Pakistan’s successive political leaders have shown a passion for democracy — but one of their own brand. Democracy in its usual sense (parliamentary or presidential) was not meant for Pakistan.

The ‘consensual’ brand chosen by Asif Zardari is the trickiest of all. The inventor of every brand considered that his was the best suited to the genius of the people. The real motive, hardly ever in doubt, was to combine every power in his person and stay longer in office than a fixed presidential term and not be at the mercy of parliament.

President Zardari’s democracy of consensus, however, is unlikely to sustain him in office for as long as Ayub Khan’s basic, Ziaul Haq’s Islamic consultative or Pervez Musharraf’s grass-roots versions sustained their authors. Even Z.A. Bhutto’s “all power to the people” brand could not stand up to the pressure of the crowds on the streets and vying generals in the barracks.

Interestingly enough, it is not Asif Zardari’s PPP alone: Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N, Altaf Hussain’s MQM, Fazlur Rehman’s JUI-F and Asfandyar Wali’s ANP too are wary of the standard norm of parliamentary democracy (to which all pledge allegiance) because it requires the majority party, or a coalition of parties, to form the government and others to sit in the opposition. The significant exception is the Jamaat-i-Islami. Its presence in parliament, however, is insignificant.

Other dissenters — Imran Khan, Mumtaz Bhutto, the nationalists of Sindh and Balochistan — besides having little voice in the assemblies are dismissed as mavericks or secessionists. Ironically enough, the mantle of defending the true role of opposition in parliament has fallen on the shoulders of Chaudhry Shujaat’s Muslim League that had submitted to Pervez Musharraf’s authority rooted not in parliament but in the barracks and town councils.

Impressed by Zardari’s consensus Nawaz Sharif, though disenchanted and angry, doesn’t want to ‘destabilise’ the system. Maulana Fazlur Rehman disagrees but prefers to remain the PPP’s or, more specifically, an obliging president’s ally. The MQM and ANP seem to draw more comfort from a cajoling Zardari of Sindh than an overweening Nawaz Sharif of Punjab. The sceptics, however, suspect that the consideration weighing on all of them is to retain the foothold they have acquired in the federal or provincial governments.

The rejection of the NRO or the transfer of executive powers from the president to the prime minister will not by itself empower parliament nor improve governance unless each political party spells out its own programme and not just hitches itself to the PPP bandwagon. Nor will the repeal of Article 58(2)(b) immediately solve the nation’s problems for President Zardari would be the last man to dissolve the National Assembly, while the current anomaly of a governor in one province being powerful and in another a figurehead will also persist.

The 17th Amendment in no way compels the PPP to be a partner of the PML-N in Punjab or bars it from playing its rightful role in the opposition. The PPP’s presence in the provincial government only shows the urge of its leadership not to forego the influence and benefit that flow from being in government. The PML-N would rather see the PPP quit as a heterogeneous cabinet has visibly weakened Punjab’s administration. One no longer sees the speed and vigour that marked Shahbaz Sharif when he headed a one-party government.

Now that the NRO is out of the way and a settlement of the 17th amendment is also in sight, focus has shifted to the trial of Pervez Musharraf and the future of Asif Zardari. Whatever the outcome of the bargains and manoeuvres in progress, it will only aggravate the problems of the people. Violence, inflation, unemployment and power shortages head an agonisingly long list of problems.

Since nothing relating to economic planning or national security distinguishes one party from another, the best they can do is to align themselves in government or in opposition so that they can work for the people’s welfare in their respective roles. The consensus rhetoric has given nothing to the people, but every party has got a slice in the pie of power and patronage at their cost.

It would be folly to expect that with everybody on board the gravy train and the doctrine of necessity hopefully buried forever the present arrangement will last for another three years. The public’s discontent, sooner rather than later, is sure to manifest itself in ways more turbulent than a military coup and would obey no court order.

The other day I came across a couplet, of all places in an advertisement for an actuary in this paper, in which the poet Mir wonders what he would have to say if someone were to ask that having come to the world, what was he leaving behind (Kahen kiya jo puchhay koi hum se Mir, jahan mein tum aye thay — kia ker chaley?). An anguished Mir left a treasure of poetry for generations to relish. I wonder what our leaders and officials of all persuasions and professions will leave: perhaps not even a quote from their rhetoric. Their treasures will remain hidden.

All of them have to think hard and act fast. It is a time for soul-searching and cool-headed thinking, not gambits. It is important to remember that the actions of authoritarian prime ministers of the past (Z.A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) had precipitated crises no less than authoritarian presidents — Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. Only a balance between the two posts under an assertive cabinet, alert parliament and neutral civil service would prevent the generals and judges from becoming arbiters of state affairs.

kunwaridris@hotmail.com