By July 4, months after the rigged polls, a workable agreement was reached wherein the PPP finally conceded fresh elections. Only the formalisation of this agreement remained. Yet, it all happened a bit too late. The considerable time that was allowed to pass before the PPP admitted their wrong and before they set out to fix it, had already given birth to enough instability to set the stage for what was to come.

A supposedly apolitical and professional Gen Ziaul Haq swooped in on July 5, citing the instability across the country as the reason to unveil Operation Fair Play. The self-proclaimed reluctant coup-maker promised fresh elections in 90 days, right after the situation was brought under control. We all know what happened to democracy and elections for the next 11 years. We all know what happened to ZAB. But, most importantly, we know what has happened to Pakistan due to the policies of Gen Zia – reminders of which we are given every once in a while these days in crowded markets and mosques.

Had the democrats back then been more proactive in solving the crisis themselves; had ZAB and the PPP renounced their obduracy, thought of the bigger picture and just conceded fresh elections sooner; Zia may have never got the chance or indeed the justification to play saviour.

Now imagine our history without President Gen Ziaul Haq. Where would Pakistan be today?

Where would we be without the institutionalised radicalisation of the state and the country, which haunts us in the form of religious fascism today? Where would we be had there never have been Article 58(2)(b), which was used to dismiss successive elected governments and continues to be a bone of contention today? Where would we be if we had been under a democracy for the past three decades?

Where would we be?

The point of reiterating this tattered story is simple. There is a moral to this tired tale. Today, the PPP and their fellow democrats once again find the system under threat with increasing instability and uncertainty because of past sins. Today, criminal and corruption cases against President Zardari and a few of his trusted men stand reopened, despite their attempt to bury them through the largess of a dictator. Tainted men occupy important posts of the government and have been caught trying to cover up the sins of the President. The continued presence of these few threatens the continuation of the entire system.

Yet the PPP refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong – that is, there is no need for them to resign; there is no threat. Today, thirty-two years since Operation Fair Play, the opposition is pressing. The PPP is shrugging. Uncertainty is giving way to instability. Something’s got to give, if not now, then later. The parallels are plain.

Whichever way you look at it, the PPP once again has the opportunity to avert the possibility of something disastrous by taking a bold decision and accepting that something is wrong here – sooner rather than later.

There is a big difference between the PPP itself doing what needs to be done now, thereby allowing the system to continue sans a few, and having it imposed on them later by non-democratic saviours that may use the card of instability and accountability to uproot people’s rule entirely.

There is a big difference between the consequences of willing resignation and of forced disqualification – if not for these men then for the country and its future generations. The current democratic set up led by the PPP has undoubtedly done some good things for the masses. They have managed an NFC Award; managed to reach out to Balochistan; managed to pass the some meaningful legislation, such as the Organ Donors Act. It just doesn’t make sense for them to throw it all away by being stubborn for the sake of a few.

The 70s PPP government gave this country a consensus Constitution, embarked on land reform and brought together a broken and beleaguered nation. But it amounted to nought because their ego and ambition clouded the ability to recognize a threat.

Here and now in 2009, perhaps the PPP will ask its tainted ministers and the president to resign. Perhaps they won’t. Perhaps they shouldn’t. Perhaps there will be a coup. Perhaps there won’t be. But there is no question whether or not it should be allowed.

Sitting in the present, it is never simple to predict what could have been had, in 1977, ZAB and the PPP been more flexible earlier and nipped the problem in the bud and not allowed President Zia to ever be; or what may be if President Zardari and the PPP fail to act now and by themselves and do not nip the very real possibility of upheaval in the bud.

But there are certain assumptions we can safely venture. History has afforded us this luxury.

Thirty-two years ago, if ZA Bhutto and the PPP had the slightest idea where their intransigence would lead Pakistan to, would they have done everything and anything to avert it? Thirty-two years later, if ZA Bhutto and the PPP were placed in a similar situation, would they do everything and anything to save the country from the possibility of three more decades of pain?

The writer is city editor, The News, Karachi. Email: gibran.peshimam@gmail .com