Dilemma of a law abiding Prime Minister

You lose some, you lose some more

It’s regrettable and bizarre that rather than addressing that why Prime Minister and his family have been accused of serious corruption crimes, the party has been celebrating by calling their leader an epitome of democratic politics and rule of law.

On June 15, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeared before the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that is investigating the role of the Sharif family in the Panama Papers corruption scandal. Previously, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment declared that the matter needed further probe, for the court due to number of limitations and restraints had been unable to probe the issue thoroughly. Therefore, a special JIT was needed to investigate the scandal further.

After appearing before the committee, Sharif said that “every penny we have earned is accounted for” and warned his political opponents that there “will be a bigger JIT next year.” Besides the predictable episodes of accusations and counter accusations on politician’s part, what warrants analysis is why Prime Minister Sharif decided to appear before the JIT and whether he could have evaded it?

It’s interesting to see how the ruling party has been celebrating Prime Minister’s scrutiny on corruption allegations as a win for democracy. The opposition on the other hand, has termed “Sharif’s JIT call” an unprecedented achievement against white color corruption in the country.

If Pakistan’s history is any guide, the ongoing corruption probe and its politicisation only reveal that individuals and entrenched feudal power structures continue to dominate institutions to attain or sustain power. While the PML-N may have lauded their leader’s decision as historic, it’s ludicrous to argue that Prime Minister Sharif appeared before JIT, for he is a law abiding citizen.

Mainly, two factors have forced Prime Minister into appearing before the investigative committee: first, the ruling party by evading the JIT commotion is not interested in opening another front with the opposition parties that may give the latter a new political agenda leading up to the next general elections. Sharif’s mere act of appearing before the JIT not only eliminates any potential debate on the issue but also earns him some credibility points from various political, media, legal and judicial quarters.

Second, the looming political isolation doesn’t allow Sharif to evade the JIT scrutiny anyway, for the county’s political realities doesn’t not coincide with any time in the past where political maneuvering can be used to circumvent the probe process. Thus, the ruling party has no option but to ensure that the head of their government appears before the investigative body. Without a doubt, Sharif’s decision to appear before the JIT to some extent stems from – and that might a decisive factor – his fear of political reaction that might erupt incase Prime Minister decides otherwise. With the assumption that Sharif has not appeared before the court, any political agitation, street protests, election calls, need for the military intervention and derailment of democracy look legitimate and justifiable.

As far as the ruling party’s short and medium term political interests are concerned, appearing before the JIT and spinning a “rule of law,” “win for democracy” and “unprecedented and historic” narrative appear to be a right decision to take. However, it’s regrettable and bizarre that rather than addressing that why Prime Minister and his family have been accused of serious corruption crimes, the party has been celebrating by calling their leader an epitome of democratic politics and rule of law.

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that the party facing the heat of the JIT has not been working to undermine the inquiry process. In Pakistan’s political history, it has always been a common practice that whenever political parties realise that their observance to the rule of law might weaken their political positions or interests, they have initiated disparaging campaigns to challenge the credibility of investigative bodies and institutions protecting them. There has been an effort to politicise the whole process and put to question the credibility of the men leading the inquiry. Furthermore, there have been open calls for violence against the committee with one of the party’s senators threatening to hold the inquiry committee accountable if the final verdict was given against the Prime Minister and his family. Moreover, one cannot forget how in 1998 the PML-N’s supporters attacked the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s building when the country’s highest court invalidated an ordinance approved by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Arguably, the JIT’s members that are leading the investigation also reflect interests of different intuitions’. Its unperceivable that in presence of strong institutional constrains and influences, a fair and impartial judgment can emerge. Arguably, the only undefined rule of the game on all stakeholders’ part, deals with the protection of political interests rather than justice, integrity and fairness.

While its commendable that a sitting Prime Minister has appeared before officers of 19 and 20 grades, it doesn’t in any way validates that the county’s institutions stand above and independent of all sorts of pressures and constraints.

Accountability in Pakistan still remains a far-fetched dream.

.