Daily Times

Criticising Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif has become a hobby for commentators and political insiders alike. Mostly it is focused around his perceived autocratic style of leadership and preference of working through the bureaucracy and a coterie of advisors while ignoring parliament and his own party. His leadership skills and oratory certainly leave something to be desired, which partly explains why Pakistan’s youth and other disillusioned voters are attracted to Imran Khan’s aggressive political rhetoric and wild promises. Even today the PM is being criticised for delivering a bland closing speech on the last day of a historic joint session of parliament on Friday, historic in that the session saw unprecedented unity among political parties that aligned themselves with the government in the interests of the democratic system and the supremacy of the Constitution. Arguably this saved the country from the effects of a military intervention, which is what Imran and Tahirul Qadri openly hinted at before the joint session started. The military’s hurt at the implication that it might have supported the protests in some way was touching, but the perception was certainly founded in facts and Pakistani history. Why else would Imran and Tahirul Qadri accept a facilitator’s role for the COAS? With political forces united behind the PM, military intervention would lead to irretrievable chaos and could threaten the unity of the federation. Democracy is not a panacea for all our ills by itself but as we have seen, it is a way of avoiding conflict.

Because of his style it is easy to criticise the PM, and though his critics have a point, they should remember that former PM Yusuf Raza Gillani regularly attended parliament, but the PPP’s record on governance was reflected in its election thrashing. They forget that during the first few months of this government’s tenure, it formulated policy to deal with long term structural problems rather than just responding to crises. Pakistan was slowly regaining the confidence of investors and international partners. The perception of parliament as a private club partly stems from previous failures of governance. Despite the criticism, the PM is no stranger to politics and bland or not, he did something that Imran Khan has failed to do, i.e. present a credible case against the protests and what they stand for rather than rely on preconceived notions and contradictory rhetoric to inflame sentiments. It was a level headed account of the way the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) have presented themselves, their actions and broken promises. It did not present the protests as a doomsday scenario. The PM believes that with 11 of 12 political parties behind him, the possibility of a military intervention has been averted at least for now and that he will address parliament again in the future. In the meantime he seems content to let the protestors stew in their own juice.

Contrast this to Imran Khan’s ‘end-of-times’ speeches and it appears he is aware that his political career rather than the country is teetering on the brink of oblivion, though he appears willing to try and push the country towards it if his demands are not met. At this moment it is impossible to speculate about what he hopes to achieve since it is clear the PM is not going to resign. Does he hope to create an unsustainable situation that eventually implodes? Is he still waiting for a military intervention? His negotiating team presents proposals that he accepts in the day and refutes in speeches at night and his party is beginning to fall apart. Former PTI President Javed Hashmi yesterday said he believes the PTI still has a future as a political force — though it is daily becoming dimmer — and that Imran Khan should abandon trying to become PM by the “back door” since the “umpire” has not raised the finger. Outlining Imran’s hypocrisy was the substance of the PM’s argument. Presenting his case to parliament kept the focus there. Parliament now needs to do more than stand behind the PM. It needs to present solutions to the impasse and make the PM’s case to the people. It owes them that. *