Are politicians relevant ?

GENERAL Musharraf has said more than once that his government will not allow Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto to contest the coming elections. Strictly speaking, Nawaz Sharif is a convicted felon who was released from the prison on the basis of a “plea bargain” in which he agreed to remove himself and his family from Pakistan for a period of time. He can try to renegotiate this bargain but, as things stand now, he cannot return to Pakistan as a free agent in the near future.

There may have been allegations of malfeasance against some of his family members, but none has been convicted of any crime. The return of some of them, notably Shahbaz Sharif, and their freedom to participate in politics might be a fit subject of consideration in any renegotiation of the original bargain on the ground that it would serve the public interest in some important way. I shall return to this point shortly.

While numerous criminal cases are pending against Benazir Bhutto, she has not been convicted in any of them so far. If I remember correctly she was declared an “absconder” in one or two of them. She could then be arrested and detained upon returning to Pakistan. On the other hand, the government could allow her to be free on bail and do her electioneering even as she defended herself in the courts. Once again, the government should accommodate Ms Bhutto in this fashion because her participation in the coming elections might be in the public interest.

Before going on to other considerations, let me mention a related problem. During his first term as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif’s government filed a number of charges against Benazir Bhutto and her husband. When the latter came to power the second time her government withdrew these charges and, in turn, proceeded to file charges against Nawaz Sharif and some of his associates. When Nawaz Sharif returned to power, his government withdrew the ongoing court cases against him, and filed cases against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari which are still going on.

Suppose Benazir contests the elections in October, wins a resounding victory, and becomes prime minister a third time. What will happen to the cases against her? Should she be able to withdraw them? What if the courts, or the president and the army, say she can’t? Will the government, of which she herself is the head, prosecute her in half a dozen or more criminal cases? It would be a messy, ugly, and unprecedented situation.

How is the public interest involved in all of this? A very vocal school of opinion within Pakistan, and among the Pakistanis living in America, contends that the October elections will not be regarded as free and fair unless Nawaz Sharif (or perhaps a nominee of his) and Benazir Bhutto are allowed to contest without let or hindrance. The assumption underlying this contention is that these two politicians are hugely popular; certainly more popular than any other. The second underlying assumption is that their followers are unconcerned with the charges against them: either because they think the charges are bogus; or because they believe that a bit of criminal activity on the part of their leaders is acceptable so long as they also do something for the people.

Let the will of the people prevail, say the “democrats,” even if that will is misguided. Rule of law is not something to which either the people or their rulers accord high priority. Similar attitudes have sway among the people next door in India. Not long ago the people of Tamil Nadu heartily approved of Madam Jayalalitha to be their chief minister even though she was a convicted criminal. Indian and Pakistani parties have often awarded “tickets” to gangsters because they were likely to win in their constituencies. Follow the will of the people, whatever it may be, and hope that in time it will become better informed—so the argument goes.

There is still another perspective on this issue. Let bygones be bygones, take care of the present, and look to the future; stop digging dirt in selected places, for there is dirt in all backyards, including your own. Moreover, in many cases, this quest for accountability has turned out to be nothing more than an exercise in futility. Nawaz Sharif’s government spent many millions of rupees looking for evidence that would help convict Ms Bhutto and her husband. Cases against them have gone on in courts for years, but neither has been convicted of any crime. So, then, stop this scandalous travesty of law enforcement.

Surely there is more to democracy than unquestioning obedience to the will of the people which, in effect, means the will of the majority. It has always been recognized that, acting from passion and prejudice or ignorance, majorities will sometime be wrong or unjust. That is why wiser men have included in the constitutions they framed bills of rights that no law may override and placed other restraints on the majority’s determinations. A distinction is sometimes made between statesmen and politicians, the former being those who will place the public interest above the will of the people if, in their best judgment, the two are not the same, and do so even at the cost of their own careers.

The dictate of the public interest with regard to the participation of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto in the October elections is not entirely clear. Honest men can disagree on this issue and something can be said for both sides. I have already stated some of the reasons that have been advanced for letting them in. A couple of additional considerations may be allowed.

Public interest will obviously be well served if the elections give us a government that commands stable majority support in parliament. Does the army want such a result? Regardless of the inclinations of individual officers, the army should want this result if it values democratic governance. Checks and balances can be had even with a stable political government in place. They do not require a government that is tottering all the time and is therefore ineffective.

Let us now ask which party is the most likely to put together a stable government. Barring the PML’s overwhelming victory in 1997, no party won a clear majority of seats in the National Assembly in the three previous elections (1988, 1990, and 1993). Nor is any single party likely to win this kind of majority in October. We will probably have to settle for a coalition government. A coalition of a large number of little parties and groups will neither be stable nor coherent. We should look for a party with a substantial number of assembly seats joining hands with one or, at the most two, others to form a government. Which party is likely to be able to answer this call?

Reports about winners in the recent local elections give some reason to expect that the PPP might turn out to be such a party, especially if Benazir Bhutto is able to lead its campaign. If this expectation is well founded, her participation in the election would appear to be an important ingredient of the public interest. If she is personally repugnant to the general, he should set aside his own reservations in the public interest. She made a “deal” with the army chief (General Aslam Beg) and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, conceding them pre-eminence in certain policy areas, before she could be sworn in as prime minister in 1988. Surely a deal can be made again, giving the general assurances with regard to his own continuance in office and the continuity of his policy orientations.

On the other hand, it is also a part of the public interest to compel our major parties to get away from dynastic and personalized leadership, learn to function without their leaders in exile, and become viable institutions. It does nobody any good if it transpires that there is nothing to the PPP besides Ms Bhutto, or that the PML (N) is nothing but a dummy without Nawaz Sharif.

The PML (N), led by Nawaz Sharif or his brother (Shahbaz), would or