THE suspenseful drama of Pakistani politics has entered an eerie stage. The spectators, accustomed to the thriller they saw the previous year, have now become so tired of the slow-motion pace at which it has been moving since Feb 18 that they have stopped hoping for a happy climax and have become reconciled to the long, drawn-out tragic ending that has been the fate of all such dramas in the past.

Even eternal optimists can see light only at the very far end of the tunnel and even they are sceptical whether it will necessarily be a harbinger of good tidings.

An overwhelming sense of despondency, disillusionment and cynicism pervades the present political environment. Yesterday’s self-sacrificing heroes are today’s self-seeking predators who prey not only on their enemies but also turn on their own like cannibals and have little regard for the interests of those who brought them to power. It is becoming difficult to distinguish between a friend and a foe and the reputations of esteemed icons of patriotism and valour are being ground into the dust. No holds seem to be barred in this game of power.

All this is most perplexing to the common people who tend to regard their heroes, rightly or wrongly, as the epitome of virtue and as representatives of their aspirations. While these power games continue to be played among the elites in faraway lands and in elegant drawing rooms and posh hotels, ordinary people — in whose name these games are played — continue to chafe under increasing misery and exploitation. Every day a new diversion — a new squabble with a neighbouring country, a new wrinkle in the war on terror, a new version of how we made the bomb and traded our secrets for the aggrandisement of a few and the insecurity of many — contributes to a new way of avoiding swift and decisive action on the key issues that are preventing the country from moving in the right direction. Then there is the fear of a new financial disaster hitting the economy, a new deal on getting rid of the president without hurting him or his cronies and continuing policies that bring solace to mentors and distress to the people, or a new way to restore the judiciary.

The nation awaits the time when a new leaf will be turned and hatchets are buried with the assurance that those guilty of past disasters will not be let off the hook. The new regime, a strange conflation of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, is busy finding excuses to justify the status quo as something the nation has to learn to live with — for ever. Déjà vu is the overarching national sentiment and seemingly fated destiny.

When and how this circle will ever be broken is a puzzle that everyone is grappling with on a daily basis. Besides knee-jerk cynicism vis-à-vis politics, people are finding other escape routes such as religious bigotry and drug addiction. And then there is ultimate escape: migration to foreign lands, opportunities for which are by no means plentiful or affordable for the majority of the population.

Many are now pinning their hopes on an economic turnaround that would pull the country out of its present morass and somehow pave the way for the political renaissance it badly needs. This seems to be an unlikely possibility though given the current global economic turmoil.

Indeed what is far more likely — and which two of our more promising and savvy economists, Ijaz Nabi and Haris Gazdar, have warned against in these columns — is that our global mentors, the IMF and the World Bank, will soon be knocking at our doors with their old patented medicines. Their stabilisation and structural adjustment packages have aggravated rather than cured our economy’s chronic ailments and are even less likely to be effective in the present conditions.

The country’s political elites are unlikely to say no to these seemingly friendly but potentially harmful offers and the largesse that accompanies them. Such an offer would certainly be tempting. For one thing, it would ease the acute financial constraints that are inhibiting the exercise of political power.

At the same time, it would help avoid the challenges of undertaking more fundamental structural makeovers, such as increasing resource mobilisation and enhancing domestic savings rates, which have remained abysmally low.

It is doubtful — as suggested by Ijaz Nabi and endorsed by Haris Gazdar — if the mere substitution of aid from the West (channelled through the IMF and the World Bank) by that from our oil-rich ‘friends’ who have been as complicit in setting the direction of our polity as the former would help matters greatly.

It needs to be recognised, as Haris Gazdar implicitly does, that a nexus between the two most affluent economic groups in the world is causing the worldwide inflation and financial crisis which most developing countries, especially those with weak political structures, are unable to cope with.

Regardless of the political business cycle whose periodic regularity has come to be accepted as inevitable, the basic problem facing the country is its failure to date to evolve a resilient economic and political system which would be responsive to the needs of the impoverished and deprived sections of its population and would be immune to the manipulation and control of its ruthless elites. The Feb 18 elections had provided a glimmer of hope that this may be within the realm of possibility within a decade or so.

But the present stalemate — for which no plausible explanations are forthcoming — has all but extinguished it. If the political cycle is cut short by another military misadventure, Pakistan’s survival as a nation state would be jeopardised for ever. The dream of its emergence as a bridge between Central and South Asia, much less of its becoming an Asian tiger, will also be consigned to history.

The political and economic destiny of the country are inalienably linked and to think that we can have an efficient and equitable economy with a dysfunctional political system is a delusion. Any attempt to de-link the two is unlikely to serve Pakistan well at this juncture.

syed.naseem@aya.yale.edu

AS Barack Obama jets around Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan this week, his every utterance will be closely monitored back in Chicago, ground zero for his administration in waiting. A single misstep, an off-the-cuff foreign policy initiative or even a mispronounced name will be pounced on by his Republican rival, John McCain.

There are hazards aplenty ahead as he travels from Iraq on to Israel and the West Bank before arriving in Western Europe during the second half of the week. He is the first black candidate with a shot at the presidency, and is likely to be met by an adoring public, but there is nevertheless anxiety in the chancelleries of Europe.

Before he enters Downing Street to greet Gordon Brown or sits down with David Cameron, the Democratic candidate will be as carefully briefed as though he were a sitting president. Britain needs to know just what Mr Obama has in mind when it comes to direct talks with the Iranian leadership, or how abruptly or carefully managed he would withdraw US forces from Iraq. To help him avoid any political landmines while abroad, the candidate will be relying on a team of 300 foreign policy advisers who keep him as fully briefed as possible. Most were senior foreign policy players in the second Bill Clinton administration.

By 8.00 am every day these advisers in Chicago have sent him two emails: a news briefing on world developments and a series of questions and suggested answers for questions that are likely to come his way during the day.

The core team is led by Anthony Lake (Bill Clinton’s national security adviser from 1993 to 1997) and Susan Rice, the assistant secretary of state for Africa under Clinton. Ms Rice was the top national security adviser in John Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential bid.

Mr Obama has already pledged a new era of inclusive American diplomacy. But during this trip he will be putting Europe leaders’ feet to the flames, demanding that they respond in kind to his overtures by sending far more their own soldiers to fight and if necessary die in the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

”The stakes are very high for Obama,” said Lee Hamilton, of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre. “Foreign policy is one area where they [voters] have their doubts” about him.

Mr Obama is due to deliver a major foreign policy speech in Berlin, amid arguments with the government of Angela Merkel about whether it will be at the Brandenburg Gate or elsewhere. Huge crowds are expected for this event.

— © The Independent, London