Daily Times

A prolonged street agitation and persistent political stalemate between the government and the opposition is an invitation to extra-constitutional intervention and may result in the derailment of the democratic system. If Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan do not reach a political compromise, as is evident from the latter’s rigid position, the only way out would be that the military establishment intervene and take charge in Islamabad. We have witnessed such military takeovers on four occasions in the past. Another possibility could be that the military leadership makes the two parties sit at a table and contract a deal. After all, the military establishment reportedly played some sort of role in persuading the government to lift the siege of Allama Tahirul Qadri in Lahore and allow the protesters to proceed to Islamabad.
In a turbulent, uncertain political situation caused by the shortsightedness of our political class, such a move by the military leadership will not only help restore political stability but also raise the army’s stature in the eyes of the public. Had our politicians been mature they would have kept the initiative in their own hands and not allowed the situation to come to this pass. At present, the agitation forces are not willing to accept anything short of PM Nawaz Sharif’s resignation, which he is not in a mood to tender come what may.
Nawaz Sharif made the mistake of taking very long in meeting Imran Khan’s demand for a high-level judicial investigation of the election results of a few constituencies. He and his colleagues underestimated Imran’s strength. This delay paved the way for the convergence of two separate movements led by Tahirul Qadri and Imran Khan, compounding the situation. Similarly, excessive use of force to scare Tahirul Qadri’s men that led to 14 killings at the hands of the Lahore police also pushed the Allama closer to Imran Khan.
PM Nawaz Sharif may be justified in not acceding to Imran Khan’s demand for resignation as he enjoys a thumping majority in parliament but seeing the level of mobilisation on the streets against his government and the risks involved in the stalemate he ought to consider stepping down in the larger interest of the country. At the very least, Nawaz Sharif may offer the opposition mid-term elections in a year’s time. A one-time amendment in the constitution may guarantee the fulfillment of this pledge. This could be a win-win situation. Imran Khan will get the new elections as per his demand while Nawaz Sharif will get some breathing space and time to prepare for the polls.
If Nawaz Sharif voluntarily stands down and chooses mid-term elections, he may gain in political stature and would be remembered as a statesman who sacrificed his constitutional and legal government for the sake of constitutional continuity and a democratic polity. Suppose new elections are held a few months from now, the signs are that Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N is likely to win a majority of seats in Punjab. Imran Khan’s popularity among the educated middle class has declined in recent months, mostly owing to his agitation mode and his party’s not-so-exciting performance as the ruling party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
If Imran Khan is sincere in his claims of establishing a genuine democracy, he should use the immense pressure he has brought upon the government to negotiate constitutional guarantees for a fair and transparent electoral system for the future instead of dislodging the Nawaz Sharif government in an unconstitutional manner. Imran Khan ought to be flexible in dealing with the government howsoever he may dislike it because his rigidity would hurt the whole system. He could have asked for the local body elections in the next four to six months instead of general elections.
Imran Khan has fallen prey to his propaganda of massive fraud in the 2013 elections. It is believable that some sort of bogus voting and doctoring of results took place in some urban constituencies of Punjab but this does not make the whole exercise fake and redundant. There were many other factors responsible for the defeat of his party, including the weaknesses of his party’s organisation and its predominantly urban middle class character with little roots in rural areas. His party has little appeal for the trading and business classes who make up a sizeable, dynamic chunk of Punjab’s electorate.
Imran Khan could have used the four years period until the 2018 elections to strengthen and expand his popular base, organise his party and extend its roots to the provinces of interior Sindh and Balochistan where it is conspicuous by its absence. He could have capitalised on Nawaz Sharif’s incumbency factor and his elitist policies that are resented by low-income groups. However, Imran Khan has chosen the short cut of removing Nawaz Sharif from power through an agitation and, in the process, he has joined forces with controversial, firebrand maverick religio-political leader Dr Tahirul Qadri who has no stake in the present system and dim political prospects.
Many people in this country wish to have a political system where governments and rulers come and go as per prescribed rules through elections after a fixed tenure. After all, in so many other countries, India and Iran being our immediate neighbours, constitutionalism works smoothly. There is a large section of the population, mostly the educated class and business community, who desire to see a peaceful and civilised transfer of power like it takes place in the countries of Europe and the US. There is longing for the continuity of the political system and rule of law, something that has eluded this country since its birth.
In 1971, the country broke up as the result of a political stalemate between the political parties and the use of military force to settle political disputes following the 1970 elections. Since the enforcement of the 1973 constitution, we have already seen the unceremonious ouster of an elected prime minister on six different occasions: 1977, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1999.
How much more time do we need to learn from our chequered past? The interests of this nation and the 200 million people in it lie not in violent upheavals or unconstitutional power transfers but a steady democratic evolution. If our civil and military leaders are sincere with the larger public interest, they should strive to realise this goal.

The writer is a freelance columnist