By Qamar Bashir
After his retirement as President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Dr. Arif
Alvi, following a brief period of hibernation, has proposed a 7-point plan as a starting
point for all stakeholders currently at an impasse, unsure of their next moves. However,
at this point, the plan is vague and may only gather weight and effectiveness as time
passes.
Currently, it raises many questions. For example, while the plan suggests that all
stakeholders should come to the table, it fails to specify who these stakeholders are. The
biggest stakeholder is the supra-executive, which, although holds de facto power, lacks
any legal or constitutional role in purely political matters.
The dilemma is that, de jure, this body is the most ardent, effective, influential, and
powerful entity, exercising full control over election results and having the final say in
domestic and foreign affairs, as well as business, finance, economy, and investment.
Therefore, any political deal without its willing consent and agreement will be a farce,
having no real consequence or impact.
The other stakeholders include PML(N), PPP, and MQM. However, the official stance of
PTI is that since these parties are beneficiaries of Form 47, PTI will not engage in any
dialogue with them. PTI's second condition for considering them as stakeholders is even
more stringent: the return of their "stolen" mandate. Agreeing to this condition would be
akin to a death knell for these parties.
The catch is that if the supra-executive body agrees and joins hands with PTI, the
governments in the Centre and the provinces of Punjab and Balochistan would collapse
like houses of cards—an extremely unlikely scenario. Therefore, if Dr. Alvi is able to
persuade his own party to accept his 7-point plan, PTI would need to roll back its
narrative of refusing dialogue with PML(N), PPP, and MQM.
His second point is more dramatic, literary and innovative. It says Zoom out, go to the
balcony, have a bird's eye view of the problem, understand the gravity of the situation. It
emphasizes the need for a broader perspective on the current political crisis. By
advocating for this approach, Dr. Alvi wants stakeholders to gain perspective and move
beyond immediate conflicts and narrow viewpoints. For instance, rather than focusing
solely on recent disputes, they should consider the historical context and how past
political maneuvers have led to the present situation. This broader understanding can help
in identifying underlying issues that need addressing, rather than just treating the
symptoms of the crisis.
Additionally, Dr. Alvi encourages stakeholders to assess the gravity of the situation and
understand the potential long-term consequences if the current trajectory continues. This
involves recognizing the broader impact on political stability, governance, and national
unity. For example, a failure to resolve the political deadlock could lead to economic
instability and diminished public trust in government institutions. By appreciating the full
scope of the crisis, stakeholders can better appreciate the urgency and importance of
finding a sustainable resolution.
In his second point, Dr. Alvi calls for strategic thinking and inclusive solutions. He
suggests that stakeholders metaphorically "go to the balcony" to step back from the fray,
allowing for a more neutral and objective assessment of the situation. This can lead to
more effective and impartial solutions. This collaborative approach is essential for
addressing complex issues and finding a path forward that benefits the nation as a whole.
Dr. Alvi's third point emphasizes the necessity of reducing emotions, anger, and egos
among the stakeholders involved in the political crisis. He advocates for a more
composed and rational approach to problem-solving, where decisions are not driven by
personal grievances or heated emotions. For instance, political leaders must set aside their
personal animosities and focus on the greater good, engaging in constructive dialogue
rather than confrontational rhetoric.
Dr. Alvi's fourth point is about looking for and building a bridge to the other side
underscores the importance of fostering reconciliation and collaboration among political
stakeholders. He encourages all parties to view each other not as enemies but as partners
in the pursuit of national stability and progress. By promoting a spirit of forgiveness and
moving forward with mutual guarantees, stakeholders can overcome past grievances and
work together constructively. This involves setting aside past conflicts and focusing on
common goals, such as economic development, social welfare, and political stability.
Dr. Alvi's fifth suggestion is to talk about each other's fears and handle them and
highlight the importance of empathetic communication in resolving political conflicts. He
advocates for an open dialogue where stakeholders can express their concerns and
anxieties candidly, creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding. For instance,
political parties might fear loss of power, public backlash, or economic instability. By
openly discussing these fears, parties can better understand each other's perspectives and
motivations, which can help in identifying common ground and developing strategies that
address these concerns. This process not only builds trust but also allows for the creation
of solutions that are sensitive to the fears and needs of all parties involved, paving the
way for a more cooperative and less adversarial political environment.
The sixth point is even more important. The worst alternative to a negotiated settlement
entails prolonged political deadlock, escalating tensions, and potential unrest. Without a
willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and compromise, parties may resort to
extreme measures such as political sabotage, mass protests, or even violence, leading to
further polarization and instability. This scenario not only undermines democratic
principles but also poses significant risks to the nation's social cohesion, economic
prosperity, and international reputation. Moreover, failure to reach a settlement prolongs
uncertainty, exacerbating investor concerns and hindering much-needed reforms.
The last point concludes once the other six points are complied with. To effectively
address the current political crisis, stakeholders must zoom in and focus on solving the
underlying issues through proactive and collaborative efforts. This involves engaging in
meaningful dialogue, identifying common goals, and exploring pragmatic solutions that
address the root causes of the conflict. By prioritizing constructive engagement over
partisan interests and ego-driven agendas, stakeholders can foster trust, build consensus,
and pave the way for a sustainable resolution. Moreover, zooming in allows for a more
nuanced understanding of the specific challenges at hand, enabling stakeholders to tailor
solutions that are responsive to the needs and concerns of all parties involved.
The plan is both pragmatic and practical, offering a promising starting point to end the
tumultuous period marked by unnecessary egoism and personal agendas. It encourages a
shift towards prioritizing the greater national interest—a concept often mentioned but frequently overlooked.
