When the spokesman of the US State Department was asked if the US was still backing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif or whether it would support the opposition’s demand that he step down because of his alleged involvement in Panama papers’ scandal, his response was theoretically perfect. “These are decisions that the Pakistani people have to make”, he said.
Ah, but how do the people figure in Pakistan’s politics? How would they make the decisions that may influence the fate of their rulers in the kind of situation that prevails in the country at this time? The assumption, of course, is that we are a democracy in which the will of the people is supreme. Besides, a democracy also dictates certain values of accountability and integrity.
We should know what the people demand. There are accepted ways in which the dominant public opinion is expressed. That is why peaceful protest is a fundamental right of the citizens and it is possible for the populace to pronounce its verdict on a given issue of national importance.
But we have no measure of the voice of the people, apart from the outcome of the general elections in which the usual suspects usually carry the day. In the normal course, the participation of the people in the democratic process remains indecipherable. One source of this condition is the weakness of our civil society when it comes to defending the values and the practices of democracy.
The politics of Pakistan, like in many other countries, is shaken by the revelations embedded in the Panama Papers. Even though more than 200 Pakistani companies – and individuals that are beneficial owners of these companies – have so far been identified, the focus remains on the family of Nawaz Sharif. His sudden departure for London for a medical check up has provided a dramatic turn to this episode.
In the immediate context, the government and the opposition have to sort out their differences on how the scandal is to be probed. These differences will have an impact on the political environment in the coming weeks and months. Imran Khan is aiming to seize this opportunity to conclude the unfinished business of his 2014 ‘dharna’. He is threatening to go to the streets if the investigation into Sharif family’s overseas assets is not credible.
However, there is little evidence that the people would willingly turn out in large numbers in a political campaign to effect some kind of a democratic shift in the country’s direction. They just do not come out, except when their religious passions are aroused in a fanatical fashion. And that would certainly not be democratic in its character or intent.
In fact, the 2014 ‘dharna’, including the spectacle staged by Tahirul Qadri, presented an excellent example of how the ‘awam’ stay away from what may be described as democracy in action. In addition to a limited number of diehard supporters of the parties of Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri, extensive efforts had to be made to present the show. This was so in spite of the massive live coverage of the proceedings by all the news channels – something that may not be professionally defensible.
Potentially, everything could change if the masses were to join the protest voluntarily. Our cities are populous enough to provide a mammoth crowd for anything that attracts the fancy of the people. This does not happen in the case of political gatherings. We know how audience in a political meeting is put together. On their own, they – the people – are generally not inclined to raise their voice for a political cause.
There is an irony here, though. We are demonstrably obsessed with politics. The popular media has an almost pathological penchant for political affairs, to the detriment of more serious and crucial issues. Our talk shows chew the cud in a sickening manner. In private gatherings, tempers easily rise when partisan political views come into play.
How does one explain this virtual disconnect between an overwhelming interest in politics and any meaningful participation in political activities that are directed towards reforming a flawed and corrupt democracy? Is it apathy, rooted in an inherent sense of powerlessness? Is it fear, endorsed by widespread intolerance and violence at every level of our society? Is it a manifestation of the moral and intellectual deprivations of the ordinary citizens? Does the perennial shadow of the military falling on a civilian administration subvert the people’s initiative to participate in politics?
Be that as it may, our rulers are able to exploit this situation by violating the basic principles of a democratic dispensation and get away, in a figurative sense, with murder. It is true that checks and balances in a democracy are not restricted to actual or perceived public opinion and the pressure exerted by the opposition. Rule of law is integral to the entire process. There are also certain ethical standards of behaviour for the leaders to follow.
We should be grateful to the Panama leaks for highlighting many issues that relate to transparency in governance and financial corruption at high levels in politics and business. We have some instructive examples of how public figures in other countries have responded to allegations of their involvement in corruption and tax evasion.
The most quoted example is that of the prime minister of Iceland who was forced to resign over the leaks. I see this as vindication of my argument that people can make a difference when they assert their voice in a democratic manner. On the day that the prime minister’s name was mentioned, more than 20,000 protesters gathered on the streets of the capital in a country that has about one fifth of Karachi’s population. If millions could come out in the streets of Karachi and Lahore to protest against the corruption of their leaders, thing would change.
The latest casualty is Spain’s industry minister who resigned on Friday. This presents another dimension of democracy, that of the moral responsibility of an elected leader. In a statement, the minister said that politics “is an activity that must always be exemplary … one must assume one’s responsibilities”.
Our problem is that we have become immune to the corruption that our political leaders have openly indulged in, whether it is proved in a court of law or not. It is not surprising that the US State Department’s annual report on human rights has talked about pervasive corruption “in politics and government” in Pakistan.
But what can and should the people do about it?
The writer is a senior journalist.
Email: ghazi_salahuddinhotmail.com