Day turns to night

Dr Maleeha Lodhi THE July 18 meeting between Asif Zardari and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif marked an effort by the President to repair relations after months of estrangement between the heads of the country�s two major parties. Whether this meeting paves the way for rapprochement between the government and the opposition is an open question. But what it did highlight is the persisting lack of agreement on a timeframe to end the Seventeenth Amendment, to which both parties committed themselves in the Charter of Democracy and in several subsequent communiques. Sharif has been insistent on scrapping this amendment even though he has been reticent to force the pace. Despite protestations to the contrary, Zardari has shown a marked reluctance to yield the extraordinary powers that the amendment endows the Presidency. The desire to cling to these sweeping powers is not unique to Zardari. His immediate and not so immediate predecessors too were seduced by the idea that these powers guarantee political longevity and provide immunity from political challenge. This erroneous assumption has repeatedly been contradicted by the testimony of history. But the notion persists. President Zardari stands today at the apex of the political system with his nominees holding all top offices: Prime Minister, Chairman of the Senate, and Speaker of the National Assembly. A few months ago he also tried to seize control of the Punjab. While this effort failed, it served to underscore how much time and energy he has expended in power plays. But the same vigour and resolution has not been in evidence in his government�s efforts to tackle the country�s deep-seated problems. Pre-occupation with power politics rather than trying to address what is now a systemic crisis has produced a paradox. Consolidating power has not translated into government effectiveness because that depends on a vision, on fashioning a coherent plan of policy actions and identifying the means to implement them in order to respond to the multiple challenges at hand. Why, armed with abundant formal power, in a political setting of a spiritless opposition, does the Zardari-led government rarely appear to be in control of events? Why do the government�s stated intentions outstrip its performance? Why does it often appear that there are no firm hands at the wheel? To explain this enigma involves considering the limits of power. This entails, first and foremost, posing the question whether power is the same as authority. Often people deem power and authority to be synonymous. But power does not necessarily confer authority. Authority is where power and purpose intersect. Authority rests on the legitimate exercise of power in the public interest that goes beyond narrow interests or self-preservation. The �rightful� use of power, invoked to advance a public agenda, endows authority. Authority is thus more a relationship (with the ruled) than a capacity. If power itself becomes an end-goal it is denuded of authority. Therefore, the more Zardari has concentrated power in himself the more elusive authority has become for him. A series of opinion polls, which have measured the approval ratings for Pakistan�s leaders are instructive in this regard. The latest survey conducted by World Public Opinion.Org, released this month, found that 68 per cent of the people polled had unfavourable views of President Zardari. This confirmed the findings of earlier polls and throws into sharp relief how much authority Zardari has managed to acquire. The limits of power also arise from another factor. This has to do with the eroding capacity of state especially in an environment where challenges are severe and problems are complex. Today Zardari presides over a state apparatus, which is institutionally at its weakest since perhaps the country�s independence. The inattention shown by the government to the need to reform and re-empower the institutions of state suggests an inability to understand how this hobbles the implementation of policy. It also reflects a lack of recognition of how weak institutions contribute to the government�s inability to come to grips with problems. When the instruments of governance are weak this should lend urgency to efforts to strengthen institutional capacity. Instead President Zardari�s proclivity to bypass institutions has compounded the problem. Examples abound. But a few will illustrate the point. A recent example is his attempt to arbitrarily appoint a junior DMG officer as envoy to France, over ruling the advice of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry. Giving a minister, who is close to him, an office in the Presidency is another instance of disregarding institutional rules. This unprecedented step undermines the very notion of cabinet responsibility. Also, continuing to hold the position of party leader while being President, and putting the Presidency to partisan uses, has blurred the distinction between state and government. This too has aggravated the institutional dysfunction. Instead of pursuing a non-institutional path, which further weakens the instruments of governance, the Zardari-led government should acknowledge the imperative of empowering the state apparatus. The pressing task of institutional re-engineering needs well-thought out reforms without which even absolute power cannot translate into effective governance. Unless the tools to execute policy are repaired, governance will be reduced to declarations of intent. Ignoring or postponing corrective action because it appears too time-consuming or involves wrenching changes will only compound weaknesses and leave the government without the means to manage the country�s myriad problems. Wielding power in such a debilitating environment will mean having the trappings of office but without the implements of effective rule. Limits on power are also imposed by another set of very different factors. Today power is exercised in a political environment that is increasingly influenced and shaped by the broadcast media. Because Pakistan�s political and Parliamentary institutions are still weak the media�s power is even more pronounced. It is this new media that has increasingly set the public agenda. This was most vividly demonstrated in the lawyers� movement to restore the Chief Justice in which the electronic media helped to drive the agenda and galvanise public support. The power of public opinion is a relatively new factor shaping political discourse in the country. This is changing power dynamics as well as how people assess governmental performance. The intense scrutiny of the 24/7 news cycle is exposing the government to new limits on its power. All of this should urge government leaders to re-examine their apparent premise that more power automatically means having a strong grip over governance. Power does not by itself guarantee regime stability and make the government�s position unassailable. Stability comes from converting power into authority. It is assured by governmental performance that meets the expectations of a public that has been empowered by enhanced communication. A strategic thinker once said: �the false security to which all men are tempted is the security of power.� Resisting this temptation is what sets a leader and statesman apart from just an occupant of high office. �Khaleej Times