New Government priorities

JUST a few days ago, it seemed that Pakistan was on course for political stability. With former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party, signing a formal agreement to join in a coalition, the prospect of a workable government took a major step forward. Within hours, however, hopes of an end to instability were dashed in some of the worst terror attacks that the country has seen in years. The two, obviously coordinated, but devastating suicide attacks in Lahore serve to underline the enormity of the task facing the new government. Up until now, the political mantra in Pakistan has been that the rise of militancy and the suicide attacks that have killed 500 people so far this year are a backlash to the army’s iron-fisted campaign against tribal insurgencies and support for the Taleban in fiercely defiant Swat and Waziristan. That has led some pundits to claim that the situation would calm once President Musharraf and the army were removed from power, democracy restored and a new government entered into collaborative dialogue with tribal leaders in such regions. The Lahore bombings make it clear that the situation is going to be anything but that simple. Despite a massive public rejection of Islamist parties in last month’s elections, the militants’ ability to kill and maim is as strong as ever. Moreover, they are clearly unmoved as to whether it is the army or elected civilians in power in Islamabad. As far as they are concerned, both are illegitimate. Only they, the self-appointed guardians of morality and law, have the right to rule.
That is the scale of the challenge facing the new government. It has to rise straightaway to that challenge — and just as quickly to the no less devastating scourge of inflation. The danger is that instead of tacking terrorism and prices, the new government will spend far too much time and effort trying to remove President Musharraf from office and work out a new constitution. Musharraf is the one issue on which the PPP, the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the majority of Pakistanis are united. But important though the issue is, removing him is not going to stop the bombers or end inflation, let alone end corruption or attract investment. These are the prime issues on which the people of Pakistan will ultimately judge the new government. The only way of stopping the militants is by draining their support base. That means working with the tribal leaders. It is not going to be easy and will require massive investments of time and money. The new government has, however, a towering advantage in Waziristan and Swat. It is not the Musharraf government. The new coalition must not squander that advantage. A new and lasting Waziristan Accord has to be (and can be) forged — as soon as possible. Equally, the removal of Musharraf must not be used to paper over the cracks that divide the coalition. That would simply strengthen the terrorists’ position and, even more dangerously, fuel resentment against the entire democratic process.





The race goes on

THE fight for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election keeps intensifying. Neither New York Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has been able to deliver a knockout blow, and the momentum keeps shifting from primary to primary. Clearly, Democratic voters have not made up their minds and want to see this historic campaign go on. The big question now is whether a drawn-out contest will damage the party’s chances in the November ballot. Republicans are gleeful at the prospect but schadenfreude may be misplaced. The Democratic contest is energizing voters and generating attention: It is invigorating a party that is eager to seize the White House. Mrs. Clinton entered the campaign as the party’s presumptive candidate. She had the name, the machine and the record to put any possible opposition away quickly in the primaries. She stumbled, however, miscalculating Mr. Obama’s appeal, his tenacity and his fundraising capabilities. From the first Iowa caucuses, the two have been battling furiously, dividing primary wins between them. In recent weeks, Mr. Obama has been the pace setter, winning 11 primaries in a row. The Texas and Ohio primaries held earlier this month were “must-win” contests for Mrs. Clinton; strategists argued a loss in either would have been the death knell of her campaign. In fact, Mrs. Clinton won convincing victories in both states, and then announced that her campaign had raised $35 million in February, both of which show that her supporters have not given up. The problem for Mrs. Clinton is that even if she wins the rest of the primaries, she cannot catch up with Mr. Obama in collecting delegates chosen by primaries and caucuses. Yet even if Mr. Obama wins every remaining pledged delegate, he will be short of the 2,025 needed for the nomination. That means that the 796 “super delegates” will tip the balance. And no one knows how they will vote — or why. Super delegates are political insiders who vote according to their own will, conscience and personal commitments. Many were pledged to Mrs. Clinton — she was the front-runner when the campaign began — but Mr. Obama’s resilience, his ability to inspire voters and his surge, have inspired many of the previously committed to reconsider. Mr. Obama’s supporters insist that having a majority of pledged delegates and a string of primary victories means that super delegate support for Mrs. Clinton is “undemocratic.” They buttress that claim by noting Mr. Obama is more electable than his rival: She has higher negatives than he does and polls show Mr. Obama besting Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, in head to head races.
In addition to insisting that she has the better record as a senator — “experience” — Mrs. Clinton counters that Mr. Obama’s inability to win states with large numbers of electoral college votes — California, New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey — means that she is the better candidate in the showdown with Mr. McCain. Both campaigns are digging in, raising record sums — Mr. Obama raised his own $55 million in February — and vowing to step up scrutiny of their opponent’s record. Republicans are delighted at the prospect of an internecine struggle among Democrats. Mr. McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination last week, and he will now do his best to make peace with the “base,” the GOP’s true believers who have doubts about his credentials. Meanwhile, the two Democratic contenders will slug it out, raising fears that they will fracture the party, each side alienating the other’s followers and creating rifts impossible to bridge after one candidate prevails in August. The odds are long.

—Japan Times