THE spectacle of the prime minister, as well as his key ministers and aides, being summoned by the party chairman to Dubai to discuss national issues, especially at a time of increasing turmoil at home, has left most Pakistanis angry and dismayed.

Political analysts could not help but recall the fanfare with which Prime Minister Gilani had spoken of introducing wide-ranging changes, on multiple fronts, within the first hundred days. Even if we knew that he was no Franklin Roosevelt (who though confined to a wheelchair embodied extraordinary physical courage and political resolve), the return of a democratic government had given rise to considerable hope and expectation.

Admittedly, the Gilani government assumed office in a crisis situation, with the country confronted by extremely serious problems on both the political and economic fronts. There is therefore some merit in the claim that the challenges confronting it would have tested even the most determined and resolute leadership. Nevertheless, since Gilani’s arrival signalled the restoration of an elected political dispensation, after nearly a decade of authoritarian rule, there was understandable pride and genuine happiness amongst people. The national euphoria was further reinforced when the two mainstream political parties that had been erstwhile rivals joined hands on a common platform in furtherance of democratic objectives.

It is however not only the PML-Q, as the current opposition party, that is critical of the Gilani government, going to the extent of issuing a White Paper cataloguing its alleged failures. Independent political analysts too are reaching the same conclusion and joining the many Cassandra-like voices proclaiming the government’s failure to come up with meaningful initiatives or to honour major commitments.

In the perception of civil society, it was the judges issue that had galvanised the opposition and accounted for the massive rejection of Musharraf’s supporters. It remains the one issue that could unravel this coalition, as Mian Sahib considers it the litmus test of the PPP leadership’s sincerity. The latter has however shied away from a meaningful initiative, seeking refuge in a constitutional package that is likely to open a Pandora’s box of fresh controversies rather than settling existing ones. This has not satisfied either its allies or civil society and left itself open to the charge that it is reneging on the much-heralded Bhurban Declaration.

However, according to credible analysts it is its conduct of the war on terror and handling of the economy that has exposed the government’s fundamental weaknesses and set alarm bells ringing. On the first count, the Gilani government appears torn between its desire to be tough with the militants, especially as this would improve its credentials with the Bush administration, and the need to cater to its coalition partner — the ANP — which favours a policy premised on negotiations with local extremists. We have therefore alternated between launching military operations and announcing ceasefires, leaving both sides equally confused.

Worse, there appears to be no sense of urgency at a time when Washington has sharply ratcheted up pressure on Pakistan, with major US officials claiming that America may need to carry out strikes on alleged “terrorist bases” in Pakistan, irrespective of whether we agree to it or not. Even Karzai appears to have joined the chorus of warnings. More worryingly, India too appears to be fishing in troubled waters, if the violation on the LoC is indicative of a change in Delhi’s thinking.

As regards Gen (retd) Musharraf’s future, there has been considerable vacillation on this as well. Statements such as the one in which Asif Zardari referred to Musharraf as a “relic of the past” were welcomed by the democratic forces, but their expectations were dashed by other statements indicating Zardari’s willingness to compromise on this issue.

The situation on the economic front is no less worrying, as it has impacted most negatively on millions of people who are barely surviving. Observers fear an economic meltdown, spurred no doubt by galloping inflation that has sent prices of essential food items through the roof. The budget deficit for 2007-08, targeted at four per cent of GDP, has actually increased to eight per cent while the balance of payments is also about eight per cent of GDP, which is the highest ever. The much-hyped foreign exchange reserves have also fallen from $16.5bn in October 2007 to about $11bn today while the trade deficit has soared to $20bn. Not surprisingly, international credit rating agencies have downgraded Pakistan and it currently ranks 87th in the list of countries with business prospects. This is reflected in the KSE index which has fallen by about 30 per cent. With an end to Shaukat Aziz’s ‘smoke and mirror’ economic policies, the chickens are coming home to roost.

As if in confirmation of this trend, Gen (retd) Musharraf has re-emerged, chest thumping, from his self-imposed break which he claims was the result of a well thought out strategy. He is obviously delighted at the negative press coverage of the democratic government, which he believes could help burnish his own record. Frequently referring to his commando past, he denies any intention of quitting office while asserting that the army would not abandon him. His performance was classic Musharraf, contemptuous as ever of the people and their views.

As if the stew being cooked wasn’t poisonous enough, the Bush administration stepped in to muddy the waters even further. Assistant Secretary Boucher, a frequent visitor to Pakistan, abandoned the usual pretence at diplomatic propriety when he warned our leaders to focus on the economy and terrorism rather than on Musharraf.

While the need of the hour is unyielding resolve and uncompromising commitment, sadly the government is lacking in both. There even appears to be a failure to recognise the dangers stalking it. Let the politicians recognise that they are on trial; their mistakes and errors could discredit democracy itself. If the people were to become disillusioned with the politicians, their faith in the democratic dispensation could be seriously shaken, in which case it will be the country much more than the politicos that will be grievously hurt.

THERE is no doubt that despondency is on the rise. All one hears is a lament on the luckless Pakistanis.

The popular refrain is: the people created a wonderful chance for the restoration of democracy and removal of citizens’ grievances but those at the helm of affairs are blowing this chance away. Some even say the opportunity is lost already. This bodes ill for Pakistan.

The most ominous aspect of the state of despondency is that the chorus of discontent is not being orchestrated by the government’s political rivals alone; equally unhappy are neutral observers and even those who wish the coalition partners success. A competition is going on to determine who can project the most terrifying scenario of doom. It may not be easy in this situation to entertain optimism and yet the risks in being swept away by frustration and not doing anything to arrest the downward slide are too great to be ignored. The democratic experiment can perhaps be saved if those invested with the people’s trust in February address their task with due sincerity and diligence.

The first priority must be the preservation of the ruling coalition, whose formation was as important an event as the election itself. A break-up will be disastrous. The PPP may be able to stay in power but whatever arrangements it might make will entail negation of the election mandate and an end to the transition to democracy. It will also jeopardise its prospects in the next election which may come sooner than expected. Also, the PML-N’s victory dreams may not materialise. Worse than anything else, the state could be pushed back into the dark alley of despotism, making the threat to national integrity insurmountable.

Secondly, it needs to be realised that a government’s strength does not lie in its parliamentary majority nor in the shining livery of ministers and other factotums; it lies in retaining the goodwill of the masses. No regime has ever survived a poor and friendless people’s wrath stemming from denial of bread and the small needs of modest existence. The French Revolution and the Soviet Union’s fall apart, hunger, joblessness and insecurity played a significant part in the rout of the Unionists in Punjab (1945-46), in the fall of the first PPP government (1976-77), and even in the fall of Gen Zia (1984-88).

The people today are suffering beyond their endurance. They cannot be satisfied by an administration reading charge sheets against the past government or taking cover behind global phenomena. Something must be done to defuse the time bomb of public disaffection.

Thirdly, the government must define its immediate tasks and fix priorities. In the present situation these cannot but include the judiciary’s restoration, control of militancy and relief to all segments of society. Making promises to do this or that is useless. Such gestures must be based on proper studies and revival strategies. This should have been done immediately after the February polls and the government saved from wasting many of its first 100 days on inquiries. A clear statement of objectives, organisation and means will help even now.

Fourthly, responsible governance demands an efficient state apparatus, and finding the right person for the right job. No government can survive a public perception that instead of finding the right people for key jobs it is interested only in allotting gainful slots to its hangers-on or persons who might have done its leaders favours. Nobody has a right to pay for personal favours out of state resources. Some of the favourite appointees may be experienced wheeler-dealers but their baggage will always prevent them from gaining public confidence — a vital condition for any administration’s success. It is necessary to drop some outstanding undesirables. That may quench some fires of discontent.

Fifthly, one of the tests people everywhere apply to judge their rulers relates to the style of governance. Rulers in a republic cannot afford to display the pomp and splendour of a monarch’s court. The poorer a people the greater is their hatred for their rulers’ show of opulence. They feel at home with rulers they can identify with — and this depends on how the rulers live, how they travel, and what language and idiom they use for discourse. Even in corrupt societies corruption in high places, and mere stories of such corruption, undermine the people’s loyalty to the state. Such stories — not confined to a single party — have already started fuelling gossip, and it seems quite a few people are not interested in staying in politics for long. Corruption can bring down regimes sooner than any other folly. A regime claiming to be democratic is more vulnerable to corruption charges than a dictatorship because it does not have the means to hide facts the way the latter can.

Sixthly, colonial/authoritarian regimes thrive on dividing their subjects along religious, sectarian, class and ethnic lines. A government that claims to be democratic cannot afford to indulge in such suicidal games. Pakistan is a multinational, multi-faith and multilingual state. Repudiation of this reality has cost Pakistan dear. The government will do well to review its conduct in this regard and intervene if any religious, ethnic or linguistic group is feeling left out of the scheme of representative rule or the state’s benevolence.

Seventhly, Pakistani governments have traditionally created problems by reading external policies wrongly. That a country’s external policy must be an extension of its domestic policy is an axiom that need not be dismissed as a worn-out cliché. Pakistan does have difficulties in devising an external policy that is in harmony with the people’s interest and aspirations but the task must not be given up as hopeless without a struggle.

Eighthly, the government will do the people a great good if it helps them grow out of the security syndrome created by half-baked strategists. The country cannot be defended by soldiers and arms alone. Much greater is the need for a contented society and the inculcation of a belief among the people that the country and its resources belong to them. The presentation of the defence budget in parliament was good, but only a small beginning (nobody among the expert commentators is prepared to refer to it) and there is a long way to go before sovereignty is restored to its rightful claimants — the people.

Finally, the government must ensure collective decision-making, a regular dialogue with the people (not merely Ayub-style broadcasts) and transparency.

Few seem to believe the present leadership can rise to the occasion, but if they are duly trusted and properly motivated the people can steer the ship of state to safety. Muneer Niazi may have been right but however cruel the townsfolk no one is ordained to find escape in death.

THANKS to the lawyers of Pakistan the term ‘long march’ has become familiar to most of us. But the original long march, undertaken by the Red Army of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1934-35, is probably one of the most important events in human history. It impacted not just Asia but the whole world.

Mao Zedong, the hero of the long march, was born in late 1893, at a time when China was in deep crisis. The Qing dynasty, which had ruled China for over 200 years, was getting weaker by the day. The country was disintegrating internally due to the presence of numerous warlords. Externally it was reeling under the attacks of the imperialist powers, which included Japan, Britain and France. The situation was reminiscent of the last days of the Mughal empire in India.

At that time Sun Yat-sen, a physician turned politician, emerged as a saviour. He managed to get rid of the monarchy in 1911 with the support of the public and an alliance of revolutionary groups, and shortly thereafter formed the Kuomintang (KMT) or Nationalist Party. China was declared a republic. This was a great achievement but China remained divided between the KMT and the Communist Party.

On Sun’s death the KMT was taken over by Chiang Kai-shek, a devout Christian and staunch anti-communist. He was strongly supported by the US which provided KMT with modern weaponry and finances. Following this the KMT forces started attacking communist bases in South China and thousands of communists were massacred in Shanghai. The Red Army was no match for the KMT forces and decided to beat a retreat so as to avoid encirclement. Thus was launched the famous long march.

The long march extended over 8,000 miles, in the course of which the Red Army crossed many turbulent rivers, lofty mountains and vast swampy grasslands. It was an unbelievable act of endurance. Its aim was to reach the north-west city of Yan’an in Sha’anxi province, as far as possible from the reach of the KMT forces.

The Red Army was made up of many factions and Mao was in charge of the First Army which started with 82,000 troops. But by the time it arrived in Sha’anxi there were only 8,000 survivors, the rest having been killed by Chiang’s forces, starvation and disease. Amongst the casualties were Mao’s two children and a brother. In February 1935, Mao’s wife He Zizhen gave birth to a daughter. Given the harsh conditions the infant was left with a peasant family. She was never seen again.

While costly in terms of casualties, the long march gave the Red Army time to recuperate and rebuild its strength at its new base in Yan’an. The communists gained support from the peasantry throughout the long march because of their dedication, sacrifice and courteous behaviour. In addition, many units of Chiang’s army deserted him and joined them.

The Red Army also had 2,000 women who also handled cooking, laundry and other cleaning jobs. Their experiences are described by Helen Praeger Young in her book Choosing Revolution.

Mao wrote in praise of the long march in 1935: “The long march is a manifesto. It has proclaimed to the world that the Red Army is an army of heroes while the imperialists and their running dogs, Chiang Kai-shek and his like, are impotent. It has proclaimed their utter failure to encircle, pursue, obstruct and intercept us. The long march is also a propaganda force. It has announced to some 200 million people in eleven provinces that the road of the Red Army is their only road to liberation.”

Following the Second World War and the defeat of the Japanese, the much stronger Red Army, now called the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), returned to drive the KMT forces out of mainland China. Chiang Kai-shek with a small entourage of his followers fled to the island of Taiwan under the protection of the US navy. China was at last free of foreign domination and feudalism. The PLA is now not only a mighty fighting force but also a nation builder as was seen after the recent earthquake in China.

On Oct 1, 1949 Mao and senior leaders of the CCP climbed to a reviewing stand on the great Tiananmen Gate in Beijing and Mao proclaimed to a thundering crowd, “The Chinese people have stood up.” The world now knows how true this claim was.

Coming back to the lawyers’ long march, in my opinion it will be a mistake to undertake yet another one. The people are now too engrossed in their day-to-day problems. I am doubtful if even the eloquence of Aitzaz Ahsan can induce them to join the march in large numbers. The lawyers will have to wait for a political solution to their very just demand.