By Amir Zia
At one level, all seems well with Pakistani democracy. An elected
government is in place and about to complete its term. Irrespective of
performance, participation of members and their quality of debate, both the
upper and lower houses of Parliament are functioning. All other state
institutions, including the armed forces and the judiciary, are “active and
effective” under their constitutional domain – at least in the eyes of the
public.
April 2018
Monthly Newsline
Democracy is not just surviving, but thriving in Pakistan, in the same manner as it does in any other third world country – ie. despite all its flaws and weaknesses...the challenge to democracy, or its own shortcomings, are not as deadly as many contend. In fact...there is a silver lining for democrats and democracy in Pakistan.
At one level, all seems well with Pakistani democracy. An elected
government is in place and about to complete its term. Irrespective of
performance, participation of members and their quality of debate, both the
upper and lower houses of Parliament are functioning. All other state
institutions, including the armed forces and the judiciary, are “active and
effective” under their constitutional domain – at least in the eyes of the
public.
Other optics also support the fact that democracy is not just
surviving, but thriving in Pakistan, in the same manner as it does in any other
third world country – ie. despite all its flaws and weaknesses. Political and
religious parties of every shade lure and draw the masses, even while making
their lives difficult by their crimes and sins of omission and commission.
Civil society – represented by local and foreign-funded non-governmental
organisations and concerned individuals – is active, challenging the government
and institutions on assorted issues, including human rights, missing persons,
extra-judicial killings and corruption. A lively, noisy media is both, shaping
and distorting the public discourse and taking up many of those issues which
were once considered taboo in Pakistan’s political and social arena.
All this, and yet there are many prophets of doom and gloom who say
that democracy remains under threat, that space for elected governments is
shrinking – and shrinking fast. They see the army keeping civilian rulers on a
tight leash, allowing them little space to lead on important fronts such as
foreign relations and national security – in short to fulfil their mandate.
The long and ever-expanding list of allegations against the
military ranges from them orchestrating mini and mega opposition protests
against the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, manufacturing
dissent and factions within political parties, and encouraging new alignments
and alliances at the cost of old ones. The latest addition to the list of
allegations remains the allegation of manipulating the change of face in the
Balochistan provincial government and the recent elections for the chairmanship
and deputy chairmanship of the Senate.
The vigour with which the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is
pursuing select people for corruption and the way the superior judiciary
appears focused on cases involving the disgraced ousted prime minister, Nawaz
Sharif and his family members along with some of his close aides, are all
attributed to the “hidden hands” linked to the mighty military establishment.
Meanwhile, the military spokesperson, Major General Asif Ghafoor,
has time and again rejected such allegations, saying that the armed forces
remain exclusively focused on their constitutional role.
So the pertinent question remains whether the glass is half-full or
half-empty when it comes to democracy and its prospects in Pakistan.
In the country’s present highly polarised atmosphere, the answer to
this question would depend on which side of the fence one stands. Those
belonging to the small, influential and politically correct and connected
segment of society, or falling in the category of activists, would certainly
claim that they see democracy under threat and declare the army as the ultimate
villain in this game of thrones.
If one falls in the category of the common man – angry and bitter
with the present state of affairs – most likely he or she would hold leaders
belonging to the mainstream parties responsible for most ills troubling the
country and call for flushing out all dishonest politicians from the echelons
of power. This common man is not bothered about how the country reaches the
elusive goal of achieving effective, honest and pro-people governance – whether
through democracy or authoritarian rule. He/she is simply interested in results.
Between these two extremes, lies a middle ground, reflecting the
reality. That reality being the fact that the challenge to democracy, or its
own shortcomings, are not as deadly as many contend. In fact, in these days of
uncertainty, there is a silver lining for democrats and democracy in Pakistan.
“If the military wants to take over (power), it could do so in five
minutes, just five minutes,” a senior military official told a select group of
journalists on the condition of anonymity. “We wouldn’t even require a sixth
minute to complete the task… but the army is committed to its constitutional
role and supports democracy.”
So its capacity and ability to stage a takeover does not
automatically translate into the army having the intent to seize power, though
many, even in the political parties, would love to see such a situation
developing.The fact is, since the country’s return to democracy in 2008, the
army has not tried to rock the boat as a matter of policy, despite tensions and
an ongoing atmosphere of distrust with the civilian rulers.
“The assertion that democracy is under threat in any way is wrong,”
says senior political analyst and commentator, Zahid Hussain. “Democracy is not
under threat. All this upheaval is part of the democratic process. There are
always chances that institutions will find an equilibrium.”
The PML-N’s Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, also sees “no direct
threat to democracy.
“But some political parties’ ability to use big money and buy
the electoral process remains a major threat for any transparent democratic
process — as we witnessed in the Senate elections, which were marred by
horse-trading,” he told Newsline.
When asked about the alleged conspiracies against democracy by some
“hidden hands,” Syed said that any covert moves could only be successful if
they were made in connivance with the political parties. “I would blame the
political parties… in case of any such move, which can’t happen without the
willing cooperation of the political parties.”
Qamar Zaman Kaira, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party’s (PPP) Central
Punjab President, also rejected the notion of the alleged “shrinking space for
democracy. Indeed, a lot of work is required to make democracy deliverable (to
the people), but the PML-N and its leadership are the main culprits for
weakening democracy as they have a history of undermining the parliament and
partnering with dictators and extremists.”
So if there is no direct threat to democracy, with the PML-N
government all set to complete its term – the second consecutive elected
government to perform this feat – and elections scheduled in 2018, then why do
some forces claim that democracy is in danger?
Is it because an elected prime minister – Nawaz Sharif – stands
disqualified and faces jail if he gets convicted in any of the five corruption
references filed against him and his family members in the accountability
courts? Or is democracy weakened because the opposition parties – the PPP and
the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) – have managed to bury the hatchet, albeit
temporarily, and along with dissidents within the PML-N, prevented the ruling
party from getting its man elected as chairman Senate?
According to Fawad Chaudhry, the PTI spokesperson, the apparent
weakness of democracy is the fallout from Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification. “Our
system works on the back of the executive arm, the judiciary and the army. If
the political structure (executive arm) gets weak, as has happened, the
judiciary and the army dominate, which gives the impression that democracy is
on the retreat,” he said. “Had elections been called out immediately after
Sharif’s disqualification, this situation wouldn’t have arisen.”
However, the very premise that democracy has weakened is debatable.
The disqualification of a sitting prime minister and trial on corruption
charges – when his own party remains in power – can be seen as a positive
development, strengthening democracy, the system and institutions. This is the
first time ever in Pakistan’s history that an all-powerful premier, like
Sharif, has been forced out of office through constitutional and legal means.
This is also among those rare occasions in our history that the
ruling party has smoothly brought in another man for the top post after the
disqualification of its leader.
Yes, PPP’s Yousuf Raza Gilani was also disqualified in 2012 by the
Superior Court, and the then ruling party brought in a replacement and finished
its term, but the huge difference between then and now remains that unlike
Gilani – who was a nominee of the party leader – Sharif was himself the head of
the party. In that sense, Sharif is all-powerful, compared to Gilani
during whose tenure the real authority was exercised by Asif Ali Zardari, who
was, constitutionally, a lame-duck president after giving up the powers under
58-(2) B that empowered him to sack the elected government and dissolve the
assemblies. But he continued to control the government as the head of the
ruling party.
The disqualification of Sharif and his trial on corruption charges
remains a bigger affair than that of Gilani’s disqualification and serves as a
litmus
test for the system, the government and the institutions. It has
intensified friction within institutions, but also set a precedent that a
wrongdoer can be tried and sacked, regardless of his position. In the past, top
politicians only faced trial once out of power. And their trials and
tribulations were seen more as a victimisation campaign than a fair and
transparent accountability process. But Sharif faces accountability with his
government in power, and so far, despite fierce attempts by his party stalwarts
to save him and his family members, they remain in the dock. Additionally, the
judiciary and other state institutions – despite constraints and manipulations
by the executive authority – are pursing the accountability process against the
Sharifs, signalling that finally efforts to establish the rule of law and
supremacy of the constitution are gaining strength and momentum.
Sources say that Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, expressed
his support for Nawaz Sharif when he was the prime minister. Bajwa had,
according to sources, reiterated that he would support Sharif on any front,
barring one: the Panama Scandal. And in regard to the government’s tussle with
the judiciary, the army has taken a clear position that it will stand by the
courts for the rule of law.
PPP’s Kaira maintains that Sharif and his party are fighting
against democracy by trying to undermine the judiciary. “When Prime Minister
(Shahid Khaqan Abbasi) says that courts can’t give them justice, they are, in
fact, playing with democracy,” he said, referring to a speech delivered by
Abbasi in Sargodha on March 30 in which he said that there was no hope of
getting justice from the accountability courts.
Abbasi’s bosses, Sharif and his daughter and political heir
apparent, Mariam Safdar, have also been vocal in criticising the judiciary and
the institutions against the advice of many senior party leaders.
The issue of the Senate elections, that created a crescendo of
allegations that democracy is under threat, must also be seen in the right context.
Zahid Hussain says that a combination of factors was responsible
for the ruling party’s defeat in the Senate, including “the role of the
establishment and the opportunistic alignment of the political forces opposed
to Nawaz Sharif.”
According to the PPP’s Kaira, manipulation in the Senate elections
has been a tradition in Pakistan and doubts have always been raised about the
voting pattern of a few members. “There are allegations that the PPP and the
PTI got more votes than their strength, but so has the PML-N. If the allegation
that the PPP bought independents was true, they should have joined our party,
but this has not happened.”
However, the pro-Sharif lobby says that the alleged manipulation in
the Senate elections was aimed at limiting the effectiveness of the government
and squeezing space for democratic forces. Mushahid Hussain Sayed says that
even the PTI Chairman, Imran Khan, admits there was massive horse-trading in
the Senate elections.
But are the charges being levelled by the PML-N the only reason for
what transpired, as the followers of the Sharif camp would want us to believe?
These accusations notwithstanding, what made the ruling party lose control of
the Senate?
The answer to these questions perhaps lies in the fact that most
political forces and elements within assorted institutions have long been wary
of the “dictatorial mindset” of Sharif and the small clique around him that
want to frame laws which are against the spirit of the constitution. The way
the ruling party bulldozed an amendment allowing a disqualified and convicted
person to lead a political party was just one example. The Supreme Court
mercifully threw out this amendment, but the PML -N continues to make efforts
to enact laws benefiting an individual against the basic ethos of democracy and
the constitution. Speculation is rife that if the PML -N manages to dominate
both houses, it will go for legislation limiting the independence and
autonomy of the judiciary and make laws that protect and safeguard politicians involved
in corruption.
In Pakistan, the issue is not that democracy is under threat, but
how to make it pro-people and prevent vested interests from bending laws and
distorting the constitution to benefit individuals, condone corruption and
perpetuate their rule.
It is ironic that all the mainstream political parties have, in one
way or another, played a role in undermining democracy by narrowing its
definition just to holding elections and the rule of the majority. In doing so,
they overlook fulfilling other conditions which make democracy work, including
the spirit of inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, pro-people
legislation, democracy within parties, devolution of power to the local government
level and merit.
And yes, democracy only thrives when there is a rule of law and
political players are prepared to abide by it. No wonder, many critics of
political parties view so-called democrats as the biggest enemies of
democracy in Pakistan.
Since for the first time the powerful are being held accountable,
the process may appear skewed, but it is setting a precedent. And if democracy
is to sustain and deliver, the juggernaut of accountability has to expand in
the coming days to include other politicians as well.
“If Pakistan is to become a normal state, the rule of law and the
writ of the state is imperative,” said a senior military official in his
informal briefing.
Certainly the survival of democracy cannot and should not be linked
to one person or family. Analysts contend that if Sharif is sent to jail, the
country’s institutions would ensure that the system continues to work smoothly.
PPP’s Kaira claims that if there is justice, he sees Nawaz Sharif going to the
Adiala Jail. And for the PTI’s Fawad Chaudry too, Sharif’s political future
appears sealed.
Zahid Hussain, however, maintains that one should never write off a
political leader. According to him, “Despite the fact that Sharif is in
trouble, he still is the most powerful leader in Pakistan.”
Mushahid Hussain Sayed also challenges the claim that Nawaz Sharif
has landed in a blind alley. “Such prophecies proved wrong in the past and will
again be proven wrong,” he said. “When Ghulam Ishaq Khan ousted Sharif, there
were claims that the party was over for him, but that did not happen. Again,
when he went into exile in Saudi Arabia, similar claims were made, only to be
proved wrong. Now Sharif is again being written off following his
disqualification, but he will bounce back; his narrative is gaining ground.”
Apart from the conflicting predictions about Sharif’s future, for
now the former prime minister appears cornered. There is increasing pressure on
him from within the party to lower the political temperature as the
institutions appear adamant to hold him accountable for his past alleged
financial misdeeds, as evidenced by the Panama Papers. While Sharif’s future
role in politics remains uncertain, his party still has a role to play in the
system, provided the adventurous streak of a few within it can be curtailed and
managed.
Sharif’s predicaments won’t derail democracy, despite all its
weaknesses, flaws and failure to live up to the expectations of the people.
This due to the institutional consensus that the system should work.
With this backdrop, 2018 will be an election year in Pakistan,
albeit a messy one. All the major institutional players and the mainstream
parties appear on one page regarding the polls. And the change of guard in a
democratic manner for the third consecutive time will be done amid increasing
pressure on the political parties to clean up their stables and improve their
game.
According to Mushahid Hussain Sayed, there is no other alternative
but to hold elections. “Pakistan is a complicated federation, facing national
security threats on both the eastern and western fronts… the only way forward
is elections, which will protect and guarantee the federation. Political
parties unite Pakistan by cutting across barriers of provincialism, ethnicity
and sectarianism.”
