Making democracy work

FEDERAL Information Minister Nisar Memon is reported to have advised the political parties to have the magnanimity to accept the verdict of the people. Mr Memon should give the same advice to the top brass of the regime as the process of government formation at the centre and in the provinces begins. While it is important that political parties, even those that have done badly in the October 10 polls or fared below their expectations, should respect the outcome, it is equally necessary that the government should avoid seeking to tailor alliances to suit its own expedient needs. The elections have produced a chequered pattern of representation. Except for the Frontier, it is clear that there will have to be coalition governments in the three other provinces and at the centre. While the present government will disappear when power is transferred to the elected representatives, General Pervez Musharraf will remain as president, and there will be a strong temptation to work out pliant combinations. He or the military may not, for instance, want the PPP and the PML(N), which represent the country’s anti-establishment vote, to get together. To quite an extent, the electoral process was managed; any further attempt to influence the natural course of things will lead to increased polarization and more rancour. The various political parties should be left free to work out their own arrangements without meddling by government agencies. A policy of non-interference will help create an atmosphere of trust and confidence that will smoothen relations between the presidency and parliament.

The political parties themselves face a daunting task. Coalition culture requires even greater tolerance and accommodation than democracy expects of participants in more normal circumstances. It is the right of every party to aspire to power, and each party has its own ideological and political preferences. But in the present scenario, the emphasis for the time being has necessarily to be on the most practical and most broadly representative, rather than the most desirable, coalition combinations. Personal or partisan prejudices may have to be overcome for the sake of ensuring parliament’s smooth working and to forestall attempts at fresh adventurism or experimentation. Making democracy work should be the main objective before all those who have been entrusted by the voters, in greater or lesser measure, with the responsibility of bringing the country back to civilian rule. Perhaps the leaders of all parties represented in parliament should get together to explore possibilities of cooperation as well as how disagreements on important issues can be contained for the proper working of a pluralist system of government.

There should also be the broadest possible consultation within the parties. Parliamentary wings of parties have always been present whenever there has been a spell of an elected dispensation, but these were invariably taken for granted by party leaders. Often they were not even consulted on legislation to be submitted to the assemblies and were only expected to say ‘yes’ to the steps taken by their leaders. Arbitrary decision-making is unhealthy, whether it is done by party leaders within their own organizations or imposed on the people by non-political authorities. Political parties have yet another chance now to get properly organized and exert their influence to strengthen democracy and work for the people.

Honour well deserved

THERE may be more than one opinion on what might have weighed with the five-member committee in deciding to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to former US president Jimmy Carter, but few will disagree with the view that he is a well-deserved choice for the coveted honour. With decades of hard work behind him aimed at promoting conflict resolution, democratic values and human rights, and lobbying for equitable socio-economic progress in developing countries, Mr Carter has earned respect throughout the world. He is credited with major peace efforts that resulted in the signing of the ground-breaking Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel in 1978, the beginning of a dialogue between North and South Korea in 1994, peace mediation in the Horn of Africa, and the ceasefire in the Balkans. Earlier this year, Mr Carter visited Cuba to initiate a dialogue between the communist regime of Fidel Castro and the United States which has imposed a host of sanctions, including a trade embargo, against the island state. His charitable efforts to control the spread of tropical diseases in the developing world are also well known.

It was admirable on his part that while accepting the award on Friday as an inspiration and honour for the “suffering people around the world”, Mr Carter did not mince words and emphatically opposed his country’s unilateral stance on Iraq and the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. The comments by the Nobel Laureate give credence to the remark made by the chairman of the Nobel Prize committee who, while announcing the award, termed it “a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the US.” It seems Jimmy Carter learnt his lessons well from the Iran hostage crisis. That episode came about as a result of his being caught in the then raging war hysteria on Capitol Hill, which cost him a second term in office and brought no political dividends to the US in the end. Thus, barring his years as the president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, when the political career of a man of his heart and mind was consumed by the intrigues of Washington’s power politics, Mr Carter’s life has been largely dedicated to serving humanity.

Elections & TV coverage

APART from the fact that the religious right registered remarkable gains in the week’s elections, another factor that made the polls different was the way in which the electronic media covered them. The advent of private TV channels has broken the monopoly — and the monotony — of state-owned PTV and this could not have been more apparent than in the election coverage. The private channels kept viewers updated as results from various polling stations came in while PTV was forced to wait for the Election Commission’s announcements, which were greatly delayed. Apparently, PTV was under instructions to relay only officially released results. The private networks did not follow any such guideline, but did not really breach it either because they kept qualifying their announcement of results by saying that theirs were unofficial tallies.

On the whole, the presence of the private networks made the long hours of election viewing quite lively and interesting to watch for those with access to cable. Because of its constraints, PTV had long hours to fill and was dull and staid despite the open discussions in many of its talk shows. The election coverage underlined the threat state-controlled media faces because of the arrival of private channels. If there is a lesson to be drawn, it is that both Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan must be given greater autonomy and permitted room to establish their credibility and inform and entertain their viewers and listeners. This should be one of the priorities of the next government.