BREAKING NEWS: It’s Official - the PML-N is Quitting the Cabinet
May 12, 2008 by CHUP! Editor - Kalsoom
So it’s official - on Monday, PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif announced that ministers from his party will resign from their posts tomorrow over differences regarding the restoration of the judiciary, [PML-N currently has nine ministers in the 24-member federal cabinet]. Media coverage yesterday predicted this development, following news that the ruling parties had not come to an agreement on the judiciary issue, [see yesterday's related post]. During the news conference, Nawaz used the opportunity to play to oh-so-famous “blame game,” telling reporters, “PPP failed to keep its promise and that is why we have decided to part ways with the coalition government.” According to The News, he added, “We left no stone unturned to keep our promise made in the Murree Declaration…I had to go to Dubai and then London to hold negotiations with the PPP on the issue but to no avail.”
Oh, Nawaz, woe is you. News outlets did add, however, following the PML-N leader’s swan song, that his party “would not take any decision that would strengthen what he called a ‘dictatorship’ under Musharraf.” The AFP quoted him asserting,
We will not be part of any conspiracy aimed at strengthening dictatorships…We want the unconditional, dignified and honorable return of the judges…We will not sit on opposition benches for the time being.
So what many deemed was the inevitable has now occurred. We must now consider the next steps the fledgling government must take to ensure its survival and quell doubts that the entire regime is collapsing. The Associated Press assessed, “While the civilian government is likely to survive, Sharif’s move raises doubts over its stability and is a setback to Pakistan’s transition to democracy after eight years of military rule under Musharraf.” Despite his dramatic exit, we must realize this is not the last we’ll see of Nawaz Sharif. However, perhaps in his party’s absence, the government can finally concentrate on other issues impacting the country - including the food and electricity crises and working to uphold the newly signed peace agreement with militants, [a development covered on Friday by BBC News]. Or perhaps it will crumble further under the weight of these decisions. [Image from the AFP]
[...] political situation in Pakistan takes a turn for the unpredictable. CHUP! on a member party of the coalition government quitting the cabinet. Posted by Neha Viswanathan [...]
What I am interested in seeing is who replaces the ministers who will resign and how that affects the coalition? Sure, Sharif had his agenda but doesn’t everybody? Hopefully, new distractions won’t be introduced with the new cabinet members.
[...] following news that the ruling parties had not come to an agreement […] Read more at: CHUP! - Changing Up Pakistan Tagged as: avail, civilian government, coalition government, dictatorship, dictatorships, [...]
I guess it was a matter of time before Zardari and Sharif’s coalition would end up in a disaster…. but they should have played the we-are-friends game a bit longer so we didn’t end up looking so incompetent in front of the world…
Malik, well said. I’m curious to see who will replace the PML N Ministers as well and what the outcome will be..
What an appaalling and prejudiced article. A true distortion of the news, making it seem like it was written by a pubescent crackhead.
Maria-
While all comments and criticisms are welcome, personal attacks with little other substance (and poor spelling I might add) will not be tolerated on this forum. I posted your comment in order to underline this fact for future reference. Other than “Oh Nawaz, woe is you,” I fail to see where this article is prejudiced - I don’t endorse any particular politician in Pakistan, and glib comments I make are in jest, not to undercut or show any kind of “prejudice.” Moreover, I widely read a variety of news sources, both in Pakistan and abroad, in order to provide a portrayal of how media outlets are FRAMING current events. If you believe my articles are a “true distortion of the news,” then darling, welcome to the blogosphere.
I would just like to commend the Editor, Kalsoom, for both posting the comment left by Maria, as well as taking the time to respond to it. From my understanding, this website is intended to generate discussion on the pressing issues being faced by Pakistan, and while a ‘discussion’ most certainly involves differing opinions on those issues, and possibly even a critique of the way certain pieces of information are conveyed, I do not think that making personal attacks is constructive or remotely appropriate, especially if that attack is not based on any substantive evidence or backed by specific problematic examples of any kind.
If participants of this website have any real criticism or suggestions, I am sure Kalsoom would more than welcome them; however, I think the majority of her readers would agree that this kind of commentary is childish and counter-productive.
Keep up the good work Kalsoom.
Thank you for adding the comment. It was not a personal attack. It was a commentary on the standard of journalism that this article depicts. I stand by my earlier statement that this is a seriously one-sided and naive article.
Now, from what angle is this article not one-sided
“Oh Nawaz, woe is you.” ?
“Nawaz used the opportunity to play the oh-so-famous “blame game”
Suggesting that Nawaz is trying to bring down democracy and now, after his party’s exit, the country will actually flourish?
What news sources are giving you such ideas? Maybe, instead of browsing through such half-baked sources, you may want to look closer at the sentiments of the tens of thousands of people in this country, who have taken to the streets for the restoration of the democracy.
I meant, restoration of the judiciary.
Sorry for my typos.
Who suggested that he was trying to bring down democracy? Nawaz was essentially blaming the PPP for the fact that he could not reach a compromise - this is not me saying he’s bringing democracy down. I am sorry if I used the term “blame game,” maybe I should have worded it differently.
Moreover, if I quote news sources, that is not me stating my own opinion but ATTEMPTING to provide a more well-rounded depiction of what media outlets are saying - these are not “half-baked” news sources but well-respected agencies like The News, Dawn, the Daily Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, the Washington Post, BBC News, CNN, etc. If you are saying that the countries’ main news sources and Pakistan’s most respected journalists, who by the way, have been instrumental in the being a check on the government, are “half-baked” and out of touch with the people, then that is another discussion all together.
In all fairness, I do see your point about me saying that in the party’s absence they can set out to address other issues - however, let me first explain the premise of my argument. In my opinion, Nawaz has essentially stepped away from the government (I believe temporarily and not completely, since the PML-N is still in the government), so that the PPP can go ahead with its judiciary constitutional package.
It is not naive to say that the ruling coalition has recently been tied up in this issue - not the underlying premise of the issue, since everyone agrees that the judiciary must be restored, but in HOW to go about it. This is where the PPP and the PML-N have fundamentally differed and is what has allowed two deadlines to pass. In order for this new government to maintain its credibility, therefore, the judiciary restoration MUST occur and soon - whether or not the lawyers’ movement will be happy with the PPP method remains to be seen, but A solution (whether right or not) will hopefully be reached barring further squabbles from other coalition parties. As a result, the government can then move forward and address other pressing issues facing Pakistan - because, as we know, there are a LOT of them. If the PML-N chooses to come back to the cabinet following the judiciary decision, great.
Maria,
I think that your opinions would be better received and more constructive if you avoid the use of charged phrases and terms that do nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand. I learned a long time ago that the best way to involve yourself in a debate is to focus on the merits of the argument and not the person making the argument. I would hope that if I met you in person at a conference., social gathering or professional meeting; you would not resort to insulting my personal character just because I stated a coherent and rational argument that caused you distress. Put it this way, I notice that many people hide behind online forums…I use this as my litmus test…if I am not willing to say something to someone’s face, then I choose to refine my approach accordingly. I highly doubt that you would tell a colleague that they were an ‘immature crackhead’ because they disagreed with you. If you do, then I would highly recommend that you alter your conversational approach, you are not likely to make many friends or allies in this manner.
Noor, I dont believe I spoke to you. Yes, I have plenty of friends and yes, in arguments, one tends to say certain things online which one wouldn’t in person. It’s not about “hiding behind online forums”. It is very obviously, the freedom of the blog world. When one puts one’s opinion in front of a public forum, he, I am sure, realizes that he has placed himself in a vulnerable position. This is not a formal conference my friend. It is not a G-8 summit where rules of diplomacy must be applied. It is a PUBLIC forum. And the public is ruthless, much more than I was. You cannot tame it or predict what it will say. That is why one should toughen oneself up and be able to hear all sorts of criticism. If you go to websites like New York Times or The Guardian, you will hear the public lash out in a much more caustic manner, on MUCH more sensitive issues. That is a given, so I suggest you open yourself up to this reality, with time. Thank you.
And thanks Kalsoom.
And Kalsoom, I agree with you that we must work on important issues, which is why it is important to quickly solve this judicial crises. It must be done simultaneously. The judicial issue and other important matters like wheat and energy are not mutually exclusive, and only those with political motives are trying to make them appear as such.
The only factor I had an issue with was an uncalled for attack on Nawaz Sharif. Of course, you have your own opinion, and you are welcome to it, in an opinion column. But in this instance, you insisted that you are completely objective in your approach, only relying on news sources for your information. In such a scenario, it seems strange to use words like ‘woe unto him.’
Thanks.
Well, Maria, I do believe you spoke to Noor. In fact, by making a public comment on this website, you are you are speaking to all of us readers. If you didn’t wish for a response from us, you should have sent a private message to the blogger.
I agree with you that this is a public forum and one should be prepared to accept criticism. What you don’t seem to understand is that no one on this website, neither the blogger nor those who are commenting, has any problem with comments made against the article. The problem lies in the manner in which the comment was made. You seem to justify your behavior by saying “It is a PUBLIC forum. And the public is ruthless, much more than I was. You cannot tame it or predict what it will say.” Yet, you were so quickly offended when the “public,” i.e. Noor, spoke up against you.
It is okay to be heated when commenting - again, no one is offended by comments made against the content of an article. In fact, it makes for a livelier discussion. But, you cannot expect to be taken seriously by either the blogger or the readers when you resort to childish name-calling, which is the point that Noor was trying to get at. This may not be a G-8 summit, but we are all grown-up, educated people and I’m sure can all form our points, even if caustic, in a more refined manner.
Signing off,
Ambassador Maria S.
Maria,
I do see your point - while the CHUP news briefs/analyses don’t claim to be completely objective (I assess what outlets are saying and provide my own spin), I will refrain from using charged words in the future. However, I hope you also do the same
and I hope you continue to read the website. I think a variety of opinions are needed for discourse on this forum
Thanks!
Thanks Kalsoom. And I apologize for being rude, considering you’re being quite gracious. To the others–quit pouncing on me collectively..its a waste of your breath, since I hardly read what you guys have to say, except Kalsoom maybe. Adieus.
In defense of Maria– I think she was getting at an interesting point, media bias. It is very difficult even for well-intentioned reporters to write an article without some form of bias. Who they decide to interview or what part of a story they decide to highlight can often legitimately call into question their objectivity. That is why forums like Chup are so important. Kalsoom obviously has a solid command of these topical areas, but she can’t read every article, speak to every person involved or know for sure what x politician is thinking. It is only through open dialogue regarding these important issues that you will inch a bit closer to something resembling the truth.
I agree 110% - I don’t even believe that journalism can be purely objective because we all come at an issue with some kind of formed bias or opinion. Therefore, although I don’t claim to be objective, I try to be as thorough as I can in my news breadth. However, I still see the pitfalls of that method - for instance, I rarely monitor Pakistan’s The Nation. I don’t cover Fox News. Maybe I should, but maybe my choices are a reflection of my own (less conservative) political leanings. Therefore, as Malik noted, we frankly need a variety of opinions in order to for us to be able to form more informed judgments.
The purpose of this website is to encourage discourse among people, Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis alike in order to bridge gaps and change perceptions, both at home and abroad. Perhaps that avenue of change is naive in theory, but through these forums we are able to interact with people we normally wouldn’t because we’d write them off for their “different stances.” That in itself is important and signficant. So really, thank you Maria for your contributions, I try my best to constructively digest criticism and I hope that you continue to read CHUP as a result.
Thanks. I’d only like to share a few more thoughts here. This forum is excellent, and what you’re doing is brilliant. As a journalist with a little bit of experience ( a little bit, not too much), I can tell you that it is always refreshing to come across young people who are actually not apathetic towards politics, and think about stuff other then Hannah Montanna (okay that was a joke).
From what I have learnt over the years, a report should refrain from using opinions. Reports are completely objective and only state the facts as they are. Keeping this in mind, we are surprised to learn everyday that some of the reports on the front pages of our national newspapers are also really out of order. While I agree with the sentiments and principles of most people, who are trying so hard to restore judiciary, when you read a report that says “Zardari shows his true colours” (I am SOO not a Zardari supporter), you cringe at the level of journalism. A report should say something like “Zardari walks out of the deadline”, but never “He shows his true colours”. Because that is not a report, that is more of an opinion column.
A person is more than welcome to use phrases like “woe to him”, but then he must identify the article as an opinion piece, and not a report.
If I use just one example, a reporter who was jailed in Zimbabwe for one month “for the act of committing journalism”, as silly as that sounds, wrote a full length feature in The New York Times about his ordeal. But you will not find any derogatory words in that article against Zimbabwe. Events were presented only as occurred, and the readers were supposed to formulate their own opinions.
What Malik says is also true. Even in the most objective form of reporting, a bias inevitably finds its way in. If we look at international coverage of China or Iran, we’ll find that no mainstream news source uses any charged phrases; but still, the choice of who to interview and what quotations to include lets the bias linger in. But that is a different form of bias. It is still in the context of reporting, and never includes the reporter’s own opinions. Perfect examples would be Reuters, AP and AFP. They are actually the most professional in the game.
Just thought I’d share my thoughts. Thanks for reading!