Editorial
AL dialogue rejection
Have the events of the past week changed nothing?
IN an editorial last week we advocated that the AL agree to sit down to discuss the terrorist threat with the government without any pre-condition. Thus we are extremely disheartened to learn of the party's decision to reject out of hand the government's offer for a dialogue on the issue. Far from laying down no pre-conditions, the opposition has, in effect, laid down the mother of all pre-conditions that the government first step down before any dialogue could be held -- but with whom, really?We find this both unrealistic, and, given the gravity of the crisis, irresponsible and short-sighted. It seems to us, as it must to the general public, that the events of the past week appear to have had no impact on the thought process of the opposition. The AL, it seems, is stuck where it has always been in terms of its approach to politics, its disposition, and its strategy. The question we would like to ask is: have the suicide bombings of last week changed nothing? We find the AL position to be quite incomprehensible. Right now, the crisis that the nation faces is not of electoral reform or caretaker government (CTG) reform. The current crisis has to do with national security, the survival of the nation, and the safety of the public. These issues dwarf all other considerations, and they are issues that impact everyone. It is only appropriate at a time like this that the main opposition party sit down with the government, as distasteful as that may be for them, for the good of the country. There can never be anything lost by agreeing to sit and talk, specially at a time of national crisis such as this. We wonder whether the AL has really thought through to the end its current strategy. In fact, we find the resolution recently released by the party's central working committee baffling and contradictory. The AL has demanded that the government step down immediately. However, in such an instance, by what mechanism can the reforms demanded by the AL be enacted into law? If the government were to resign tomorrow, to whom would it hand over power, and would such a power vacuum be in the nation's interest? The AL argues that whatever dispensation succeeds the current government needs to be arrived at through consensus, but consensus can only be arrived at through means of a dialogue. Thus, the AL's refusal to sit with the government strikes us as misguided and poorly thought-out. Hostility to the government cannot be the sole AL agenda. Its approach must be constructive and must take into consideration the enormity of the crisis that nation is facing. At such a time, refusing to sit for talks with the government is helpful to no one.
|
|
