Will things change?
The General Elections-2013 Inquiry Commission 2015 report has finally resolved a political conflict legally. But will it be helpful politically too? That’s the question at the moment.
A judicial commission – General Elections-2013 Inquiry Commission, 2015 – was established through a Presidential Ordinance on April 3 last, to inquire into and determine whether or not;
1) The General Elections-2013 were organised and conducted impartially, honestly, fairly, justly and in accordance with law,
2) The General Elections-2013 were manipulated or influenced pursuant to a systematic effort by design by anyone, and
3) The results of the General Elections-2013 on an overall basis are [sic] a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate.
The nation had reached the point of formation of the commission following a bitter political struggle spanning over four months. Initially making allegations of rigging in four constituencies from his hospital bed soon after May, 2013 elections, Imran Khan formally announced a march on Islamabad in a Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) public rally in Bahawalpur on June 27, 2014. The government did not take this announcement and his earlier demands for a probe into irregularities seriously and the party, in cahoots with Tahirul Qadri’s Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT), started the planned march on August 12, 2014 from Lahore. After reaching Islamabad, it was turned into a dharna (sit-in) which continued for 126 days, coming to end on Dec 17 after the terrorist attack on APS, Peshawar on Dec 16, 2014. PAT had left it earlier.
The general elections had gone well in the sense that these were held under a revamped election commission and a mutually agreed upon Chief Election Commissioner and electoral mechanism. The allegations of rigging also remained confined to four constituencies for a long time. But the problem gradually snowballed into a huge political crisis, threatening the democratic process itself. The reasons and political implications of this political movement are described and assessed differently by different analysts with disagreements on its short and long term gains and losses. The biggest achievements were the formation of the judicial commission itself and highlighting the shortcomings and weaknesses in both the election process and the Election Commission. Yet, the price paid for the purpose was so high that it made the whole struggle so controversial.
First, because the like of the judicial commission that Imran Khan agreed to in the end was offered by Nawaz Sharif on August 12. Second, it brought the country’s economy to a grinding halt, resulting in financial losses running into billions. Third, it spread chaos and introduced a new model of confrontational politics – along with new levels of verbal indecencies. Fourth, it made a new culture of condemning someone on the basis of hearsay. Fifth, it tarnished the image of the country internationally. Sixth, it weakened almost all of the democratic/civilian institutions – which IK claimed he had come out to strengthen. And last, but not the least, it made politics, politicians, democracy an abuse in the eyes of the people. Many political analysts are of the view that the long term negative implications far exceed the short term gains which the country will take a long time to recover from.
The biggest achievements were the formation of the judicial commission itself and highlighting the shortcomings and weaknesses in both the election process and the Election Commission
They also claim that along with whatever other reasons – bad governance, corruption, incompetence of politicians – IK’s movement played a vital role in weakening democracy to the level that it is now completely at the mercy of the military establishment. IK helped swing public opinion against democracy to such an extent that it couldn’t be defended were there a Bonaparte waiting in the wings to strike at it. Not only that, but the military establishment has practically taken into its hand all civilian matters that are deemed sensitive and important.
And this brings us to the question if there was someone behind all that happened to us in the name of dharna or if the establishment manipulated the situation to its advantage; and why? Starting from the key foreign policy issues like India and Afghanistan to the domestic security issue like tackling Taliban/terrorist problem, down to Pervez Musharraf’s trials, there was difference of opinion on almost everything important. But relationship between the two sides nosedived when Nawaz Sharif went back on his word to the powers that be and didn’t let him off the hook while different courts kept on grilling him in different cases including the ones in which he acted on behalf of the state and his institution. The situation took a turn for the worst when, according to insiders, NS uttered that he will not let Musharraf go only unless he was physically handcuffed – even if it was as brief a period as five minutes. And the rest is history.
There also came occasions during the dharna when the army was seen not to be acting like it should or when it refused taking sides in a purely political matter. This, if it didn’t mean anything else, showed in a subtle way that there was no love lost between the two. It indirectly encouraged the ‘invaders’ to stay put in D-Chowk for such a long time and continue abusing every individual and institution that could somehow respectfully represent the civilian/democratic side. On and on, allegations were hurled at the drop of a hat without any evidence to substantiate them.
It was claimed that the then Chief Justice hatched a conspiracy in collaboration with Nawaz Sharif to steal the mandate of the people; Justice Ramday played second fiddle to the CJ; the plan was executed through Returning Officers (ROs) and the Election Commission; Punjab was won with the help of Najam Sethi through his infamous ‘35 punctures’. But the veracity of these allegations was exposed when the PTI counsel didn’t bother to call Ch Iftikhar to the witness box, nor was Najam Sethi confronted with the 35 punctures question; so much for the allegations that were hurled in every direction from the top of the container every evening for four months.
Answers to the questions that the inquiry commission was tasked with don’t come as any surprise then. It has found;
1) 2013 Election was in large part conducted fairly and in accordance with law,
2) Those were not manipulated or stolen as a result of any conspiracy,
3) Election results on an overall basis reflect the mandate given by the electorate.
The confidence this must have injected into the ruling party’s government can be judged from the prime minister’s address to the nation the day the final report was made public; one can have a glimpse of the level of this confidence in the announcement of the former CJ to make entry into politics; and why not, when he stands vindicated and exonerated like the ruling party?
But will the government digest this political, moral and legal victory? It’s a difficult question to answer. If past is any guide, then it’s unlikely that the ruling club will mend its ways. However, Nawaz Sharif and his core team must remind themselves that the judicial commission has also termed IK’s demand as ‘not entirely unjustified’. It also talks about ‘lapses’ and ‘shortcomings’ on the part of the ECP, which resulted in large scale irregularities. Further, they must keep in mind that no legal verdict comes to peoples’ rescue if they are adamant to mess things up politically by continuing with their trademark bad governance and turning a blind eye to the issue of corruption, which is eating into the vitals of the nation – and is growing by the day.
It should be clear to all that a judicial report, no matter how good, alone cannot make any meaningful difference to the existing political landscape unless it is accepted wholeheartedly, received positively and implemented fully by all concerned parties
But more important than the question of how the government will behave is the issue of Imran Khan’s reaction and how should PTI conduct politics from now on. One thing is clear that trapped by his own statements, IK will accept the report. However, since the man is prone to making mistakes at every turn and has refused in the past to become politically mature, he must be advised and warned not to repeat those mistakes to take his party and followers to yet another blind alley. It will be fatal this time.
As a graceful man and principled politician he should do away with ifs and buts his ‘well-meaning advisers’ are pressing him to append to his acceptance of the judicial commission’s findings. He shouldn’t attach any strings to it. Rather, he should tell the people that despite his reservations, he accepts its findings because there are no better minds and no higher judicial fora to take the matter to; neither does he want to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judges as it will further weaken an already fractured judiciary.
To take political benefits out of this occasion, he and his party should now switch over to positive contribution to the democratic system. One way is to increase participation in parliamentary business and start taking initiatives in the long overdue legislative, political and administrative reforms. This will help him a lot if he wins elections in future. Also, his party as a whole should concentrate on making Khyber Pakhtunkhwa an example of clean politics and efficient good governance. These changes, particularly the last one, will earn him a lot of goodwill and political support in the rest of provinces where he is currently not in government. It will also be a good omen for the future of democracy in the country if he starts looking at other political parties and its leaders as competitors and not outright enemies. Whether he does things like that in the days to come is a choice that only he can make. But adopting the confrontational way of doing politics will bring in only chaos and misery to the people.
It should be clear to all that a judicial report, no matter how good, alone cannot make any meaningful difference to the existing political landscape unless it is accepted wholeheartedly, received positively and implemented fully by all concerned parties. If politicians, including Imran Khan, want to revive the trust of the people in the democratic dispensation, which stands discredited and dysfunctional at the moment, they must unite and work together for the realisation of one objective; reforming the system to make it functional. No other panacea can cure the ailment that is slowly killing this state since the time it was born.
