After the JIT report
The JIT report on Panama is out, and it’s pretty incriminating for the first family. As far as I recall, out of hundreds of investigations over the years this is only the second report to have been released immediately – probably the only one to have been made public the same day it was submitted. The ball is again in the Supreme Court, which will deal with the legal merits of its findings. The legal decision can potentially decide the future course of this country, especially regarding sleaze and money laundering.
Meanwhile, meme makers and others on the social media have been having a field day, and who can blame them! Such is the richness of the material they suddenly have their hands on that the party is expected to continue for a while. Some of the stuff is so hilarious it makes jokes made on Zardari sound childish in comparison. Indeed, after being on life support during the last few months, the painstakingly manufactured two-decade old Zardari-is-the-last-word-in-corruption perception finally died a peaceful death this week. Those who have a soft corner for Sharif are looking more and more like Farooq Sattar used to do before August 2016. Interestingly, nobody has exactly been shocked to find out the details of the report – the Sharif apologists included. Many have been surprised by the length to which the JIT went to build its case, but not on its findings.
The questions mostly raised by the government and Sharif family spokespersons to date – Who wrote the report? Could it have possibly been written in two months? Were the JIT members qualified to undertake an investigation concerning financial crimes? What is the real motive behind the investigation? – are irrelevant now. Now that the report is out, it needs to be addressed on its merits and not on the above considerations. In the courtroom of course, but also politically.
What’s going to happen next – both legally and politically – is a hot topic these days, and tons of speculations, wishful thoughts and Noorani-type reports are doing the rounds on the social and traditional media masquerading as analyses. The last thing I want to do here is add one more to those. I would like to focus instead on another matter that I feel needs to be considered long and hard irrespective of the immediate political fortunes of the political players in view: that of our democratic experiment.
I believe that the law must take its course irrespective of any political ramifications, however serious. And yet, I agree with those who believe that politicians have been the real losers in all this. So, who is to blame for it? Noblesse oblige: with much privilege comes much responsibility – at any rate it should. Being in the best position to give concessions and take a step back if necessary, it’s first and foremost the government’s responsibility to ensure stability and continuity of the system. Nawaz supporters and many Liberals (the latter seem to be a subset of the former these days) keep blaming Imran Khan for it when it’s extremely unreasonable and naïve to expect an opposition leader to let an opportunity like Panama to slip. (Those who think otherwise should take a moment to recall what Nawaz Sharif used to do while in opposition.) No, it was the sitting government’s fault to allow things to come this far. The PM taking a back seat – momentarily or otherwise – shouldn’t have been too big a sacrifice if the cause (democracy) is indeed as dear as it is professed to be. Especially when it was clear that the writing may very soon be writ large on the wall.
Democracy has definitely failed us in this regard. And to think that it’s not exactly rookie politicians either who are at the helm. I like democracy as much as the next guy (and I don’t think there’s a single practical alternative) but to pretend that it is synonymous with the rule of one family, and the very heavens will fall if something happened to that family is sickening. Especially so when all we have is the recipe and there’s no pudding in sight. Let’s examine what we have by way of proofs of that pudding once one runs out of platitudes such as government of the people, for the people, by the people. We vote once every few months, and a big thank you to democracy for that. We have a vibrant, even noisy, media – no thanks to democracy for this one though. We have a parliament, which unfortunately is not even a debating club. All decisions are taken elsewhere, and its utility is at best that of a rubber stamp and as a venue for the occasional address by the President.
Is democracy all about voting every five years or so? What about accountability, transparency, responsibility, and a sense on the part of the leadership to know when enough is enough? What’s the best way to achieve civilian supremacy: by being responsible, sensitive, and humble; or by being the picture of ye musalman hain jinhen dekh ke sharmayen yahood? These are the questions that the champions of democracy need to think about. And this is irrespective of which side the Panama camel finally sits on.
So what awaits us post-Panama? A new beginning or more of the same? It all hinges on whether our politicians – especially those in power – will learn from this. My forecast is not very promising, although it would be a delight to be proved wrong on this one.