Setting bad precedents
For Imran Khan, insisting on the prime minister’s resignation is a matter of proving that he is a man of his word, whereas for Nawaz Sharif it is a matter of upholding democratic norms. In this clash between two titanic egos, one has to give way.
Now that the army chief is pulling the strings, any resolution to this deadlock needs to be mindful of its long-term implications. If the prime minister is eventually bullied into resignation, irrespective of whether it is for 30 days or not, the message for everyone else is clear: with sufficient street power the state apparatus can be paralysed, the media held hostage and the government compelled to seriously consider implementing the protesters’ demands.
Although the prime minister and his government remain in power, the mere possibility of conceding to the protesters is already beginning to have its effect. Last Friday, a local imam in one of Lahore’s biggest mosques launched a scathing attack on the current political impasse. The main concern was PTI and PAT’s collective lack of interest in demanding the imposition of shari’a in the country. According to him, their street power gave them a rare chance to force through the imposition of the Quran and Sunnah — a step that would supposedly cure the nation’s ills. In response to the protesters’ deplorable interest in demanding anything to this effect, the imam announced his own plan: he would organise a youth convention, improve his support base and then set out on the roads urging the government to introduce shari’a. This episode indicates that in the mass conscience of this nation, the street is already beginning to replace the parliament as the forum of change.
As a country that has spent most of its time under military rule, the first goal of today’s civilian leaders should be to restore the nation’s faith in democratic norms, not quash it.
This is worrying for a number of reasons. Firstly, it creates an incentive for various groups to mobilise their support and push for their demands through the roads rather than the parliament. Secondly, it undermines important democratic values and traditions. If anyone with a large support-base that represents a tiny fraction of the country’s population can compel a government to consider its demands, does it not substitute the street with the parliament as the forum of debate, deliberation and discussion? Does it not give the mob the opportunity to impose its views and its demands on the rest of the country? Does it not impinge on the sovereignty of the parliament and its status as the true representative of the people of Pakistan?
As a country that has spent most of its time under military rule, the first goal of today’s civilian leaders should be to restore the nation’s faith in democratic norms, not quash it. There is no doubt that Imran Khan deserves a lot of credit for giving Pakistan’s middle class a political conscience. This political awakening, however, burdens him and his party with a greater responsibility of contributing meaningfully to the country’s political narrative. Recent events suggest that PTI has been moving further away from rather than moving closer toeffectively discharging this responsibility.
For instance, through its demands, PTI has shown a desire and hunger for quick solutions. Since these solutions interrupt the democratic process, they eventually do more harm than good. This nation needs to be told that democracy is a self-correcting system that heals, improves and matures with time. Impeding its development, in the form of unconstitutional changes and military takeovers, does not benefit the state in the long-run. Unfortunately, in Pakistan it took us sixty-six years to witness our first democratic transition from one civilian government to another. And just last night, the government surrendered whatever political space democratic forces had managed to win back from the Army in recent years. This partially explains why we are still fighting over the reform of electoral laws; because democracy has not been allowed to continue, the electoral system has not been able to develop progressively.
This point is well illustrated by the elections held across our borders. Both India and Afghanistan conducted general elections this year but the eventual outcome was markedly different. In India, the Congress accepted defeat. Allegations of electoral rigging were minimal. Contrast this with Afghanistan, where genuine democracy has not gained roots for the last two decades. There, the presidential election was thrown into dispute over claims of massive electoral fraud. Abdullah Abdullah refused to accept the results. Now, the UN is being asked to carry out a vote audit.
Through its demands, PTI has shown a desire and hunger for quick solutions. Since these solutions interrupt the democratic process, they eventually do more harm than good.
This contrasting insight highlights the importance of allowing democracy to evolve, while working for reform from within the system. There is no doubt that our electoral process is in dire need of reform. Likewise, it is incontrovertible that claims of ‘alleged’ rigging should be investigated. To its credit, PTI has compelled the government to announce a commission for investigating electoral rigging and has also extracted an assurance for electoral reforms. These are positive developments thatshould ultimately benefit the state.
Significantly, however, continuing to tie down further negotiations with Nawaz Sharif’s resignation is not in the long-term interests of the country. The position adopted by Imran Khan is untenable. Firstly, the rationale for insisting on the prime minister’s resignation is misplaced. The Lahore High Court’s recent order, where it dismissed petitions of four federal ministers from PML-N, has reiterated the judiciary’s independence from the government. It also shows that the rhetoric that no justice can be done while the Sharif brothers are in power is not exactly true. Secondly, disrupting democracy through a show of strength on the streets will ultimately set a bad precedent and shall impede the evolution of democratic norms.
In this context, the army must proceed with caution taking into account the larger ramifications of its proposed solution. Meanwhile, PTI should approach the deadlock from a broader perspective: it has secured important concessions from a sluggish government on verification, investigation and reform. These were the party’s initial demands right after the elections. Even without the necessary numbers in parliament, PTI has obtained what it had always wanted. It should now seek to capitalise on this, consolidate the gains and work towards institutional and electoral reform, which is also in the best interests of Pakistan.