Imran Khan’s invitation to Rangers

Implications for democracy

Theoretically speaking, the best thing that could have happened to the democratic project in the country was the signing of ‘The Charter of Democracy’ by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 2006; the worst was, Imran Khan succeeded to change its public perception and turn it into a muk muka (clandestine/fraudulent deal) by 2014. The best thing that could have happened to the stagnant, inefficient and corrupt political landscape of the country was the emergence of a third political option in the shape of PTI and Imran Khan after, say 1969; the worst was, they turned out to be political amateurs after so many years, and military apologists just before their being catapulted into power.

Imran Khan’s political maturity and his basic academic understanding of politics have been matters of intense debate since his entry into politics but his invitation to Rangers (readarmy) to come to Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and start accountability of politicians (on Monday, September 14) has rung new alarm bells at a time when his prospects of coming into power and leading the country in the near future are brighter than any given time in the past. His utterings have not just sent shockwaves in the upper echelons of PML-N but has overwhelmed all the political parties and academic circles across the board. And the longstanding question of whether he is made of the right (political) stuff to be trusted to lead the country, has once again reared its ugly head.

The issue at hand is not whether politicians are good or bad. Nor does raising this question mean that despite all their shortcomings and crimes, politicians should be absolved of the allegations without due process of law. Or they should be allowed to do whatever they have been doing till now. The question is how to address a problem which has brought the country to a standstill and how to find a permanent constitutional, legal and political solution to it. But, to begin with, let’s try to understand step by step why Imran Khan has extended this blanket invitation to the army to come and clean the political stable and why it is not considered a politically correct move.

There can be no gainsaying the fact that Imran Khan the politician considers ‘politics’ a dirty game. Hence, he is of the firm belief that all politicians, except him and those who enjoy his confidence within his party, are corrupt by nature

There can be no gainsaying the fact that Imran Khan the politician considers ‘politics’ a dirty game. Hence, he is of the firm belief that all politicians, except him and those who enjoy his confidence within his party, are corrupt by nature. This leads him to believe that they will never allow true accountability to take place in the country; that they are unwilling to make their lot answer for the crimes they have committed.

So far, so good. Some of the assertions are correct. But some are partially correct, rather not correct at all. For example, his opinion about ‘politics’ being a negative thing, in itself, is not only incorrect but disqualifies him to venture into this dirty pool. Same is true about many of his other homegrown political philosophies which he advocates from time to time but which more often than not boomerang on him, earning him the nickname of master of U-turns. Such is the case here too. For arguments sake, let’s agree with him that politicians and political parties other than him, his comrades and his party are ‘unwilling’ to make the corrupt (politician) pay through their nose, then what is the reason that he is calling upon Rangers to come to the province where no one else but he is ruling? Does he lack ‘willingness’ or he is financially corrupt also? If not (and certainly not as he can’t be blamed for anything of the sort) then what is it actually that is lacking and restrains him and his party to do the needful and he feels the need to involve the Rangers/Army?

If we go on and accept this line of thinking then we will needarmy to do the cleansing on national level even if next elections are won by him countrywide and he succeeds in forming federal and all of the provincial governments. But then, will it not make all the political leaders, parties and, by default, the whole democratic process redundant? Wouldn’t it devoid Imran Khan and PTI – including everyone else in the political sphere – of their very own raison d’eter; hence, his claim on leadership? If everything is to be done by thearmy, then why elect these good-for-nothing politicians to govern the people? Why incur huge expenses to rear these white elephants, called parliament, provincial assemblies, federal and provincial governments, ministries, departments, police, etc, etc. Why place people’s destiny into the hands of those who can’t do anything for them?

Imran Khan’s invitation, in other words, is an admission that these are in fact weak political (civilian) institutions that come as a hindrance even in the way of well-intentioned and financially clean politicians; and that there is lack of proper laws (legislation) that is resulting in corrupt (politicians) going scot-free, in addition to their unwillingness. So, if this (weakness of the civilian institutions and lack of legislation) is the case then, willarmy’s one-time ‘involvement’ into civilian sphere solve the problem forever? Or we will keep on inviting them every now and then? In that case wouldn’t it require a permanent constitutional role for thearmy to help make things manageable for the civilians? But then, why would thearmy do it for the inefficient (if not corrupt) politicians? Why wouldn’t it like to rule itself?

Some of the analysts are of the opinion that Imran Khan has made this request for short-term gains. That he has appended PK with Punjab just for the heck of it. And that he may have in his mind that this way the army will destroy his opponents and present Sindh and Punjab to him on a platter. If it has even an iota of truth in it, then it will be the height of naivety on IK’s part to invite the camel inside the tent and wish him to push ‘only’ his opponents out in the cold.

The biggest flaws in IK and the whole PTI leadership’s thinking is that they consider only the political class involved in corruption and want only politicians’ accountability; and they want it through means not necessarily legal and constitutional. Not only that this approach is politically short-sighted but that it will cause the armed forces an irreparable professional damage and will divert its attention from its primary duty of ensuring the country’s security. Thirdly, if our real problem is weak civilian institutions – as is clear from IK’s statement – then the best way forward for him is to help and compel other political players to take steps in that direction. His search for shortcuts and solving things the militaristic way will further weaken these already weak institutions, aggravating the bad situation we currently find ourselves in.

To comprehensively address the problems of political instability, civil-military imbalance and corruption, it is imperative IK and his party recognise that:

a)      Corruption is not peculiar to politicians but is a widespread social malady now;

b)      Good governance will not come once IK is in power (his helplessness in KP has proved it);

c)      Permanent solutions can only be found in legal ways and strengthening civilian institutions;

d)       The more they single out politicians, the more democracy will lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the people;

e)      The best input will be taking initiative in required legislation and playing the role of real opposition inside the parliament.

We have reached a point in time where politics of patronage, kinship and corruption have become obsolete. In order to save it from complete ruin, the status quo politicians have to do some soul-searching

Through his non-political approach IK single-handedly has caused unmatched damage to democracy during these past recent years. His explanation that he is only against corrupt politicians doesn’t hold ground in the face of ground situation in which democracy as a system is now here only because the army doesn’t want to step in and take direct control; political and social impediments/safeguards against direct military takeovers have been virtually razed to the ground by him during the past about two years.

But that doesn’t mean these are only IK campaign and the military’s charm offensive (or its media manipulation) that has made democracy one of the most abhorrent phenomena. Much of it has to do with the performance of the democratically elected governments. We have reached a point in time where politics of patronage, kinship and corruption have become obsolete. In order to save it from complete ruin, the status quo politicians have to do some soul-searching. Following (among many more other things) will be necessary in this regard:

a)      The current leadership should recognise that dolling out favours and offices to near and dear ones and ‘loyal’ favourite won’t guarantee political survival anymore;

b)      Current stigmatised leadership must step aside in favour of the younger, cleaner lot;

c)      Political parties must democratise themselves internally in order to ensure merit-based growth for individuals;

d)      Government output must be based on the needs and aspirations of the people and not on the whims and fancy of the ‘royal’ rulers;

e)      Provision of justice is made a priority and it is not only done but is seen to be done.

If we start with only these few steps, democracy can receive an overnight boost. No one will be able then to discredit it that easily, to weaken it so conveniently or send it packing without any public resistance. As Raza Rabbani has rightly remarked on Democracy Day that only ‘people’ are the credible safeguard against any non-democratic step and they will stand for it only when they will feel some ownership of the system. As far as the common man is concerned at the moment, to quote a line from this newspaper’s Thursday’s editorial, his message is clear, ‘If Zardari wants to stop powerful institutions from overstepping their constitutional limits, he is welcome… to launch the struggle with the help of his party leaders and allies who were beneficiaries of the PPP tenure’. Same goes for almost all other parties.