The News on Sunday (TNS): Daggers are drawn. We’re in the midst of another political crisis. How do you interpret the current logjam. Is Imran Khan accusing Nawaz Sharif of corruption to win a legitimate power game or the establishment  too fatigued with Nawaz Sharif?

Dr Mohammed Waseem (MW): There are two issues here: First is corruption. Second is the potential danger of derailment of democracy. On one side the opposition led by Imran Khan is constantly talking about corruption. He has taken the plea that corruption of the prime minister is a wrong lesson given to the people of the country. He believes that unless the PM is proven guilty of corruption, and leaves his office, the lesson will not be conveyed to the nation.

Then, again, there are various aspects of corruption. One is the political use of corruption. Since 1948, when Ayub Khuhro was dismissed on charges of corruption, till today, corruption has been used as a kind of a bogey. Sure, corruption is also a reality. It is a way of life. People have considered Nawaz Sharif along with most of his predecessors corrupt. It is plausible that the Sharifs multiplied their fortunes by fair and unfair means. Most politicians have piled up their wealth in similar ways. Based on this, the public believes that corrupt politicians must be dealt with.

Which brings us to those behind the agenda of correcting corruption. Who are they? Presently it is Imran Khan. But there are charges of corruption against him too. Ideally the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) should have dealt with the charges levelled by Imran Khan against Nawaz Sharif. But, the NAB is essentially geared to go only after the opposition. Under Musharraf it was used as an instrument to go after politicians that opposed him. Nawaz Sharif had initiated the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance in 1997 to nab the opposition of that time. Since such institutions do not work effectively under an incumbent government to detect its own wrongdoings, there is often recourse to the Supreme Court. That brings judiciary in clash with legislature.

In the midst of all this is the civil and military conflict. It’s obvious that the military administration is tired of Nawaz Sharif. For them it is not simply a case of corruption. It is a case of civil-military relations. It is a case of survival of democratic institutions. It is a case against the political class.

TNS: Would you explain this further please?

MW: Interestingly the contradiction in the civil-military relations draws on another contradiction which is between the middle class and the political class. The point is that the three institutions of state - army’s officer cadre, bureaucracy and judiciary - are drawn from the middle class. The middle class ethos condemns corruption. The middle class people have hated the guts of the political class for the last 70 years. They have a very institutional outlook. They are a salaried class and their tax is cut at source. They go by the book, handle affairs according to the file, and possess a high level of morality. Middle class is the custodian of morality and war against corruption. They have a justification to uphold a moral cause.

It is this very middle class that has never been happy with democracy - which has made it the standing constituency of the military rule. If you talk to a sensible, educated, conscientious middle class person, he or she will say "I’m a democrat. I love democracy." BUT, he or she holds many grievances against democracy. He opposes the system of patronage, out of turn appointments. His or her thinking is reflected through bureaucracy and judiciary -- the establishment - which is the true ruling class of Pakistan, not the tribals and feudals as is generally understood. I think the tribals and feudals exercise power and authority only in their locality. The ultimate political act is about who gets what. It is the bureaucracy that allocates funds and army grabs quite a lot of them, and together they run the system. And, it’s the judiciary that in most cases gives judgments in favour of the establishment against the politicians.

After the 2:3 verdict of the Supreme Court on the Panama case, one cannot say if judiciary is totally in the pocket of the establishment. Sill, history shows that judiciary obliges the establishment - Musharraf was allowed to go abroad, Raymond Davis was allowed to leave the country… So we can safely say that judiciary is bound by the establishment ethos.

I feel there is a potential clash of institutions. Judiciary must not rough ride a course of action that leads to it. It must be conscious of its potential role in destabilising the country. Political stability is the greatest national cause. And political instability in Pakistan is rooted in civil-military tension. It is obvious that if Nawaz Sharif is dislodged, there will be instability in Pakistan. The Panama case is a cul-de-sac, in my opinion.

TNS: How could the stakeholders have avoided such a situation? Who is responsible for this impasse?

MW: Obviously Nawaz Sharif. If he had distinguished between legal and illegal means, he would not have suffered as he did. But beyond that, the structure of power is such that it is not cognizant of a role for Nawaz anymore.

TNS: The Supreme Court verdict on the Panama case is expected soon. Guilty or not guilty, what are the possible scenarios for Nawaz Sharif?

MW: There are two scenarios: One he continues as PM. Two he is nabbed. If he continues as PM, of which the possibility is thin in my opinion, then there’ll be no big change. He will be chastened down, weakened, but will win the 2018 elections.

If the entire Sharif family is disqualified, a proxy from within the party will be appointed. Once that’s done, I fear, only instability will follow. People will start disserting the party and probably the establishment will succeed. In between there may be a caretaker or national government. Caretaker government will hold the next elections. National government may last for two or more years backed by the army.

By now it is well known that the whole idea is to dislodge Nawaz Sharif before the 2018 elections and weaken the PML-N, and a proxy candidate (Imran Khan) of the establishment is set in. The establishment is not shy of owning him. Nawaz Sharif was establishment’s proxy in 1990. Now they are fed up with him. They will be fed up with Imran Khan too, in fact much earlier than they were with Nawaz Sharif, because Imran does not have an agenda. The way ISPR is sending messages, it appears it’ll be a non-coup coup.

The saga of Nawaz Sharif’s corruption is likely to continue, whatever may be the verdict of the Supreme Court in the ongoing case of corruption against Nawaz Sharif. Corruption cases will be pursued against him in future too. If Imran Khan comes into power next, he will not allow Nawaz Sharif any relief.

Read also: "People’s court is the ultimate court" 

TNS: It is being said that the politicians are being held accountable for the first time in the history of Pakistan? Would you agree? We do have a history of the constitution and democracy being ambushed by accountability. What do you think of this form of accountability?

MW: This is a media trial by default. The court should have never allowed public comments to be aired from the vicinity of the Supreme Court. A dais has been placed outside the court and everyday both the parties come out to argue their case.  What is then the difference between a court trial and a media trial? This points to a kind of a plan - to discredit Nawaz Sharif before the final verdict. The articulate public has already decided that Nawaz is corrupt and that he must go.

TNS: How will the current events pan out in future, and affect the institution of democracy and political processes?

MW: For the last 10 years, the media, particularly the electronic media, has destroyed the political class. It has rendered it untrustworthy, corrupt, hostile, divided. Who is gaining from it?

The issue is who will help the public sort out their issues. Democracy is about representation of people. Politicians are brokers between the remote, post-colonial state and the vernacular speaking masses. The establishment is so powerful that it can destroy the politicians, and bring in other weaker brokers.

TNS: During debates and discussions on politics in general and the Panama case in specific, we see debasement of public discourse. Politicians are called thieves, dacoits and liars. Has the media changed Pakistan’s character by providing mindless content to score rating points? Have we lost our polite cultural etiquettes?

MW: Sure. Imran Khan is accused of spoiling the nicety of dialogue by being a street boy. The standard of communication has drastically gone down mainly because non-elite have become actors. You see, there can be disagreement after developing consensus. But here there is no consensus on the system. The country is in the grip of a class that is not democracy sensitive. The most educated people of Pakistan are least sensitive about democracy.