MR Rehman Malik, once security advisor to the late Benazir Bhutto, has recently written to the interior ministry, saying that the government must provide “foolproof” security for Mr Asif Ali Zardari, the PPP’s co-chairman. Mr Nawaz Sharif is dissatisfied with the security provided to him.

One may ask why it should be the government’s responsibility to protect the life and limb of individual politicians and why the taxpayers should pay the bill. When the American president is out on the road, arrangements for protecting him are by no means massive. A couple of secret service agents sit with him in his automobile, which is escorted by an armoured vehicle and followed by another. Agents are also posted at his destination.

This in spite of the fact that over time several attempts on the lives of serving American presidents have been made and some of them turned out to be successful. Security arrangements for presidents and prime ministers used to be fairly limited in Pakistan. Never before was the safety of opposition politicians considered the government’s business any more than that of ordinary citizens.

It may be argued that times have changed, the incidence of violence has increased enormously, and life has become a lot more precarious than it ever was before. But it may be argued also that times are bad for all of us, not for politicians only. Suicide bombers have killed many more ordinary citizens than politicians. It is then hard to say that the government’s obligation to safeguard politicians is greater than its obligation to protect all the rest of us.

There are a few other things to consider. All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all persons belonging to a given category are to be treated the same way. It follows that if the president of one political party is deemed entitled to protection at the public expense, presidents of all other parties are entitled to the same. More than 100 outfits are registered with the election commission as political parties’ presidents of all of them would then be qualified to receive protection.

But why only the presidents? Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Jehangir Badar, Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the PPP, other members of its central executive committee and its provincial presidents, are all prominent politicians — as prominent as Mr Zardari if not more so — and potential targets of assassins. The same holds for the Sharifs, Javed Hashmi, Liaquat Baloch and numerous other notables in various known political parties. We may then end up with several hundred politicians entitled to publicly funded protection.

Let us assume for a moment that Asfandyar Wali Khan gets 20 security guards to protect him. They will have to be where he is. The government will pay their salaries and meet their living expenses. They will have to shadow Asfandyar wherever he goes. They will need vehicles to follow him if one day he chooses to drive from Peshawar to Kohat. If he decides to fly, the government will have to pay for their air fares. Multiply all of this by the number of politicians entitled to protection, and the cost will probably run into billions to be paid out of the public exchequer. One may ask what doctrine of the public good will justify this outlay.

Granted that we have to have politicians (those who engage in the competitive pursuit of power) if we want democracy. We may agree also that times are bad and the danger to their persons is considerable. But one may say with Harry Truman (US president 1945-52) that “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Those who do want power and will contend with opponents in pursuing it should make their own security arrangements and pay for them. Many politicians in Pakistan do hire their own “bodyguards” and pay them.

But these private arrangements may not suffice in the case of the more prominent politicians. Could it then be argued that in such an event the state should provide the additional protection needed? I am sceptical of this reasoning. I am inclined to go with Harry Truman: I am aware that politics in Pakistan is a hazardous business. But so is sports car racing, mountain climbing or crossing the Persian Gulf in a rickety row boat to one of the emirates without proper documents. A person wishing to undertake one of these adventures should be willing to take the risks involved, including that of physical injury or even death.

Politics can and should be a noble profession. There was a time when public-spirited individuals in some places suffered loss of personal income as a result of taking public office and endured the inconveniences and hassles of contesting elections, primarily because they wanted to advance the common good. In doing so, they were serving the people, doing them a favour.The average Pakistani politician accepts the risks and inconveniences involved in his pursuit of high office and power for his own personal gratification. He is not doing the people any favour. He is then not entitled to ask them to fund programmes designed to reduce his risks.

If we are stuck with the theory that governments are obligated to arrange and pay for the personal security of politicians, two considerations should be kept in mind. Politicians out on an election campaign, addressing public meetings and leading processions want the maximum possible audiences. In America, if 1,000 persons come out to hear a candidate for public office, his meeting will be regarded as a big success. That kind of a count in Pakistan will be rated as a flop. A successful rally will mean the attendance of tens, even hundreds, of thousands. It is virtually impossible for any security force to ensure that a man with a pistol stashed away somewhere on his person will not enter this huge crowd and make his way to a location within shooting range of the targeted politician while he is addressing the people or mingling with them. This is not to say that security guards and their precautions are useless, but it does mean that they cannot be “foolproof”.

In the old days a saying had it that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. No government’s capacity, financial or tactical, to provide security is unlimited. If the government is to do a reasonably decent job, the politician’s travel plans, speaking engagements and appearances in crowded places (rallies, processions, demonstrations) should be made with the concurrence of public authorities responsible for safeguarding him. This procedure will enable governments to control political campaigns. Benazir Bhutto did not accept this kind of limitation on her agenda. It is likely that Mr Zardari and most other opposition politicians will also reject it. But in that case they should make their own security arrangements, without asking the government to supplement them.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk