THE recent break-up between the PPP and the PML of Nawaz Sharif presents a deja vou between the two parties. It is 1988-89 once again whence it all started. History repeats itself for those who need to be reminded of the past. Behind the headlines then of this so-called crisis of ‘reconciliation’ are some facts which need to be retold. These facts indicate that when it comes to power play, democracy becomes the loser, all the more when it is in a nascent state of development.

The roots of the problem go back to the Ziaul Haq rule but the direct conflict between the two parties began during the period when Benazir Bhutto took office as the prime minister. In line with Pakistani tradition, the PPP wanted to form governments, or at least have friendly coalitions, in the provinces. But Mr Nawaz Sharif managed to form his government under the umbrella of Islami Jamhoori Itehad (IJI), an alliance linked with the legacy of Ziaul Haq, and some ‘uncommitted’ members of assembly. Benazir Bhutto regarded this as a special blow because the province was until then considered the fief of the Bhuttos.

The prime minister went after Nawaz Sharif and thought that the Sharif family could be tamed by attacking the source of its power – the Ittefaq industrial empire. As pointed out by Lawrence Ziring, she failed to accomplish her objective but became vulnerable to counter-attacks as the later events indicated. She was young and inexperienced; the president, the army chief, and the establishment had accepted her as prime minister on sufferance. Nawaz Sharif also was not ready to cave in and met the prime minister head-on. Benazir had co-opted family members in her government and became the target of charges of corruption and nepotism. The practices reported about Mr Asif Zardari affected prime minister’s reputation. Her tussle with them made it clear that only democracy would suffer a setback when the leaders of the two parties were determined to ignore each other’s electoral victory.

It was not a good beginning for the ‘decade of democracy’. The antipathy between them continued throughout the 1990s when General Musharraf dismissed Nawaz Sharif’s government. Ms Bhutto welcomed the end of his regime. The PML-N government however had been losing popularity for trying to push an agenda for which it claimed that it had received a `heavy` mandate.

In the battle against the rule of General Pervez Musharraf, there was a meeting of minds between the two that led to an agreement, the Charter of Democracy, as a guide for promoting transition to democracy (later denounced by Mr Zardari as not written in the Quran and Hadis). It is difficult to say how the matter would have been handled if Benazir had lived to take part in this transition. With Asif Zardari as head of the new PPP-led coalition government, the participation of PML-N in it seemed to be an unnatural arrangement. After his party withdrew from the government, Mr Nawaz Sharif has been playing the role which many commentators have described as that of a friendly opposition.

Last month Mr Sharif presented a 10-point agenda to Mr Zardari to be implemented within 45 days. This move is not entirely out of tune with the messages which the media have been carrying on about the possible change in the strategy of Mr Sharif. It seems that many of his colleagues are suggesting to him that their party should categorically dissociate itself from the PPP in order to improve its chances in the next general elections.

Also the original position allowing the PPP-coalition government to complete its five-year term seems to have changed, and mid-term elections are now being considered a possible target. As the deadline has passed, the agenda is being played out in Punjab where the coalition with the PPP has come to an end. This shift in the policy may also be linked to the fact that Mr Sharif, according to recent media reports, can now take active part in politics. He has formally informed the Saudi king that he has completed the 10-year period of staying away from politics under the terms of the exile agreement.

Punjab under Mr Zardari has been a battle ground between the PPP and PML-N. Nawaz Sharif’s party has important regional base there, unlike the PPP which has a national character. In line with the peculiarity of Pakistani politics, the provincial governments are expected to belong to the same party which rules at the centre, or at least be run by friendly coalitions. For Benazir Bhutto, hold over Punjab would have brought to an end to the legacy of General Ziaul Haq. For President Zardari there are different considerations related to his role as an active president and co-chairman of the party. It is generally assumed in this regard that Salman Taseer was appointed as governor of Punjab to pave the way for a change of government. But he in fact became a liability for the ruling party for his hostile and abrasive style.

The basic issue in having friendly provincial governments for the ruling party is the fact that the president is elected by votes cast by provincial assemblies and the Senate. For a president, holding a ceremonial position, this is an eminently suitable arrangement. He would not need a mandate through direct general election because he would enjoy a few limited powers. And of course military rulers created their constitutions.

Mr Zardai, however, has created a paradox. All the channels of decision-making stop at his desk in spite of being a civilian president. The PML-N was fully aware of this reality but it has been a party to the consensus behind the 18th Amendment which could have been streamlined to resolve this contradiction. They chose not to. One can draw the conclusion that it is not this constitutional anomaly that troubles them. It is that they should be ones in the rider’s seat to make use of it. Neither of the two main parties has risen above party politics to look after the national interests, and the only loser is democracy.

The PML-N has then rightly drawn the conclusion that the next Senate elections will perhaps give the PPP a comfortable majority and that when the time comes for electing the president, Zardari will have a good chance of getting re-elected. The NRO may become a hurdle but his government as well as some like-minded friends in the legal community will try to dismiss it as a dead issue, only being kept alive by an ‘activist` Court, at the risk of the breakdown of the ‘political system’.

Briefly, the 10-point agenda is as follows: to withdraw price increases in petroleum products, and to end load-shedding of gas and electricity; to eliminate corruption and to replace those charged with it by honest individuals; to recover politically-motivated written-off loans; to implement proper system for controlling prices of basic goods; to implement all judicial decisions including NR0; to reorganise Election Commission for free and fair elections; to reduce public expenditure by 30 per cent and to reduce the size of the cabinet; to reconstruct the national corporations to make them profitable; to institute investigations into scandals such as about Hajj, Bank of Punjab, National Insurance Corporation and to punish those charged; to establish an independent accountability commission.

Under normal conditions, this agenda should be examined by the National Assembly where one party has the status of official opposition and the other party is running the coalition government. In the well-established parliamentary tradition, the questions covered in the agenda should be raised through duly notified motions for parliamentary debate. There are a number points in the list which should require a detailed study, and also they cannot be implemented within the deadline that was set by the PML-N.

But these are not normal times in Pakistan’s politics. The 10-point agenda is an election manifesto. They have been smart and they have chosen topics which sum up the failure of Zardari regime during the last two years. How much public support the party will be able to muster outside of its power base in Punjab will depend how persuasive they will be in the eyes of the public.

The writer is a retired professor. izzud-din.pal@videotron.ca