- Institutions must have the right to question former and serving legislators and executives
Fall of Dhaka in 1971 was yet another scar on topography of the Indian subcontinent after the 1947 partition. The scar was not only a demarcation of a new state’s boundaries but also a reflection of differences between two entirely different nations that had been amalgamated into one. We, the Pakistanis, still lament the incident which they, the Bangladeshis, celebrate. What makes them different from us? A question which was gruesome to answer way back then is quite easy to address today… along with some other epoch-making questions like “Mujhe kyun nikala?”. Khaleda Zia’s incarceration in a corruption case is an answer to both and also serves as a crystal-clear contradistinction between the two countries and their peoples.
Shedding some light on the commonalities between the two former premiers of their respective countries, both got the chance to serve for multiple terms, both have their shares of supporters, both have been convicted in corruption cases, both describe the charges against them as “politically motivated”, and both have pledged to return soon. The differences, too, are incontrovertible. Khaleda Zia completed all her terms, has been punished with five-year imprisonment instead of lifelong disqualification, and has been convicted in charges of embezzling $253,000 in donation funds intended for the Zia Orphanage Trust, a setup established in her late husband Ziaur Rahman’s memory during her second tenure, in lieu of money laundering and tax evasion, but never did she once ask the masses “Mujhe kyun nikala?”. And this is the most prominent difference – the willingness to face charges.
The timing of her conviction is crucial as elections are expected to be held in Bangladesh in December this year, much alike in Pakistan where Nawaz Sharif’s dismissal by the highest court in July last year raised many concerns from several quarters regarding its impact on 2018 elections. Khaleda Zia’s participation in the upcoming elections has therefore been thrown in doubt since a person sentenced to over two years of imprisonment is legally barred from contesting any election. The incessant power struggle between Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh Awami League and Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party is equivalent to the juggling of government between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 90’s, and so is the tendency of army to take over the government as is evident from two military coups and 19 coup attempts in former East Pakistan since its advent.
The two convictions, one followed by the other, are absolutely unrelated yet hold uncanny similarity and that is the principle of holding your leaders accountable when it comes to running the wheel of democracy. Democracy, as described by Abraham Lincoln, is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, therefore insinuating downright significance and pivotal role of people in making it a successful or unsuccessful model. Electing a representative is a responsibility that needs to be fulfilled without any bias and partiality, for one’s short-term interests might jam the entire vehicle of state. This is exactly what has happened in Pakistan. People for all these years have voted for and chosen their legislators on the basis of number of plates of biryani that are distributed among them after assemblages and before polling. The votes are cast on others’ behalf, sometimes using all fingers of both the hands just to reach the expected level of count. These are not just allegations but documented facts as a remedy to which different mechanisms have been tried to put in place in order to make the electoral process more reliable and efficient. Yet what needs to be worked on more dedicatedly is the public, the main element on which lies the entire burden of making them deserving of being ruled through democracy.
The reason why Nawaz Sharif’s ouster was considered a commendable precedent for the rest of the countries in the region was because of the initiative of holding a sitting head of government accountable for alleged appropriation of public money
Plato, the founder of the first institution of higher learning in the western world, does not hate common man, but also strongly believes that common man is highly incompetent and incapable of choosing the best for himself. He believes that three basic forces, namely desire or appetite, spirit or courage, and reason, motivate men in varying amounts with one of these being always predominant. Those with excessive desire should not be made rulers for they will run the state for satiation of their hunger. It is only when one has the right aptitude, followed by its enhancement through adequate training, that a wise ruler, or ‘philosopher-king’, could be shaped. Without such mechanism of specialisation there exists an extremely high probability of intervention of artisans in other state activities, including legislation and execution, a dilemma we are facing today.
Plato feared that a government such formed is surely inexpert as it results in the individual appetite running wild. It is for this reason why he firmly stood by the idea that the highest form of state is one in which affairs of state are controlled by those who know how to do it. He thus eyed democracy as the corruption of oligarchy whereby rulers deviate from their path for their love of wealth (appetite) and which sooner or later results in anarchy. It is realised today that democracy sans accountability factually brings the ruler to the level of a tyrant and this is exactly what third-world democracies have been witnessing since their days of coming into existence. They have full faith in the system and its incapacity to hold them accountable. If the institutions, however, build their capacity to do so, the question that these leaders ask reverberates in every nook and corner of the state in the form of “Mujhe kyun nikala?”.
The reason why Nawaz Sharif’s ouster was considered a commendable precedent for the rest of the countries in the region was because of the initiative of holding a sitting head of government accountable for alleged appropriation of public money. He was disqualified because he was found guilty, so was Khaleda Zia, and so will all the leaders who follow their footsteps. It is for a reason why calls for Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan to quit have increased over a luxury watch and a diamond ring that appeared to have worn in a photograph of the cabinet, resulting in identification of 25 expensive luxury watches and many other undeclared assets owned by him but not declared to the anti-graft body. There is a reason why people and state institutions must have the right to question former and serving legislators and executives because deception lies where trust was.
