Much of the rioting appeared to be spontaneous and the result of the Obamaesque ‘bitterness’ of economic exclusion; partly it could have been instigated by those who want to embarrass the new government.

The new leadership must, however, eschew the blame game and convince the protesters of their efforts to address these problems through their on-the-spot presence and intervention, rather than that of the police and their coercive weapons. In an open democratic society such protests are inevitable and must be squarely faced.

For many who voted against the ancien regime, symbolism was as important as substance. The continuance in office of the retired general president, especially with the hubris and authority that is alien to his constitutional position, continues to rile those who have voted for the return of democracy.

It is obvious that he is being suffered largely because of his perceived support from the US and the army — although the latter has tried to bend over backwards to distance itself from politics. But his capacity to destroy the democratic process can’t be underestimated, given his past record, and he is likely to repeat it if pushed into a corner. The strategy of waiting to strike when the iron is hot or to marginalise his position in the power structure to the extent that he himself finds it pointless to continue, thus seems acceptable.

Even if Musharraf can be considered sacrosanct for the sake of expediency, it is puzzling why the appurtenances of the failed regime that he headed and the flawed policies he pursued, should be left untouched. Besides the provincial governors, such high officials as the attorney-general, the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, the chairman of the HEC, the secretary of the National Security Council, the chairman of Erra and the chairman of the food security committee, who were among the architects of the last regime’s flawed policies, remain firmly ensconced in their positions.

It is difficult to see how the new leaders can hope to meet the aspirations of the people who voted for them without replacing these high officials to ensure a new, progressive, democratic, socially equitable and non-elitist Pakistan.

A disturbing feature of the transition is that the policies inherited from the previous regime’s economic team, which was responsible for creating large imbalances in the economy and building a false euphoria, through fudged data, about growth and poverty reduction, is being retained by the present regime, under Mr Ishaq Dar.

What is even more disconcerting is that the finance minister has promised the ‘continuity’ of economic policies at the recent IMF and World Bank meetings, instead of crafting new economic policies in keeping with the new mandates.

There is a need for arriving at a new minimum economic programme acceptable to all political parties. There is also a need for an institutionalised consultative process, such as establishing an economic advisory board and reviving the Planning Commission, to prepare a new economic blueprint for the next five years to be presented to parliament for approval.

syed.naseem@aya.yale.edu

AN Italian politician preoccupied with fashion, hair and fake tan, and prone to emotional outbursts? I refer, of course, to Silvio Berlusconi.

This week it emerged, to no one’s great surprise, that the newly re-elected Italian prime minister seems to have something of a problem with women in government. Referring to the fact that the Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has just appointed Spain’s first female-majority cabinet, Berlusconi said on Wednesday that “Zapatero has formed a government that is too pink, something that we cannot do in Italy because there is a prevalence of men in politics and it isn’t easy to find women who are qualified . . . He will have problems leading them. Now he’s asked for it.”Berlusconi isn’t the only person who has been critical of Zapatero’s decision to appoint nine women to his 17-strong cabinet (including 37-year-old defence minister, Carme Chacon, who just happens to be seven months pregnant). One conservative commentator in Spain described Zapatero’s female-majority cabinet as his “battalion of inexperienced seamstresses”, as if the deputy prime minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega (who has a doctorate in law, and a political career stretching back to the 1970s), and Magdalena Alvarez (a doctorate in economics, and a political career that dates from the 1980s) had just wandered in off the street.

And the attacks on Zapatero’s decision have underlined the ongoing antipathy to women in politics. There seems to be an increasingly wide gulf internationally between those who are supportive of women in government — and make great strides towards representative government as a result — and those who think that the very idea of women bothering their pretty little heads with such matters as foreign policy is completely beyond the pale.

Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist, naturally represents the former attitude, being intent on equality. And he has shown that, given the right policies, it is possible to create a much more representative ruling class. When first elected four years ago, Zapatero appointed an equal number of men and women as ministers. Two years ago, he ruled that no more than 60 per cent of candidates of any political party could be male, and that by 2010, the boards of any company pitching for public contracts should be made up of at least 40 per cent women.

Berlusconi, who has promised to include “at least four women” in his cabinet, embodies the less enlightened side of the equation. Campaigning in the recent elections, he referred to his female supporters as the “menopause section”; his women candidates are known as “the knight’s ladies” (the knight being Berlusconi himself, of course, that noble 71-year-old ladies’ man).

He has also referred to the appearance of the female candidates, in a bid to both publicise his party and undermine his women opponents. “The left has no taste, not even when it comes to women,” rightwinger Berlusconi said recently. “As for our [women candidates] being more beautiful, I say that because in parliament they have no competition.” Not to be outdone, Berlusconi’s rival Walter Veltroni began amassing his own young good-looking female members for the cameras, prompting the media to brand them “Walter’s angels”.

When Labour came to power in the UK in 1997, the policy of selecting candidates from all-women shortlists for half of their winnable seats resulted in the doubling of women in Westminster from 62 to 121 — a hugely significant result, which should have marked a new political age. And yet a single unfortunate photograph of Tony Blair surrounded by women MPs, spawned the lazy, misogynistic tag “Blair’s babes”, which was used against them for years and undermined that great leap forward.

When Jacqui Smith, Britain’s first female home secretary, gave her first statement to the Commons after the failed terrorist attacks last year, the focus of many of the news stories wasn’t so much on what she said, but the amount of flesh she had on show (by most measures, not very much). The same fate befell Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, this week, when she wore a black evening dress with an admittedly plunging neckline to the opening of Oslo’s new opera house. “Merkel’s Weapons of Mass Distraction” was the London Daily Mail’s headline.

In Britain the divide between the forward-looking and dinosaur elements was on show again last month, when the leader of the Opposition Conservative (Tory) party, David Cameron — who has just seven women in his 30-strong shadow cabinet — promised to give a third of senior jobs in his first government to women.

The proportion of Labour MPs who are women increased to 27 per cent in 2005 — considerably more than the Conservatives (8 per cent) and the Liberal Democrats (16 per cent) — but still not great. Overall, women make up just less than a fifth of British MPs. In Sweden, women make up 47 per cent of MPs. In Germany, more than 30 per cent of its elected representatives in the Bundestag are women.

To see just how far some people’s unease with women leaders extends, you only have to look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination in the US. Clinton’s body, face and wardrobe have been pored over relentlessly, as if she was some kind of novelty specimen. The American media has been agonising over the question, “Are we ready for a woman president?” with Clinton being cast, variously, as a witch, a bitch, and a ballbuster. There is that repeated accusation that she is only where she is because of her husband.

In a talk given last month, the American academic Barbara Pendleton said: “Many commentators appear to be unable to criticise her without dusting off their favourite sexist cliches, stereotypes and insults. Together they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton.”

When it comes to the UK, she says that the quickest way to get more women into the House of Commons would be to use quotas. “If you want anything nearing 40 or 50 per cent, you are going to have to use all-women shortlists and only the Labour party does that. I don’t buy this argument that there are not enough women who want to be MPs — it’s a house of 646. There are 300 women out there. It’s about how you turn those who want to be MPs into MPs, and making sure political parties select women in their winnable seats. If you do that, you can get them in.”

As Zapatero has shown, with the right attitude, you can truly cause a revolution in politics.

—The Guardian, London