Post Raiwand march
As expected next day of the Raiwand march the main topic of the talk shows was what is going to happen after Muharram and Islamabad lockdown. In other words talk shows ensured the drama of the soap opera remained hyped up through their tongue in cheek discussion. They were in agreement that both Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif are engaged in politics of mutually assured destruction (MAD). But the reality is far from it. So far nothing of substance has happened after each episode of PTI jalsa and reactions of the government. In my view they are not engaged in any MAD politics rather it is a muk mukka politics all along or in other words mutually assured rule. Let me try to explain this point.
Raiwand march has established one thing that PTI Chairman Imran Khan is a good showman and can gather crowd to entertain them with music, suspense and drama. Each of his speech is high on rhetoric, low on substance and ends with announcement of a next jalsa in which he claims there will be some dramatic announcement. Raiwand march speech was not much different from that pattern. Towards the end of his speech he started asking commitment from participants to make sacrifices and quoted examples of sacrifices and character of companions of the Prophet (PBUH). He said there will be no jalsa any more so I was for a moment anxious that he is going to convert his followers into fidayeen. But then as usual he did not break from the established pattern and announced another jalsa in Islamabad after Muharram. Since jalsa and dharna became stale terms he created a new term lockdown. It seems the soap opera of Pakistani politics will continue for some more time. PM Nawaz Sharif and his cabinet members are doing good contribution to this ongoing drama by announcing their own bravado but in reality on the day of Raiwand march Abid Sher Ali was busy enjoying a burger.
The petition filed by PTI in the Supreme Court to seek disqualification of PM is not based on the Panama Papers evidence that Imran Khan so fervently presented in the Raiwand march. The petition claims that Prime Minister abused his office for personal benefit and that petitioner Imran Khan feels his rights as citizen have been abrogated. In other words: an individual petitioning against another individual seeking redress for violation of basic rights. The references of past cases provided in the petition relate to an individual claiming state abrogated his rights. So the question then arises that if Imran Khan claims in Raiwand jalsa that it is a close and shut case, then why has he not simply filed a petition for crimes of money laundering and use of elected office for financial benefit?
But the deception of the nation does not end there. PML N filed a petition against disqualification of Imran Khan and some other members of opposition in the election commission (ECP). So one would think that they are serious about it but again that is not the case. On the first day of hearing both PTI and PML N lawyers raised questions about the ECP jurisdiction to hear these kinds of cases. In other words they want each others’ petition to be discharged rather than proceeded.
So then what is going on? Here is what is going on. Elites of the country are engaged in a tussle for power as they consider it their birthright. Imran Khan wants next turn to be his as he can’t win election on its own because of total control of Punjab by PML N. But both PML N and PPP are not willing to give Imran Khan space to become claimant of the government pie. Imran Khan will continue holding jalsas until Nawaz Sharif is willing to give him some share in the biggest pie Punjab. All of them have enough evidence against each other that the scene is like they are holding guns to each other heads. So none of them will fire and continue hustling with each other to claim the throne. If they really wanted to disqualify each other or punish corruption then they would pursue their petitions using proper clauses and provide relevant evidence. They will not present any evidence in the courts as it goes against their desire of mutually assured survival (MAS) rather their petitions will remain frivolous. If Imran Khan claims to be serious about punishing corruption then he should demand public proceedings of all corruption cases broadcast live on national television rather than engage in soap opera on the streets that disrupts normal life. In other words, because none of these elites are serious so the corruption and nepotism will continue. They will continue entertaining the nation with music, dance and drama but will never solve their basic problems of unemployment, health, education and social security. They will remain focused on trophy projects of metro train and billion trees that mostly inflate their own egos.
So what can we do? I am not proposing that all politicians are bad or that they can’t do any good. The human nature is such that we try to cut corners whenever we get a chance. And this condition is not limited to Pakistan only. It happens in almost every country that whenever citizens get relaxed, politicians take advantage of it and push their own narrow self-interest. So we have to be more vigilant both as members of political parties as well as voters. Politicians will never punish each other for corruption it is a function of civic organisations and state institutions. One main reason for rampant corruption is that civic associations filing petitions against such practices are non-existent. Wealthy individuals that are concerned about the deterioration of social and ethical values should come forward to fund organisations that fight cases of corruption. Media has to put more pressure on state institutions to perform better in prosecuting corruption.
The dilemma of our democracy is that citizens become inactive in the affairs of the state once elections are over. This is providing opportunity for politicians to engage in corrupt practices. We need to create citizen forums that keep eye on the performance of the politicians and hold them accountable. We should also reject politics of aimless agitation and force politicians to use platforms that are available to them to resolve policy and political differences.