Politically, the government and the opposition had three choices to resolve the impasse arising from the Panama leaks. One, they could have found an in-house solution to the problem, replacing the PM and agreeing to institute a legal or parliamentary mechanism to probe the allegations against Nawaz Sharif.
These crystallised over time in the form of four questions enunciated by Imran Khan after he led the movement against the PM’s alleged involvement in hiding assets and tax evasion. In the event, none from the political establishment chose the route.
Two, parliament, sensing questions on its own credibility and that of the entire political system could have formulated a course bringing the government to face up to the choices or lose its legitimacy. Parliament instead chose to keep away even when it was in session, and when it was not no one thought of convening it to take the country out of an overwhelming imbroglio.
Three, the ultimate political resort when a sitting government loses its moral legitimacy to continue governing is to mostly revert back to the ultimate arbiter – the people – either to gain a fresh mandate or seek their opinion. Far from it. Politics lost the opportunity to establish its credentials as a responsible forum for dealing with issues that bedevil the nation and the state. This remained the case for well over seven months.
Similarly, there were, and are for the foreseeable future, three arbiters when politics ‘fails’ to find its own course; and all were on the cards for ultimate resort. One, the political option of early or snap election was not taken; second was the legal option where a party could have approached the courts to seek a fair redress – this was only peripherally attempted. When the courts sought greater fidelity on the Terms of Reference from the government under which it may investigate and ascertain liability, instead of offering one the government chose to let the opportunity wither away under political dissent in a parliamentary committee meant to form the TORs.
For seven months and more, the issue plagued all, the politics, the government and the institutions taking a toll on the state and the nation with its immense challenges which continued to remain unattended. The final arbiter of fore, the military, remained the black horse in all this as the inaction played itself out. It was however, the most discussed, most hounded and most suspected by both sides to be at the back of the on-going agitation – the usual suspects second guessing the military in its intentions at all times, in all situations; and those who overly rely on the military as the panacea for all that is wrong with this nation-state.
The PTI was called agents to facilitate the military’s intervention and assumption of governmental control. In the end, the abuse, the apprehension and the circumspection all collapsed without a whimper. But seven months was enough time to cast all and any doubt about the military’s real intent in the name of establishing civilian domination in a complex civil-military environment.
From among the six stages of political problem-solving in play, the government and political structures failed to elicit answers from the four available options which could have kept the issue restricted to the political domain only. It finally ended up in the lap of the Supreme Court as the penultimate arbiter lest there might again arise the need for the military to intervene. The military may not always intervene to take over but has had to interject in an institutional standoff to keep the state functional. Of that enough examples exist in our past.
The Supreme Court waited for seven months before admitting the petitions on the Panama leaks. Now that it has, when no one else was willing to even touch it for self-preservation in the face of authority, the question why it could not have been done earlier perhaps can wait. Let us say that the SC gave all opportunity to the political processes to resolve the impasse and decided to take it on when the cost of not doing so became clearly impossible. It shall though have to grapple with the inadequacies of the existing laws in dealing with the matter, especially in the absence of any legislative effort to plug the loopholes against money laundering, tax evasion and hiding assets. The PPP has already rung the alarm bells for the need to get parliamentary approvals for any process that the Supreme Court may exercise to investigate the allegations and to apportion blame. This will be the next hurdle in the process.
Imran Khan himself may have also run the length of the tether in terms of ‘agitational’ politics. He found himself significantly alone in continuing the movement against inaction on Panama. The PPP stepped away, Dr Tahirul Qadri found reasons to shed his company and others sat on the fringes. He was also effectively isolated from his workers through an effective strategy by the government in interdicting his support at its base, closing routes and apprehending those who ventured to challenge these actions. Interdiction and deterrence both worked to sow uncertainty in the minds of IK supporters. As a consequence, the mass critical for his intended lockdown of Islamabad could never materialise.
There was also aversion to IK’s declared plan of closing the capital down. Surprisingly, his support base within Punjab did not move and what attempted to join from KP was either too little or too easily stopped. Having made some progress enroute Islamabad to add some volume to IK’s small accompaniment of supporters, KP’s chief minister instead chose to withdraw back to his deep base rather than hold at the point from where he could have attempted to continue the march. All in all, the consequential dismalness became a major downer. The PTI leadership itself fell far short of what could have moved the base.
What next? Chances are that, while the investigation through the SC may still proceed, gathering evidence and convicting the PM through such evidence or absence of it will mean that Nawaz Sharif may find the ultimate reprieve in his political life. IK will have to barter for more acceptable ways to forward his agenda of issue-based politics. Agitation should be a one-off option. To channelise everything to that end is now a yawning inadequacy. Parliament will have to get its act together for its own sanctity and relevance, especially where legislation is concerned. Electoral and finance reforms need to be enacted soon. Governance will need to be rectified with urgency.
Life as usual cannot be. It was too close for comfort this time around. The next, it may simply be a slide down the abyss. The politics of this country must find the resolve to avoid such a consequence.
Email: shhzdchdhryyahoo.com