Democracy first

There is a difference between the much-avowed claims of accountability and justice in the Panama case and the way the real story has started to shape up in the aftermath of the JIT report.

There is an element of truth in the recent public statements of government representatives that the Panama case has turned out to be more a case of political wrangling than being a legal matter. Our political history is replete with extra-constitutional attempts to demonise civilian rule and the democratic process at large. If the Panama affair is only about regime change then it will hardly serve any real justice. At least there is a growing realisation that accountability must be meted out for all those whose names are included in the Panama Papers.

Analysts see a possible division between Nawaz Sharif and the establishment on critical aspects of domestic and foreign policy, which has aggravated the ongoing political crisis in the country. According to some political analysts, these differences became irreducible when the government raised concerns about the lack of coordination between the establishment and the relevant government officials on matters regarding CPEC. This may not be the only factor for the current inner strains of state apparatus but it is an indicator of lack of confidence which has often had consequences for civilian governments.

Analysts are of the view that the Panama case, therefore, may not be only about legal proceedings against allegedly ill-gotten wealth but more about the exercise of power to prevail in a conflict. Divided civilian forces are vying for a larger political role in case the government succumbs to the Panama imbroglio.

There is no good omen for the nascent democracy of Pakistan as its sitting prime minster is under siege to an evolving popular perception that democracy is not the right kind of rule or governance for this country. The losers in all this are those citizens of this country whose political rights will be trampled if, Heavens forbid, this becomes another case for the infamous ‘Doctrine of necessity’.

The saga of corruption triggered by the Panama case has turned out to be an anti-democracy campaign rather than a judicial inquiry into an individual and his family. There seem to be deliberate attempts to discredit democracy and political institutions of public representation which signals at a deep division within the power structure of Pakistani state.

The protracted tug of war between Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan does not seem to strengthen democratic processes. It is more about jeopardising the very foundations of democracy in Pakistan. The political campaign of the PTI is restricted to an anti-Nawaz tirade which stops short of providing an alternate democratic choice for the wretched people of Pakistan. The PTI wants to see Nawaz Sharif out of power and for that end it is thought by some that the party would go far enough to seek the support of undemocratic forces. Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, is only interested in clinging to power at any cost – one that may even derail the democratic process.

The most ardent advocates of right-wing politics in Pakistan, the PTI and the PML-N, are striving to outdo each other by articulating a moralising discourse of politics. With an appeal to different social classes, both parties do not have a transformative political agenda to address the structural causes of poverty and underdevelopment in Pakistan. Driven by a traditional top-down economic growth model, the PML-N seeks the support of the conservative trading classes and business people who fear losing their businesses in an era of economic liberalisation. These business people and traders see religion as a potential force to assert their power to influence political and economic policy. The PTI, on the other hand, has formulated a short-term political strategy of anti-corruption discourse that moralises politics by emphasising behavioural change and cosmetic reformism as political alternative.

The PTI and the PPP could have come up with a strong political narrative to differentiate between a legal proceeding that takes its course in the court and a pro-democratic stance at the same time so as to resist the demonisation of democracy. Both mainstream political parties must realise that they will not be the beneficiaries of the politicisation of the Panama case and they have much to learn from the political history of Pakistan. The ongoing battle of powers needs to be understood in the larger context of our national political history rather than reducing it to a frivolous sloganeering of ‘Go Nawaz Go’.

There lies some serious political ambiguity at the core of the anti-Nawaz campaign that tends to obfuscate the legality of the matter to salvage those who disdain public accountability. One would have no problems in demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from public office but it must be decided through a legal process rather than through political means. If justice is not served in a court of law, there should be a well-concerted political movement for public accountability of the institutions mandated to dispense justice. Institutional accountability, and not individual discretions, is key to the creation of a robust democratic system that promotes the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and inclusive justice. Likewise, all institutions of the state must be governed by the principles of accountability, transparency and inclusiveness. There are larger political matters at stake when we fail to evolve a democratic political culture through institutional reforms and restructuring.

Our political history is the best guide to help revisit our hitherto political ad-hocism in favour of a long-term strategy of civic engagement, institutional reforms and restructuring, equitable resource allocation and de-mobilisation of a militaristic mindset. This is an uphill task but there are no short cuts to do away with the long accumulated political mess of 70 years. We must now show the needed political intrepidity to question the outmoded political gimmicks of oppression, regimentation and absolutism. Democracy, religio-cultural pluralism, tolerance and peace go hand in hand to build a prosperous and people-centric polity.

We have all the reasons to dislike or be suspicious of Nawaz Sharif for what he did with money but we cannot condone the threats to democracy. Nawaz Sharif and public officeholders of his ilk will ultimately be gone if we strive to build a robust democracy where there are no sacred cows and where there is no one above the law.

For the institutions to deliver to the people there must be a strong system of public accountability so that a common citizen finds reasons to defend them. This will, in turn, engender social legitimacy of political institutions and will help flourish democracy in the long run. This was what happened in Turkey in the recent past where citizens came out to defend their democratic institutions against a possible putsch. If we want to position ourselves as a modern democratic country in the comity of civilised nations we must learn quickly to build those institutions which will save us from the tyranny of our brand of Jacobins in the making. It will also help build a political system with the ability of self-cleansing rather than having to take recourse to JITs and the likes.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: ahnihal@yahoo.com