In May 2013 after his electoral victory, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said something that for years, no Pakistani leader had dared to express. During an interview to renowned Indian journalist and anchor Burkha Dutt for NDTV, he expressed as “civilian supremacy over the military is a must.” He went a step further and said, “The prime minister is the boss, not the army chief. This is what the constitution says. We all have to live within the four walls of the constitution.” This last week, 5 members bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan found Nawaz Sharif guilty on a technicality unrelated to the Panama Papers and disqualified him for holding any public office. He also seized to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan anymore. In the nation’s 70-year history, not one prime minister has served out a full five-year term. They have been thrown out by military coups and dismissed by judges. The ouster does seem to be another chapter in Pakistan’s seemingly endless flirtation with state failure and chaos. Nawaz Sharif, who twice served as prime minister in the 1990s before being ousted first by the President and later through a military coup, was elected for the third time in 2013 with a sizeable margin. He has struggled to respond to Pakistan’s economic woes. But his undoing was set in motion in April 2016, by publication of the Panama papers. It is important to note that a sitting elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted not because of ‘Panama’ or ‘corruption’ but because he failed to be ‘sadiq’ and ‘ameen’ or truthful and trustworthy. These vaguely worded criteria were brought into law by another military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq, under the contentious clauses of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution of Pakistan. A godsend for military authoritarianism, these arbitrary provisions are meant to benchmark morally upright leaders and disqualify them if needed. Nawaz Sharif, the court said, was untruthful about not drawing a salary of 10,000 dirhams a month (approx Rs. 285000) as chairman of a Dubai-based company (Capital FZE) owned by his son, until nearly a year after assuming office. Sharif’s lawyers argued that this involved an Emirati work permit procured during the years Musharraf forced him into exile. Investigators insist Nawaz Sharif did not declare this additional income; the former Prime minister argued that he never taken, borrowed or used the money. Now contrast these relatively ignorable charges with former dictator General Perveiz Musharraf, who stands accused of high treason as well as having a role in the murder of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The military weighed in, and Musharraf was allowed to leave the country with the permission of the courts. This glaring double standard is what undermines our democracy. “It is a populist judgment, which has opened the doors for the disqualification of politicians on flimsy grounds, highly flawed in procedure and substance.” warns Asma Jahangir, one of country’s most respected lawyers. Pakistan was created as a Nation-State to guarantee the supremacy of the people, rule of law where these apply equally to all citizens, active participation of the citizens in politics and civic life, protection of the human rights and so on. Upholding democracy and democratic norms, Quaid-i-Azam on many occasions supported active participation of the people in electing their representatives. According to Quaid-i-Azam “Democracy is in the blood of the Muslims, who look upon complete equality of mankind, and believe in fraternity, equality, and liberty”. Throughout Quaid’s career as a politician and as a legislator, his dedication to the rule of law and constitutionalism was unswerving. In the short span of seven decades, we have made a mockery of these values by continuously military interventions, one way or other. Recent tenure of the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has had a lot to cheer about – the economic turn-around, the CPEC, Law and order situation for instance. Without attempting to belittle the government’s successes on the economic front, one should see the larger picture and there are reasons to become dismal on whacking democracy. International monetary institutions have applauded the government’s economic programs and key figures in it, has so far generally been free from the taint of corruption that seems to have become one of the privileges of office in Pakistan. The PML-N government under the former PM was very keen to project a soft image for Pakistan, and there is no doubt that this country gets bad press abroad, often because the good here does not make news, while terrorism, honour killings and gang rapes regularly hit world headlines. With this latest episode and unwarranted deterring of a democratic pace, it has become much clearer that the promise of supremacy of civilian governance, and to liberate spring in the air will not endure, but will lead only to a dreary autumn, with hopes being swept away, in clouds of dust, like the fallen leaves on the streets. A fundamental point as to who decides what is best for Pakistan? The military has for too long arrogated to itself this right, which belongs to the people and the electorate. Had there been no military interventions, from 1958 onwards, we too might have had the kind of democracy that falters in many key areas across the border but also delivers in many others. The recent ouster of Nawaz Sharif has been viewed by many national and international newspapers and media organizations as ‘weakening of the democratic processes’ and underlined that it ‘would have negative effects on Pakistan’s future and economy’. For years together we have functioned without the benefit of constitutional governance. In a protracted struggle between democracy and the military, both have suffered a loss of popular trust. Democracy is often confusing business, but it appears even more so in our circumstances because the structures that support it – the constitution, parliament, the judiciary – have been systematically weakened. Today a national consensus is needed, based on the precepts of our founding fathers and the experience of the past 70 years, on the direction in which we want to travel. We need to even overhaul the constitution if needed to empower the people of Pakistan and its federating units. Regrettably, provincial autonomy has fallen victim to political rhetoric even after the 18th constitutional amendment. How else can one explain the absence of a serious debate on the issue? In fact, even those shouting the loudest about provincial autonomy have failed to come up with a clause by clause analysis of the Basic Law and present a realistic scheme of division of power. Pakistan can move towards stability and consolidation if the constituent units are given a strong stake in its strength and vitality. This means not only economic development in backward provinces and regions but also a proper devolution of powers from the centre downwards. For the people at large, democracy essentially means a proper sense of participation at all levels of government, federal, provincial and local. There is neither freedom from want for millions living in urban slums and the less developed regions nor would freedom for the creative urges of the people to find expression that lend dynamism to the country. Do we want to be a democratic, disciplined, accommodating and legitimate country or do we want to turn ourselves into a society with a garrison mentality – unable to give people the freedom to exercise their choice freely and without restriction? This question needs to be asked today by as many of us as have not lost all confidence in the future of Pakistan as a vibrant and developed country. The writer is Ph.D Political Science, Civil Servant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at zafarkhansafdar@yahoo.com Published in Daily Times, August 16th 2017.