13
ONE down, one to go — and the PML-N is already trying to limp back to life. Because it’s the PML-N, limping back is already beginning to look like the sleepwalking that got it — and the rest of us — in the mess it’s in to begin with.
To begin with, the PML-N — really, the Prime Minister’s Office — has come up with the idea of ministerial performance evaluations. Tough criteria have been issued, the meetings will be exhaustive, there won’t be anywhere to hide.
Believe it when you see it.
It’s not that Nawaz has done anything fundamentally wrong on the governance front; it’s that he’s done few things right.
In the meantime, we can have a little bit of fun. Performance evaluations and report cards for ministers, but not for the boss? Surely not.
The boss’s boss is technically the electorate, but then if we did things technically out here, Nawaz wouldn’t be resorting to the gimmick of ministerial self-evaluations.
So, 16 months into a five-year term as a third-time prime minister, how has Nawaz done?
Don’t laugh. Yeah, OK, laugh — it may be the only medicine we have.
Right. Now on to the more serious bit. How has Nawaz really done?
Rewind to May 2013. There were four big issues that Nawaz was going to be judged against, three dictated by the nature of the system and the present milieu and one of his own choosing.
One, the democratic project. Two, civ-mil. Three, militancy. Four, India.
Start with the democratic project. That we still have a democracy at all is, indirectly, also a measure of how poorly Nawaz has done on this front.
It’s not that Nawaz has done anything fundamentally wrong on the governance front; it’s that he’s done few things right.
The big miss has been reforms. When talking reforms, the silly tends to dominate the serious here. Realistically, a five-year PM can pick two or three areas for reforms and will probably succeed at one.
With so much to fix — police, bureaucracy, judiciary, education, health, economy and on and on — it matters which areas are picked and prioritised. But Nawaz’s failure has been a step prior: reforms aren’t part of his agenda at all.
While nothing systemic could have been fixed in 16 months and most meaningful reforms would only begin to produce dividends years after 2018, the first 16 months have set the tone: nothing structural or deep-rooted will be attempted.
And without reforms, the rest is basically about propping up a broken system. Unhappily, that’s what Nawaz seems both content with and focused on. He’s also reasonably good at it, ie propping up a broken system, which is why the problem at the top.
It’s not that Nawaz has done anything fundamentally wrong on the governance front; it’s that he’s done few things right.
Grade: C
On to civ-mil. Yeah, we could skip straight to the grade section. But it is still baffling, on both sides. On the mil side of the equation, the bafflement — for us, not the boys — is why the implosion when Nawaz hasn’t been able to get away with anything.
Since when has civ-mil become about what the civs may want to do rather than what they can actually achieve? It is genuinely baffling, at least to the outsider.
Equally baffling: why did Nawaz pick the Musharraf fight in this way and at this time? No, really. Whatever psychobabble you throw at it, it still doesn’t quite add up.
Probably, all that can be said about civ-mil is that it’s hyphenated for a reason: the inscrutable deserve each other, and that’s what we’ve been seeing again.
Grade: D
Next up, militancy. Nawaz had said very little about militancy before May 2013 and soon enough it became apparent why: he had appeasement in mind.
But it was neither the truly opportunistic or wickedly ideological appeasement that has been served up by other quarters. It was a lazy, desultory kind of appeasement: talk to the Taliban because we don’t really know what else to do and haven’t cared enough to think through the problem.
The Jan 29 speech in parliament by Nawaz epitomised the intellectual laziness and lack of clarity. Remember how the bulk of that address seemed to be leading up to the announcement of a military operation before, bizarrely, concluding with the announcement that talks was the policy after all?
Now, the PML-N doesn’t even pretend to have anything to do with anti-terror and anti-militancy policy.
Grade: D
India. Oh India. Remember how once upon a time Nawaz got it? That India was the game-changer?
Nawaz may still like to believe that he stills gets it, but ask yourself this: had he shown the same stubbornness on India that he has on Musharraf, how much of his way could he have got?
The trade-deal collapse in March epitomised the broad sweep of failure: diplomatically, politically and civ-mil-ly. It was a deal based on assumptions, with none of the careful strategising and heavy-lifting that such deals demand.
Whether it was an outright veto by the boys — could they not have been brought in the loop earlier? — or because of a hasty retreat thanks to Modi — doesn’t look like such a good idea now, does it? — the trade deal was precisely the kind of issue that Nawaz had been expected to handle better — an expectation borne of his own decision to keep the defence and foreign portfolios for himself in June 2013.
Expectations raised, expectations dashed — all by Nawaz, and all before Modi.
Grade: C
The overall grade? Somewhere between a C and D.
That it’s not an F is only because it’s still an interim grade, ie he’s still prime minister. But even that, how much of it is down to Nawaz himself?
The writer is a member of staff.
Twitter: @cyalm
Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2014
