Four things Imran Khan did right at the Larkana rally

Imran Khan's rhetoric of change and his withering invective against the ruling PPP has struck the right chord with the Sindhi populace. PHOTO: NNI/FILE
With success of the massive public gathering in Larkana, Imran Khan has made a knock-on effect on Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).

Whilst everyone in the political arena was waiting for the outcome of this rally, many said it would be difficult for the cricketer-turned-politician to gain a foothold in Sindh – often considered the political backyard of the PPP; others were counting on his failure, hoping that this jalsa would be the cause of Imran’s fall.

However, on the contrary, Imran made a very strong statement; a show of strength, attracting a healthy crowd at the Larkana rally and, therefore, creating a serious stir in PPP’s heartland. One really has to admire his homework on the rally and how he related to the crowd, concerning issues that plague the masses of Sindh. The rally truly marked his first foray into Sindhi politics, where he talked about liberating Sindh with rudimentary reforms and actions, including a tirade on the ruling PPP.

But what were those prescient points that made his gathering a success?

Here is an assessment:

1. He struck the right chord with the Sindhi masses

Imran’s rhetoric of change and his withering invective against the ruling PPP has struck the right chord with the Sindhi populace. He emphasised on PPP’s failures to make reforms in the province.

In censuring the ruling PPP, he criticised saying that despite being in consecutive governing tenures in Sindh for the past 40 years the province lagged behind in almost every walk of life. Amid corruption, ill-governance and lack of public healthcare, the local populace is frustrated with the countless false promises made to them on Bhutto’s name.

Imran indicated that the PPP is no longer Bhutto’s party and is in fact a Zardari-clique, one that has no care for the sufferings of the masses and is only interested in looting and plundering. He also took the opportunity to unleash his tirade against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for his plutocratic rule and nepotism.

2. The division of Sindh

Imran wouldn’t have done so well, had he not addressed the issue of the division of Sindh during his rally – an issue very sensitive to many Sindhis. To his credit, he was very tactful, as he realised that the establishment of new provinces is not a public demand, especially in rural Sindh. The emotional attachment of the local population signifies that they consider Sindh their motherland and would never willingly allow its division.

Imran’s promise that he would never allow the division has raised his public perception and this stance could prove to be vital for his progress in the province.

3. The Kalabagh Dam

This has always been considered a contentious subject within Sindh. It is one which has only been met with contempt and fear, the fear that Sindh will be robbed of its water by other provinces, especially Punjab, and the drought, which has already gripped the province, could make things even worse.

Here too, Imran made the right call. He stated that he would never allow the construction of Kalabagh Dam without Sindh’s consent. This statement holds much importance because even past leaders from the PPP have avoided commenting on this issue leaving the people with no one to rely on.

4. Bad governance and corruption

Another issue rightly pointed, in his invective against the PPP, was governance and corruption. Quoting on the state of Larkana’s roads as a reminder of Mohenjo-Daro, Imran pointed out the sorry state of such a historic city.

He further stated that bad governance and corruption have reached epidemic proportions with the ruling PPP. Despite having large reservoirs of minerals and natural gas, the province is poverty stricken and has one of highest ratios of economic inequality. He added that Sindhis were not getting proper health facilities and jobs were not given on merit but on favouritism, evident in transfers and postings.

Imran didn’t just paint the right picture of himself and his party, but also showed the people that he could relate himself to issues concerning Sindh in a way that the people themselves do – a more Bhutto-esque way than Bhutto’s own prodigal grandson ever could. He pointed out the problems faced by the local population, promised to fix them from the grass-root level and censured the ruling of PPP making his rally a real success in Larkana.

It remains to be seen whether he can make sweeping victories in Sindh during the coming elections. But one thing is for certain: Imran Khan is now a worthy opponent knocking at PPP’s door.

Maqsood Ahmed Soomro
The writer is an English literature aficionado, who likes to write on politics. He tweets as @Maqsood_Soomro1 (twitter.com/@Maqsood_Soomro1)

Dismantling the elitist model by Ishrat Husan

THERE are two ways of drawing lessons from the PTI and PAT dharnas and protests. The government may feel it has been so bruised and weakened that it has no courage or conviction left to undertake tough economic and structural reforms. The fear of adverse reactions and protests by those likely to be the losers if reforms are carried out may lull the decision-makers into a state of continued inaction. If the losers happen to be their political allies and supporters the fear may be heightened.

A more charitable expectation could be that the ruling party and other leading political parties have sensed the general mood of dissatisfaction with the prevailing state of affairs and may be galvanised into taking long-postponed decisions and overdue reforms. They may realise that the political cost of not carrying out these reforms is becoming unbearable. These protests and general public sentiment should appeal to the conscience of the political leadership that status quo and business as usual are no longer acceptable.

Having mobilised the support of the opposition parties and forged a united front for the survival of democracy it is only logical that they should together repair and reconstruct the damaged apparatus of governance and the enfeebled institutions of state. After all, democracy cannot be meaningfully implemented in the absence of strong institutions and good governance. As these reforms are of a long-term nature, the consensus and support of the opposition parties are badly needed to neutralise the pressure tactics of those opposing them.

Viewed in this context, the recent appeal filed by the government against the Supreme Court decision in Khawaja Asif’s case is highly disconcerting. As per the decision, an independent commission of experts puts up a panel of three nominees for each post of the chief executive of regulatory and other key state organisations through an open, transparent process. This does not, in any way, take away the powers of the prime minister in making appointments, but facilitates him in choosing from among the panel that has gone through an independently conducted process of screening and scrutiny to determine suitability for the job.

The prime minister has always the power to reject the panel recommended by the commission and to ask them to submit a fresh panel. This process would in fact help strengthen the prime minister’s position as nobody could then accuse him of nepotism, favouritism or choosing a person on the basis of loyalty.

In most cases, the head of the organisation selected on merit through this transparent process would choose his own team on the same consideration. An autonomous board of directors appointed on the same criterion can then hold the chief executive accountable for results. This mechanism, if put in practice faithfully, can turn these key institutions of state around, place them on a sound footing and bring about a difference in their performance.

Imagine, for a moment, if the heads of SECP, CCP, Nepra, Ogra, Pemra, Pakistan Steel, PIA and of Gencos and Discos are selected this way. This would have restored confidence in the sanctity of these organisations, enhanced the latter’s capability and conferred legitimacy on their functioning. By insisting upon the old beaten track of complete centralisation of powers and the exercise of discretion by top decision-makers in making these appointments it is unlikely that these organisations can either achieve capability, legitimacy or efficiency.

Protests and dharnas are a manifestation of deep-rooted frustration with the way the country has been governed for most of its 67 years. It is time that these sources of disenchantment and lack of trust in the state and its institutions are gradually removed. The main goal for every political party should be to bring about a change from the present elitist model of state to one in which the benefits of growth are shared widely. This can only happen if the current process of decision-making dominated by personalisation, discretion and patronage gives way to a more inclusive and consultative process, adherence to rules and checks and balances.

This is easier said than done and would require a great deal of effort, time and perseverance. That is why the coming together of all political parties around this agenda is the first step forward. Responding to the genuine sentiments of the protesters and others who feel the same way, and utilising the present harmonious relations among all major political parties provides an ideal opportunity for initiating this journey.

The reform agenda for such change has to be comprehensive, encompassing the judicial and electoral, parliamentary, civil service, local government, economic and social sectors. In many instances, detailed road maps are available and can be viewed by the cabinet and parliamentary committees. In other cases, work is already under way as on electoral reforms.

For others, new blueprints have to be developed. One of the instruments which has worked well in democracies such as India is the setting up of blue ribbon commissions consisting of experts, practitioners, parliamentarians, civil society and provincial representatives etc. These commissions should be asked to have broad-based consultation with stakeholders including civil society and come up with recommendations and a time-bound action plan. The proceedings of these commissions should be open to the public and media.

The experience so far in Pakistan is that the reports of such commissions have been put in cold storage. The reason? Decision-makers have wanted to continue with the status quo and dare not give up their powers of patronage, privilege and pelf. Decision-makers should in the new and changed circumstances have no other option but to sincerely implement the recommendations after arriving at a consensus with all other political parties.

Let us hope that history will remember that this political crisis was turned into an opportunity for the transformation of Pakistan driven by an enlightened political leadership and a meritocratic, performance-oriented bureaucracy free from political interference.

The writer is the author of The Economy of an Elitist State. Dawn.com