Panama Papers beget political opportunism in the civil-military arena of power politics.
“In a constitutional democracy, the state’s functioning begins with the legislature. It is a forum where legislators discuss and pass laws for the running of the state. It is responsible for the welfare of the state”
Pakistan is a country scarred by military coups, battle-hardened by terrorism, infected with judicial activism, and ruled by an inefficient civil leadership. The army’s political adventurism has destroyed the very foundations of the democratic system, as despotic rulers have manufactured constitutions at will to legitimise their political takeovers. These farcical democratic constitutions have enabled the military to step into the political domain repeatedly. The courts of law have failed at creating a sense of rule of law in the state by providing a distorted constitutional framework to facilitate dictators, which has often paved the way for the military to supersede the constitution. Pakistan has often been in a state of constitutional deadlock since its inception in 1947. Wherever a structural framework was present, there were incidents that led to a political stalemate between the institutions of the nation-state.
The recent surfacing of the Panama Papers has created a vacuum for political opportunism in the country. The opposition is targeting the ruling party’s leader and demanding accountability for offshore accounts. The ruling party’s leader is responding by mudslinging of an equivalent nature. Imran Khan sees this as a way to redeem his lost glory by reinitiating ‘dharna’ politics, which has lost its touch. The army sacked some of its own men to show exemplary accountability but the investigation had been ongoing since 2014, whereas the timing of this act is tantamount to adding fuel to the fire. Recently, Gen Raheel Sharif ‘urged’ the prime minister to resolve the issue of the Panama Papers, as it is creating instability.
The doctrine of separation of powers, borrowed from the British constitution, is the system of a constitutional government with three separate branches of power. The executive, legislature, and judicial powers of a government are vested in the three pillars of the state. The separation of these institutions is a countermeasure to maintain check and balance on all the three organs of the nation-state. This helps in curtailing the abuse of power by any one institution and promotes accountability for all.
Effective implementation of this doctrine is essential for the smooth functioning of the state, as it enables all the three organs of the state to function independently without any interference or influence from another institution. Operative governance is directly correlated to the effectiveness of these pillars working in their respective domains.
In a constitutional democracy, the state’s functioning begins with the legislature. It is a forum where legislators discuss and pass laws for the running of the state. It is responsible for the welfare of the state. Legislature’s inefficiency and lack of understanding has intensified the problems of Pakistan. The impotence of the legislature has often put Pakistan in a state of turmoil and weakened democracy, which made room for martial law regimes in the past.
“Nawaz Sharif needs to be held accountable for his children’s offshore financial assets because ethically he should have resigned from his position following the example of other leaders across the globe’
The executive is an authority on matters of the state. Its function is to administer laws. It has an overbearing administrative influence over the matters of the state. It is responsible for the effective implementation of laws made by the legislature. Pakistan’s executive has often thought of itself as an absolute power whereas its performance has been utterly poor. It has often aggravated one problem while trying to solve another problem.
The judiciary’s duty is to ensure justice and to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens of the state. It is also responsible for acting against the violation of human rights by the state. The judiciary has the power to review public laws so that they may not violate the country’s constitution. Pakistan’s judiciary has lost its dignity because of its partiality to some extent. It has often provided loopholes in the system for the legitimisation of autocratic regimes under political pressure.
In Pakistan, the army has always been a fourth player in the shadows of the executive. The army’s fragile sensibilities revolve around the issues of foreign policy, the defense budget, Kashmir issue, and counter-terrorism measures. It has often arm-twisted the executive and curtailed its powers in the real sense. Pakistan has clumsily evolved out of overt military takeovers and has now descended into the perpetual state of a soft coup. The strained civil-military relations have now become a reality. Whenever the executive has overstepped its boundaries and assumed that it holds absolute power, the military has asserted its dominance over the reins of the country.
The military has often devised various kinds of strategies for two things. Firstly, the ‘containment’ of the executive in terms of its use of legitimate authority, which would normally come under its domain of power in a truly democratic setup. Secondly, the ‘engagement’ of the government in non-issues so that the government remains occupied with settling its own affairs before contemplating the possibility of cutting down the powers of the military.
The Panama Papers have surfaced at a time when the military’s role has already been deeply entrenched into the workings of the state so the military is least bothered about it for now and has not yet taken a proactive stance on it. The military was more concerned with the initiation of the counter-terrorism operation in Punjab. At first, there was some resistance by the ruling party in terms of jurisdictional matters of the army and the provincial government but then it all went away suddenly.
The Panama Papers issue paved the way for the military to deepen its influence within the existing power structure, as public criticism became widespread. According to a newspaper source, “General Sharif believes that the issue is causing instability and insecurity.” This incident was used as an excuse for arm-twisting the government once again into overlooking any curtailment of the powers of the military. Nawaz Sharif is too concerned with organising his own affairs so that he may overcome his own political helplessness. He cannot handle the heat produced by the strain in civil-military relations at this point in time.
Nawaz Sharif needs to be held accountable for his children’s offshore financial assets because ethically he should have resigned from his position following the example of other leaders across the globe. His lack of apathy for public sentiments is the defeat of democracy. Democracy requires accountability across the board but all these organs of the state are still occupied with mudslinging. The opposition has failed to be a worthy opponent because they have their own undisclosed sources of income.
Once again, we have witnessed that a blurred separation of powers between the organs of the state has produced a political conundrum where organs have overstepped their boundaries and influenced the state apparatus. The balance of power has further shifted into the favour of the military whereas the state of a perpetual soft coup seems to be a long-term endeavour. Democracy depends on accountability for every organ of the state machinery. Pakistan has never experienced true democracy as yet and it is highly unlikely in the near future.
