Daily Times

A visibly annoyed Chadhry Nisar Ali Khan, known for hispress conferences for years, once again caused some ripples through his latest interaction with media on Saturday.

The former interior minister touched upon some fundamental issues such as politicians’ responses to accountability and their conduct as members or heads of political parties.

Why should the PML-N be run on the whims of Maryan Nawaz when several senior leaders are around, he asked.Also, if politicians call out others for corruption and misconduct, then they themselves should be open to scrutiny, he suggested. And the real, law-based scrutiny was possible only through the judiciary, Khan said. Judiciary is the ultimate arbiter, he said.

With this, the former interior minister brought home an extremely crucial point; democracies are not about familial dynasties but about divestment of powers within the party. So a flat refusal to what Nawaz Sharif plans for Maryam Nawaz. Only a few days ago Nawaz had told party people that his daughter will lead all decisions on the ticket-award process for the 2018 elections.

Khan also literally blew holes in the Nawaz-Maryam narrative on accountability; every now and then, both of them have argued that ‘voters’ provide for the best accountability of politicians.

This way, they both have turned the concept of rule of law and accountability on its head.

With this skewed argument, both seem to mislead the participants of their rallies as well as spectators who watch their public gatherings on TV screens. If accepted, then both father and daughter are essentially declaring judiciary and Parliament irrelevant in a functional democracy.

This would also imply that peoples’ vote should trump judiciary and other mechanisms of accountability in western democracies as well, where politicians don’t challenge and question the conduct of judges as a norm because, while the vote is the first step towards parliamentary public representation, the Parliament itself and the judiciary as well as institutions such as National Accountability Bureau are the next critical – and unavoidable – steps to build on the vote itself.

Let’s consider one example; in 2010 Republicans won majorities in both houses of Pennsylvania’s legislature,and went on to redraw district maps to benefit themselves. On January 22nd this year, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court held that the state’s congressional map ‘clearly, plainly and palpably’ violates the state constitution, and gave legislators until February 9th to redraw it. The judges warned that if lawmakers could not come up with a map that the (Democratic) governor approved, the court would draw its own.

Should the Republicans now be crying foul of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court? No, they haven’t. And that is precisely the yardstick that Pakistanis should apply to the hue and cry Sharifs have raised against the Supreme Court.

In a culture reeking with conformism, expedience and bigotry, where most people tend to cluster around their bosses without the slightest sign of disagreement, Nisar Ali Khan stands out as one who seems to have taken a position, unlike many others.

Similar conditions prevail in the Pakistan Peoples’ Party too; despite serious reservations and ideological differences with Asif Ali Zardari, they all vowed blind allegiance to him. Now, most of them have lined behind Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

Isn’t it an insult to the dignity and integrity of senior leaders, who instead of being entrusted with top positions, are there only to serve the old and new scions of Sharif and Bhutto dynasties?

Will people like QamarZamanKaira, AitzazAhsan, SherryRehman,AhsanIqbal, KhurramDastigir, Khalid MohsinRanjha inter alia, always be on the second benches to cheer and defend their supreme leaders instead of leading their parties from the front? Why can’t the supreme leaders have the grace of guiding from behind the scenes? Democracy is about inclusion.

The writer is Editor, Strategic Affairs

Published in Daily Times, February 11^th 2018.