close
Friday March 29, 2024

Fate of popular leaders

By Mazhar Abbas
July 26, 2017

Pakistan has not produced many popular leaders and those produced faced unpleasant fate like execution, assassination or exile by dictators. Popularity has often been measures with the kind of support they get in the elections.

It is also true that hardly any leader in Pakistan led the nation by setting good examples and left the government with ‘clean record’.

The president or prime minister, in any democratic country could be removed before completion of their tenure, through impeachment, vote of no-confidence or if he resigns on moral grounds or as a result of any political movement.

In Pakistani politics, we have not been able to properly define morality, but there is hardly any example where civilian rulers or dictators resigned on moral grounds.

In the absence of strong institutions, civilian rulers have often been sent home for political reasons, but on charges of corruption. Four governments had been sacked since 1985, on charges of corruption whereas actual reasons were their differences with the establishment. It happened in the case of Mohammad Khan Junejo, with Benazir Bhutto for two times, and Nawaz Sharif once, while Sharif's second government was overthrown in a most controversial manner through a military coup in 1999. Politically, Pakistan is yet to recover from Bhutto's hanging.

What we are witnessing today, is somewhat different from the past practices. It is more transparent for the first time: the third-time elected prime minister is under serious investigation and that too in his own government at the highest judicial forum.

Despite serious question-mark over the process and findings of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) from the PML-N, the final verdict from the Supreme Court has to be accepted and implemented.

The PML-N’s pledge to accept the decision would help in setting good precedence. Only across-the-board accountability could counter the perception that only politicians are made accountable, as this process has always remained controversial in Pakistan.

Popular leaders and parties also lose their popularity because they distance themselves from the people after coming to power. Their colonial style of ruling masses cut themselves from the common men and as a result they start feeling insecure and in the process committed mistakes after mistakes.

Some leaders faced criticism for being the product of the establishment. This perception may be true, but in a country where 35 years, out of 70 years, we had experienced direct martial law and remaining years witnessed fragile democracy. Only one government by far been able to complete its full five-year term.

Ms Fatima Jinnah was not the product of the establishment nor was Benazir Bhutto; both were women and both were popular leaders. Ms Jinnah should have been the ultimate choice, if nothing else, being the sister of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and the one who played a role in Pakistan Movement. She was discarded because she had challenged the mighty power of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. She was defeated in ‘rigged’ elections, as declared by the then opposition. Her defeat caused adverse effect on the then East Pakistan, from where she had won.

The dilemma is our failure to produce a single leader, who remained equally popular in all provinces. This also led to the crisis of 1970 elections, when two popular leaders were only popular in their strong bases i.e. Mujeeb in East Pakistan, and Bhutto in West Pakistan. Had the Awami League and the PPP won seats in the respective provinces as well, things would have been different. Secondly, if the PPP had not opposed Mujeeb's right to rule, the establishment would have left with no other choice but to hand over power to Mujeeb.

Bhutto himself was a popular leader, perhaps the most charismatic leader the country had produced after Quaid-e-Azam. His popularity eroded to large extent when elections were held in 1977. Had he not been removed through a martial law, Bhutto perhaps would not have ruled the minds of the people as he did for 40 years, due to his execution and removal through martial law.

Benazir was not the product of any establishment, but an accidental leader who led the party after her father's execution and challenged the martial law of Zia with bravery. Her governments were ousted twice on the charges of corruption, but each time she bounced back because she was removed, as was exposed in the later years, through conspiracies.

When BB was all set to win another elections and become third time prime minister, she was assassinated weeks before elections in 2007. It was such a huge loss that the party could not recover from.

It is true that, like some other leaders, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was the product of the establishment and remained part and parcel of promoting political narrative, which suits them. But, with the passage of time, he consolidated his position and started challenging his masters in the past in a bid to exert his authority.

He and his government had faced serious charges of corruption, but the toughest years they spent were under Musharraf. Since Musharraf had ousted his government in a coup and also used his National Accountability Bureau for the purpose of strengthening his government, NAB was only used for causing a split in the PML-N.

Sharif also disappointed their popular base when he agreed to quit politics for 10 years and remained in exile in Saudi Arab. With the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), all probes against Sharifs and the PML-N also stopped.

Pakistan is still in search of a true democratic system in which leaders and institutions were made accountable. Selective accountability since the days of Ayub Khan failed because the process lacked the true spirit of accountability and was often used for political and bureaucratic victimisation. Ayub and Yahya Khan sacked hundreds of bureaucrats for alleged corruption, but they never faced any charges in the court. Bhutto's government sacked 1,300 government employees with the same result.

Popular leaders have the capacity to make unpopular decisions, which they think in the best interest of the nation. Lust for power and popular perception also allowed such leaders to make mistakes, which often led to their downfall as a result of another popular movement with another popular leader.

Whether our leaders and parties would learn any lesson from the present situation? More realistic, practical and strict laws are needed for qualification and disqualification of the candidates, as far as their financial trail is concerned.

  The writer is senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang.

Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEO