20
An absentee landlord can go on collecting rents from a distance, but an absentee prime minister stays away only at his own peril.
This is not to suggest that Nawaz Sharif’s presence in Islamabad translates into a sudden improvement in his government’s performance; but it might be useful in injecting confidence into his supporters. From all accounts, he is a remote figure, mostly inaccessible even to his cabinet colleagues.
So it came as no surprise when, in response to the rising populist threat from Imran Khan and Qadri, he reportedly said: “It hurts me and confuses me: who has given them the agenda?”
Confusion is the word that best describes his approach to the present political crisis, and I’m glad he picked it himself. Blessed with the attention span of a gnat, even Nawaz Sharif ought to have figured out ‘who has given them the agenda’ by now.
The army can shove harder than anybody else
Given Pakistan’s history of fraught civil-military relations, and his own personal experience, one would have expected him to think twice before taking on the generals again. Surely he should know that when push comes to shove, the army can shove harder than anybody else.
He probably thought he had picked a winner when he promoted Raheel Sharif to succeed Kayani to become army chief last year. Although not related, he considered that his family ties with the general would ensure immunity from future military interventions, overt or covert.
But by now, even Nawaz Sharif should know that for the officer corps, the army’s institutional interests outweigh all other considerations. And while the military establishment has been outwardly detached from the ongoing political turmoil, its role cannot be ignored. From his early foot-dragging over military action against the Taliban to his support for Geo after it openly accused the head of the ISI of ordering the attempt on anchor Hamid Mir’s life, Nawaz Sharif has been on a collision course with the army.
And his unnecessary panga, or confrontation, with the generals over Musharraf’s treason trial has not helped. While sticklers for the rule of law — and hard-liners in the ruling party — welcomed this step, hackles were raised in GHQ.
But in today’s Pakistan, political realities diverge widely from legal niceties. There are times when taking the moral high ground makes you an easy target. For a year, the Election Commission and the government have been dragging their feet over allegations that elections were rigged in a number of constituencies.
It is only now, under mounting pressure, that the PM has agreed to a judicial tribunal to examine Imran Khan’s complaints. This concession reminds me of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s ban on alcohol, gambling and night clubs to neutralise the opposition alliance’s demands for Islamic rule in 1977. While this gambit did nothing to save him, the country has paid a high price for his desperate manoeuvre.
There are other parallels to those distant events. Then, Asghar Khan not only invited the military to intervene, but also rejected Bhutto’s offer to hold re-elections. Before the elections, he had announced that if the ruling PPP was declared the winner, the results would be rejected by the opposition. He also threatened to hang Bhutto from Kahuta Bridge. Does any of this sound familiar?
The reality is that most elections in Pakistan are flawed. The question is whether they have a certain crude validity. According to virtually every international and local election monitor, the 2013 elections were among the fairest held here. Of course there were several constituencies where I’m sure the numbers were massaged, and many others where the results did not depict the true picture either due to bureaucratic intervention, or to the muscle deployed by local candidates.
But few elections in the Third World are entirely free and fair. The best we can hope for is a rough and ready mandate. In 2000, when the famous ‘hanging chads’ in Miami threatened to cause a deadlock in the US presidential election, the dispute was referred to the Supreme Court. Here, a majority of the bench set up to hear the case consisted of right-wing judges, and ruled in favour of George W. Bush.
His rival Al Gore was urged by his legal team to continue fighting as he had a very good case. But Gore withdrew his petition, arguing that political uncertainty was bad for the US. While expecting this kind of lofty patriotism of Imran Khan is perhaps unrealistic, his words and actions are playing into the hands of extra-constitutional forces, as Asghar Khan’s once did.
Another similarity with the events of 1977 is that then, too, Bhutto sought help from the army to suppress the violent agitation unleashed by the opposition alliance. After initially deploying troops in the major cities, Zia staged his coup, and later hanged Bhutto.
But despite Nawaz Sharif’s errors, can we really say that our shaky democratic edifice ought to be toppled to satisfy Imran Khan’s ambitions?
Published in Dawn, August 16th, 2014
