Why grand national dialogue?

Former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif's call for a Grand National Dialogue has come at a time when politics is too polarised between pro-Nawaz and anti-Nawaz camps. Any dialogue in such a situation, when elections are not far looks a bit difficult, but it’s still a welcome call, provided all political forces and cross section of society agree on common points.

The question which remains unresolved even after 70 years of independence is: who has the right to rule and also how to rule?

The Grand National Dialogue is important but more important is the admission of mistakes committed by the leaders. Why our politicians always look for something like Charter of Democracy, CoD or something like Grand National Dialogue, when ousted from power, either through unconstitutional way or through a judicial process, as in the present case of Sharif.

Perhaps, the best time for such a dialogue was in 2014 when the key opposition leader, Imran Khan, gave a call for dharna outside the Parliament and the PML-N government despite reservations allowed the rally. Sharif should have taken the initiative and invited Imran for a dialogue along with former president Asif Ali Zardari and others. Politics would have been different today.

Today, Sharif is leading a rally showing power ahead of elections, while Imran feels that he now has an upper hand in politics. Irrespective of the fact as how big a rally is and will be when it will reach Lahore, Sharif's legal position has weaken as he stand disqualified and can't even head his party the PML-N.

Therefore, Sharif's ouster from power for the third time without completing his term in office need to come forward with his agenda for Grand National Dialogue, from where it should start. Can we again begin from CoD or opt for a New Social Contract among all sections of society and civil and military establishment for the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament.

The way forward can be to make not only Parliament strong but also the rulers must give more time and importance to it. It is also time for governments to make local governments stronger as it is the only political nursery available.

It is true that since 1947, Pakistan had been unable to evolve a true democratic system due to which no civilian government or ruler was able to complete its term except two. First, the PPP government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from 1972 to 1977 (as Bhutto himself called for early elections) and the PPP government under Asif Ali Zardari from 2008 to 2013.

The unfortunate breakup in 1971 was also a result of political uncertainty of the first 24 years, during which the Bengali people had not been given their due political and democratic rights.

Today's Pakistan is different despite some unresolved basic questions. Despite the 1977 martial law and 1999 military coup, the Constitution of 1973, though in distorted form, is still well placed. The issue of provincial autonomy has also been resolved, though the provincial governments have failed to deliver accordingly and democracy not yet been derailed since 2008 and judiciary is not only more powerful than prior to 2007 but also to a large extent independent as well. Media is free with a question mark over about how responsible it is.

Pakistan has also been unable to find a leader of national stature after the death of the founder of the nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. The only leader who emerged after them with his charismatic and some vision was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Pakistani politics could not recover after his execution as those who came after him lacked both in vision and capacity to lead.

The decision to dissolve the first Constituent Assembly in 1948 and by not holding general elections, we put the country on an undemocratic path, which ultimately resulted in a political crisis and finally the first military takeover in 1958.

In the last 70 years, the Parliament remains the weakest link among the four pillars of the state. One of the reasons has been lack of constitutional governments in the country and even those who came had never been strong as well as good enough to assert themselves.

Despite all political handicaps and weakness the pre-77, politicians and politics were less corrupt and more on ideological lines. Record shows that corruption was inducted in politics by late Gen Ziaul Haq and his policies not only buried the ideological politics but also polluted it on the basis of non-party elections. Majority of the present breed of politicians were a product of 1985 non-party-based elections.

Therefore, corruption became the biggest issue in the 80s and 90s and even today. Unfortunately, the establishment played a key role in promoting corruption and corrupt politicians.

Late Muhammad Khan Junejo's government was not only less corrupt but on the contrary he practically launched an austerity drive. Yet he was not ousted because he sincerely tried to establish supremacy of the Parliament but due to an unhappy establishment. Unfortunately, the then Punjab CM Sharif sided with the establishment.

Thus, when we criticise the role of Sharif in the dismissal of Junejo's government as well as two PPP governments, it would be wrong if we ignored the real players responsible for bringing corrupt practices.

Had the Supreme Court taken up Mehran Bank or in other words the Asghar Khan case and not disposed it of in the manner it did a, more than one player of the politics of corruption would have been exposed and punished.

When two former prime ministers, Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, initiated a dialogue on CoD, both had been ousted from parliamentary politics by former military dictator Pervez Musharraf and the CoD was the only way to make a comeback. Situation is a bid difficult today for a 'Grand National Dialogue,' in view of a highly polarised political environment as politics revolve around pro and anti-Nawaz. What is the way forward!

The CoD provided the way forward and had the NRO not been used to bring down Musharraf's government and the charter been implemented in letter and spirit, Sharif would not have been in a position where he is today.

Grand National Dialogue should first be between the political forces as what kind of Pakistan they really want. Democracy cannot be restored in its true form if politicians practice dictatorship in their parties.

Democracy means dialogue and this is the beauty of the system that irrespective of differences, leaders from cross-section sit and discuss common points for possible agreement followed by its implementation.

Therefore, whether Sharif return to mainstream politics or stands disqualified, the idea of Grand National Dialogue must be seriously looked into for the future politics among all the key players in politics as well as with the establishment.

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

Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEO