Panama and Constitutionalism: The Bottom Line
A line of reasoning taken in defense of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif since appearance of Panama Papers has been that it is a conspiracy to undermine the civilian supremacy and democracy in Pakistan. Just when I believe the continuous civil-military power struggle is a reality, and unelected power centers have always tried to undermine the representative rule in the country; this time around, the issue cannot be framed in the said context; and below is why?
First and foremost, this time the crisis began because of a
global leak that has shaken many a governments and powerful men across the
globe. To say that Pakistani establishment had the sway to initiate such leak
of global scale is giving it too much credence and credit. Also establishment
in Pakistan has proven to be unsuccessful in shaking things decisively in recent
attempts like Memogate and PTI/PAT sit-in. And no matter what spin of
“establishment conspiracy” PML-N sympathizers want to give to the current
episode; the reality is that Mr. Sharif knows fully well from where the
conspiracy is coming from. A hand that has nurtured, protected, and benefited
Sharifs for over 3 decades and has lobbied on their behalf for reentry into the
political arena and ultimately 2/3rd majority is not happy when Mr.
Sharif’s compass gets swayed by the “brotherhood” flare. After that degree of
nurturing, comes expectation of unquestionable obedience which was not
forthcoming. And if you are not “a mere bystander but a major player” in the
affairs here, such dash of expectation has to be treated with a knockout punch.
Sharif survived Musharaf because the hand that nurtured him with a strong
support structure at home and abroad was behind him. This time the very hand is
after him, and thus the fears of end of the road. Mr. Sharif’s survival or exit
this time around will not impact civil-military equation, whatever it is. If he
goes, it will be a triumph for an order that backed him for decades. If he
stays, Pakistan will move to its own version of Putin or Erdogan. Needless to
say, latter seems news worse for the system than the former.
Secondly, the charges and evidence against Mr. Sharif is
different than any other. References filed against Benazir Bhutto or Asif
Zardari were filed by either Sharif or Musharraf, both their political
opponents, and thus there always was a case for malicious intent. The earlier
allegations against Sharif were by Benazir Bhutto or Musharraf, and thus again
issue of malicious intent stood. Also,
from the alleged asset perspective, Zardari might be the owner of Surrey Palace
but he never openly admitted owning it, nor was he ever sighted around. And if
Sharifs have been using those apartments, it becomes imperative to be answerable
for questions raised in light of Panama revelations, which mind you could not
be orchestrated by any of Mr. Sharif’s political opponents. In fact, such is
the nature of evidence and framing of issue around Mr. Sharif’s sources of
wealth that if he gets exonerated after all this, this will be a strong tool in
the hands of those who want to undermine the constitutional rule and system.
Not that I would advocate undermining justice to save the system, and I do not
see a conflict between justice and system here; with where we are, the system
needs Sharif’s ouster. And it has been held hostage by one man’s desire to stay
in power come what may.
And then the last and most important issue in all this:
strengthening and saving the system. System would have been strengthened if Mr.
Sharif had chosen to step down and appointed a party man as interim successor
at the on-sight of Panama revelations, and had his name cleared before heading
new elections. System will still be damaged less if Mr. Sharif choses to resign
rather than leading the way for disqualification of another Prime Minister by
Supreme Court (this time under 184(3)), a precedence initiated by Mr. Sharif
himself when he went to have Yousaf Raza Gillani ousted; first on Memogate and
then on Swiss Letter issue. None of the present lot of political leaders is as
tall, as was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or Benazir Bhutto. Least so Mr. Sharif whose
numerical electoral strength comes on the head of few hundred Punjabi electables,
90% of whom were PMLQ in 2002 and almost half were PPP-coalition in 2008; and
who decided to join Mr. Sharif when it became evident that Iftikhar Chaudhary
court is bound to put all its weight behind Mr. Sharif and he has backing of
powerful quarters heading 2013 elections. None of the present lot has any decisive
vote bank in Punjab which has become party-less as the ultimate culmination of
1985’s non-party experiment. Be it Mr. Sharif or Mr. Khan, their influence is
limited to urban areas of few districts in Punjab. And as for Peoples Party,
barring one or two small pockets in South Punjab, it has become totally
irrelevant as a political entity in Punjab. Punjab belongs to local electables,
reminiscent of Sikha-shahi of post-Ranjit Singh era. In this context, the name
of the game for the system is continuation.
Tide of history is in favor of representative rule in our lands. Those
who claim to preserve the system should be ready to sacrifice individuals for
the continuation. That is the only chance for the system. And in this, the example
set by Yousaf Raza Gillani stands tall.
Comments