Of morality and politics

By Hussain H Zaidi
May 03, 2017

As in the case of the 2013 general elections, the Supreme Court’s split verdict in the Panama leaks has something for everyone. This explains why the judgment has become a cause for celebration for the respondents and the petitioners, the ruling party as well as the opposition. But, as in case of the previous elections, the PML-N has gained more than the rest. This is the reason why the judgment is not equally pleasing for all.

Advertisement

The ideal scenario for the opposition – particularly for the PTI, which was the main petitioner – was that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif would be shown the door by the court. Although two of the five members of the bench declared Sharif incapable of holding public office, the majority judgment – which is legally binding – stopped short of passing such an order. The judges differed on whether the evidence put before them was sufficient to send the country’s chief executive home under Article 184 of the constitution.

The worst-case scenario for the petitioners was that the court would give the PM a clean chit and dismiss the petitions. The decision to constitute a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the alleged corruption by the ruling family – not to mention the plethora of adverse remarks contained against the PM in the judgment – means that the Panama leaks case is not a closed transaction.

The best and worst case scenarios for the government were quite different. While the ruling party may heave a sigh of relief, the proverbial sword of Damocles continues to hang over its head. The dissenting note also puts the government in a tight spot, both politically as well as morally.

In the wake of the verdict, the opposition had two courses of action open to it. First, it could patiently wait for the JIT to finish its inquiry and report back to the apex court. From day one, it has eschewed this option and decided to pressurise the PM into stepping down. The opposition’s argument in favour of the position it has adopted is partly moral and partly pragmatic. The argument goes that the PM has lost his moral authority to continue in office and with him at the helm of affairs, the JIT, drawn from civil and military departments or agencies, will find it exceedingly difficult to conduct a fair probe.

Both these arguments have substance. Based on popular consent, a democratically-elected government’s authority is both legal and moral. Although Sharif’s position is legally secure – at least for the time being – his ethical authority has been severely eroded by the judgment. In a mature, functional democracy such adverse remarks would have resulted in resignation.

That said, Pakistan’s is a different story. There is no precedent of a top leader resigning from his position. There is little doubt that anyone else in Sharif’s position would not have resigned either. For five years, Asif Zardari shielded himself behind the constitutional provisions of presidential immunity. It never occurred to him for even a moment that he should waive his immunity and put himself under accountability.

As for Imran Khan, in the past he pinned high hopes on other forces for pulling the government down. In a mature democracy, the opposition leader would never contemplate such a move.

Morality in politics is not restricted to making an exit from the corridors of power when the situation calls for it. It also includes refraining oneself from entering those corridors through the back door.

The opposition is not naive enough to believe that Sharif would vacate the office of his own accord. Through a series of protests and rallies, he must therefore be coerced into doing so. Imran Khan, who has spearheaded the anti-graft campaign against the Sharifs, considers himself to be the principal beneficiary if the premier resigns now.

Through the first half of the incumbent government’s tenure, Imran Khan made abortive attempts to force Sharif to quit for allegedly rigging the 2013 elections. Being a fighter to the bone, he never gives in. And where there’s a will, there’s a way. If one is committed to fighting, there’s no dearth of opportunities to grab at.

But willing to fight is one thing and fighting successfully is another. To take the current campaign against graft to its intended end, Imran Khan needs the support of other opposition parties, notably the PPP, which has gone into an equally aggressive mode. If the PPP and the PTI make a common cause against the Sharif government, snap polls may be in sight.

There are, however, many ifs and buts. When it comes to corruption, the top leadership of the PPP is as much of a sitting duck as the House of Sharif. If Imran Khan can be uncompromising on the allegedly corrupt practices of the ruling family, he can’t be expected to be softer on the PPP. So after the Sharifs, Zardari and his colleagues may find themselves on the receiving end. Then there’s the question of saving the system. Despite all claims of democracy having taken root in Pakistan, the democratic facade remains a house of cards – always a kick away from falling apart. So the possibility that the present set-up may creak under the strain of a popular movement can’t be ruled out. This is the point at which the PPP and the PTI will surely part ways.

At all events, the coming few weeks will see political temperature shoot up as a beleaguered Sharif would endeavour to fend off his opponents. Loyalties and alliances will likely shift and both the carrot and the stick will come into play. The economy, already reeling under a high current account deficit and struggling to achieve fiscal consolidation and create jobs, will come under a lot of strain.

The writer is a freelance
countributor.

Email: hussainhzaidigmail.com

Advertisement