Daily Times

The answer to the above question obviously depends on what the Panama verdict will be. However, if the verdict is seen as highly critical of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and if the PTI milks it fully, the chances are that Pakistan’s economic growth, political stability and fragile democracy will be tested, arrested and wrecked. And the sad thing is that Pakistan’s eminent opinion-makers, riding the populist bandwagon, are egging the Supreme Court to “just do it”.

But first refer to the comment “Panama, the Supreme Court and the Future of Pakistan”, recently published by the Daily Times. As is wont in Pakistan, readers locked into positions based on their pre-existing notions of what they want from the Supreme Court. Some liked it. Others took umbrage at it, querying me if I was arguing for a) the military to rule for 100 years b) PML-N to rule for 100 years c) the courts to allow culprits to go scot-free. A relative asked me if I wanted Nawaz Sharif to live for another 100 years. I had to clarify that I was a writer, not a magician.

Just to be clear, the article pointed out that Pakistan needs to put an end to the continual alternation between very divergent governance mechanisms. It gave examples of the USA, Saudi Arabia and China, three very different governing mechanisms but all embedding long-term stakes of governing elites in their countries. It contended that Pakistan needs a long-term owner of the political process – this meant all existing or future political parties as a whole.

The article concluded that punishing Nawaz Sharif will not put an end to corruption. This comment drew the ire of some readers. To illustrate this point, consider Afghanistan. Thousands of articles have been published on Afghanistan since Karzai was catapulted to the presidential pedestal by the Americans. Many analysts have argued that the Karzai regime has been one of the most corrupt in Afghan history. Unfortunately, none has argued that if you chase out the incumbent regime and replace it with a carpet-bagger, the only way the latter can run a country like Afghanistan is by buying off venal competitors, trouble-makers and blackmailers. Karzai was duly provided with unlimited funds to accomplish this. The corruption that ensued was structural.

Consider the last six decades of Pakistan. If the “rule of the game” is that every ten years there must be a major intervention by the Establishment, the governing political elites will take this into account, change their behavior accordingly and pre-plan for this event. Punishing them, without changing the alternation of governance structures, will not dampen corruption. It will actually enhance it. The only way you can abate corruption is if you create long-term stakes through a governing mechanism that can self-improve over time by honing its processes, skills and reflexes. There is no shortcut.

Panama’s verdict will be announced soon. And almost every well-known columnist is egging the Supreme Court to punish Nawaz Sharif, as if the esteemed columnist were the prosecutor, witness and judge.  For instance the problem with Ayaz Amir, whose flexible erudition is as scintillating as it is inspiring, with Rauf Klasra, and with so many other opinion-influencers is that they a) assume Nawaz Sharif is guilty – an assumption which makes a mockery of the Supreme Court, b) fail to learn from Pakistan’s history, polity and current international scenario and c) in particular, do not understand fully the full-blown power of structure.

To understand structure, I propose we revisit Nawaz Sharif’s coming to power: General Zia needed civilians to legitimize his rule. How else? How did Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto come to power? General Ayub needed civilians to legitimize his rule. How else? In fact, if you look at all three Martial Law’s, you will find all initially claimed to lessen corruption but eventually were forced to co-opt and even nurture civilian sub-contractors. Of course General Ayub lost us East Pakistan and General Zia cost us our religious tolerance. But that is the price you pay for not appreciating the power of governance structures.

I suggest that the only way we can lessen corruption, gain political stability, provide economic growth to lift hundreds of millions of Pakistanis out of poverty, plan against the twin ticking bombs of population explosion and environmental damage, and prevent future food and water shortage, is by deciding once and for all that one governance mechanism is better than the other. And sticking to that. We need a long-term owner of the house. Renting a place implies no stakes.

The twin chimeras of Panama solving our problems overnight and of the third umpire settling post-Panama chaos – and then pharisaically rallying against the same umpire once the latter becomes captain of the team – must win a gold medal for our intellectuals for being steadfast in fickleness.

Dr. Aamir Khan was educated at Oxford, INSEAD, CEIBS and Cranfield. He has worked as a Pakistani diplomat.

He writes for the Daily Times.