Breaking the political gridlock

IT is a sad day that the High Court (HC) had to ask why political leaders would not be directed to sit for talks. What should have taken place of their own volition has not obviously happened. So the judiciary had to issue the above rule. The ruling came on the basis of a writ petition seeking directives on the prime minister and leader of the opposition in a bid to find a way out of the crisis that has sent the country and the economy into a tailspin.

Normally you don't root for judicial intervention in a political matter. It is for political leaders to read the pulse of the people and save the country from a ruinous plunge. Though the writ seeking judicial intervention came from a single individual, it broadly reflects the general feeling of a large portion of the electorate. That they are unable to keep faith in the leadership of respective political parties to do what is in the best interests of the nation and protect its citizens. It is unfortunate to see both the major political parties set on a collision course that is threatening our right to peace and order.

We are afraid that both the ruling and opposition parties are looking at the HC rule from a purely legalistic point of view. What is allowable under the constitution, whether the HC has jurisdiction or not are ways and means of stalling talks. Our people want a cessation of the endless cycle of violence and this is the nation's sentiment at large. They want a return to normalcy and this can only come when meaningful dialogue takes place between the major political parties. This is the real meaning of the HC ruling and we urge both our leading parties to understand it, respect it and hence comply with it.