Pakistani political pundits are almost exclusively engaged in discussing two events threadbare these days: the Raymond Davis case and whether Pakistan is susceptible to the same protest movements as those witnessed in North Africa and the Middle East.
First the Raymond Davis case. It is by now patently evident that even with the usual display of not everyone in the PPP high command being on the same page on any issue resulting in lack of coherent and consistent policy statements, the Obama administration mishandled it far more than those in the corridors of power in Pakistan. The US reacted to Davis' incarceration by issuing statements to the effect that Davis had diplomatic immunity, a claim it could not back by proof, and that until and unless he was released relations between the two countries would remain at an all time low, with not so implicit threat of freezing the desperately needed 1.5 billion dollar annual aid under the Kerry Lugar bill and cancelling President Zardari's scheduled official visit to the US. Inexplicably the Obama administration succeeded in muzzling the free press of the West, as did his much maligned predecessor Bush during the Gulf war, into delegating the Davis story to the inside pages at best with no more than a ticker on the electronic media for about two weeks by arguing that Davis' life was in danger. Al-Jazeera ran the story in detail and it was the most read story on the net which may have then compelled the Western media led by the UK paper The Guardian to confirm what the Pakistani media had been saying all along: that Davis was a CIA contractor/operative and was engaged in clandestine activities in Lahore at the time he shot dead two motorcyclists in broad daylight in Mozang. This was subsequently followed by similar reports in the US media.
The Davis case has led to two casualties in Pakistan - one, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi for challenging as it turns out rightly, Davis' diplomatic credentials and the other Fauzia Wahab for supporting those non-existent diplomatic credentials. In sharp contrast there have been no casualties in the US. Some may well argue that this may be due to the fact that President Obama was publicly on the same page as the rest of his administration - of insisting that Davis be released under the Vienna Convention - while our Presidency could not decide whether to support the Qureshi or the opposing Wahab view and therefore got rid of both.
President Zardari's supporters argue in his defence that the establishment is routinely engaged in clearing the names of US officials seeking a visa for this country and that it is unfair to hold Zardari appointee Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan's Ambassador to the US, responsible for granting the visa to CIA operatives including Davis. The ISI was held responsible though no one had the guts to openly state it for, at best, not monitoring the activities of foreign nationals with suspect credentials and, at worst, of being fully aware of Davis' activities and therefore of being complicit in them. The reported low ebb in CIA-ISI relations subsequently reflects the eruption of differences that are almost certainly due to Raymond Davis case with both sides hardening their opposing stance.
No one can deny that Davis was critical to clandestine CIA operations in this country and the US has recently engaged with the Pakistani military leadership for his release, two meetings have already taken place between General Kayani and his US counterpart - a tacit acknowledgement on the part of the US that our civilian government is unable to deal with the issue to its satisfaction. To further strengthen this view Gilani and Rehman Malik took the rather untenable public stance on the issue: the courts, they said, will decide and the matter is sub judice barring them from talking publicly about it. Ignored was the obvious fact: it is the government that has the evidence upon which the court would decide.
The second major issue that is rocking Pakistan media today is whether the fall of the Maghreb strongmen and continuing civil unrest in some Middle Eastern countries is likely in Pakistan. Gaddafi who President Zardari visited soon after he took over power and received some bullet proof free cars from, which the President now personally owns after depositing a fraction of the value of the cars in the treasury as per the rules, referred in a derogatory fashion to Pakistan in his speech televised on state media a week ago. President Zardari would be well advised to note actions taken by others who received gifts/donations/fees from Gaddafi: donated the money to their favourite charity, with the Director of the London School of Economics resigning for working with the Libyan strong man.
Be that as it may the major contrast between the maghreb and middle eastern strongmen and Zardari is that the latter cannot be defined as a strongman by any stretch of the imagination. It is fairly well acknowledged that the President and PPP has little flexibility in determining foreign policy with respect to major countries including the US, India and Europe. His flexibility in all other areas including politics and economics is constantly challenged resulting in his capitulation as several incidents show. It is Zardari's weakness that is the source of his remaining in power. The establishment acknowledges, given the WikiLeaks revelations, that even though Zardari is unlikeable he is the most pliable. President Zardari's strength stems from his control over the PPP and the day he succeeds in antagonising enough of the PPP old guard compelling them to form a splinter party would be the day he would have to leave politics. Political pundits are agreed that Bilawal Bhutto is likely to be summoned to campaign prior to the next elections but here too time will tell if the young Bhutto Zardari can be the glue that keeps the party together.
Besides Pakistan will not witness a revolution, argue some political pundits, by averring that Pakistan's society is not homogenous - be it from an ethnic or religious perspective. True but eroding incomes across the board are a great uniter and may provide the ingredient for nation-wide political unrest. That the economy has been mishandled is fairly evident. Runaway inflation, massive load shedding and financial scams of mammoth proportions resulting in rising unemployment may force the people to come out on the streets demanding change. Recent protests in democratic India, due to the rise in the price of food, and Greece due to severe austerity measures that have led to job cuts and inflation as an outcome of compliance with IMF/EU conditions are likely reasons for the people of Pakistan to launch protests. True but protests in democratic set ups are normally organised either by members of the Opposition or by trade unions. In this country so far the main opposition party and the trade unions have not yet formalised protests.
The government has neutralised trade union leadership's involvement by overstaffing unionised state-owned entities (SOEs) with its supporters, one of the reasons for the huge bail out packages that are compromising its ability to bring the budget deficit to a sustainable level, and approved a 50 percent rise in salaries of bureaucrats that would no doubt deter union involvement in organising protests.
To conclude spontaneous protests at a national level by the general public without any political or trade union organisation is therefore unlikely in the near future. However a change in government in the centre remains possible through the active engagement of the establishment, as in years past. Many a pundit is referring to Shah Mehmood Qureshi's recent jalsas that drew huge crowds in Punjab and Sindh and his uncharacteristic challenge to the existing PPP leadership on what many regard is the principled stand on Davis as well as his clandestine meetings with politicians as proof that the establishment may be getting restive but whether restive enough to actively seek an over throw of the Zardari government is not clear.