Daily Times

While braving the orchestrated storms and putsches and despite all the shortcomings and imperfections infused by the six long dark decades, the second elected hamstrung parliament made to the finishing line of its constitutionally stipulated five-year term. In the given circumstances it is nothing less than a feat!

In order to fully celebrate the decade of democracy we are yet but one crucial step away. That is the holding of free and fair general elections within the specified time to transfer the power to the next elected parliament smoothly.

A sense of accomplishment is unavoidable but should not be replaced by complacency. The situation also calls for vigilance as the anti-democratic forces are still powerful who have not given up political engineering to create hurdles in the way of free and fair elections.

Introspection and analysing the strength and weakness are also crucial to learn from one’s mistakes. Both the terms of the elected governments, their achievements and faltering need to be recounted for drawing inferences for the way forward.

The first crucial lesson one can draw form the last decade is that the democratic forces succeeded when they formed even a minimum consensus on fundamental issues or principles, particularly not to derail the democratic system or lend their shoulder to the third force. When dithered on the consensus for the sake of sectional vested interests, they later paid a huge price.

The consensus in the form of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) provided a bedrock for the past decade to democracy while the pitfalls were the by product of its violation. The opening of Track II channels with Musharraf by Benazir Bhutto, ultimately leading to the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), for which PPP later paid the price in terms of BB’s life, dampened the spirit of the CoD.

Benazir’s assassination and the presence of Musharraf in the presidency who was equipped with the power of 58 2(b) forced PPP and PML-N into strategic essentialism for political survival.

The most striking and historical achievement of the political consensus, notwithstanding the then MQM and Q league political blackmailing, among PPP, ANP, JUI and PML-N was the passing of 18th Constitutional Amendment. The amendment, to some extent, restored the 1973 Constitution to its original form and provided the much demanded, particularly by the smaller provinces, autonomy by awarding financial resources through the reformulated National Finance Commission.

The post-Panama resistance by Nawaz set in motion by his decision to travel via GT Road; and subsequent political mobilisation not only ensured his and PML-N’s survival but also successfully coined and communicated an alternate narrative in favour of civilian supremacy

According to some reports, the PML-N opposed the amendment to sections of Articles 62 and 63 that later proved an Achilles Heel for Nawaz Sharif in the Panama Case.

A sharp spike in terrorism, subsequent military operations, PPP’s lack of decisive majority in the parliament and judicial activism forced the PPP government to recoil instead of reclaiming space from the security establishment in policy spheres. The PML-N’s hawks like Ch Nisar and Shehbaz further weakened the reconciliation and consequently the elected government.

On the one hand, the Taliban were posing a direct threat to the lives of PPP and ANP leaders and workers, restricting their mobility and political mobilisation. On the other, the then Supreme Court crippled the authority of the elected government through suo motto cases and by taking executive measures like determining sugar prices, opening parliamentarians’ degree case, NRO and later drumming up the Memogate saga.

Save a direct threat from the terrorist, the PML-N government, more or less, tasted the same medicine during its term.

Armed with a comfortable majority in the parliament, the PML-N government began its innings aggressively. The former military dictator General Musharraf was charged with abrogating the Constitution and a special court/tribunal was set up for his trial under Article 6 of the Constitution.

On the foreign policy front Nawaz initiated bold steps. The first signal was attending the oath taking ceremony of Narendra Modi, the newly elected prime minister of India and later engaging with the then Afghan president Hamid Karzai in Istanbul.

This was a major initiative by an elected government and in case of its implementation, would have had huge potential for the country’s democratic future, political and economic stability as well as regional peace.

But the stakes were too high for the military. Nawaz’s success would have meant accountability of the security establishment and wresting control of the policy and economic levers by the elected civilians. Ultimately, the establishment, short of a direct martial law, used every instrument in its toolkit, to cripple the elected dispensation.

It was the political consensus in the parliament, save for PTI that pushed back the first onslaught in the form of 2014 dharna against the elected government with PPP playing a crucial role in protecting the democratic system.

Ironically, in the post dharna phase, Nawaz Sharif could not protect the parliamentary consensus and succumbed to the pressure of Nisar-Shehbaz duo that torpedoed reconciliation with the PPP. Had Nawaz had maintained the strengthening of the consensus and given due weightage to the parliament, similar to exhibiting the post Panama courage, he could have reduced the influence of the military in politics.

Nisar was covertly shown the door by Nawaz only after the damage was already done. He should have been guided to pass through it immediately after the dharna.

Measures taken by Nawaz’s government like the insertion of military courts into the Constitution; the apex committees in the provinces; dominant role of the National Security Committee; and making a scapegoat of some of his cabinet members and party loyalists were meant to appease the establishment. But instead of producing a placatory effect, the PML-N’s surrender further emboldened the establishment. His government ended up compromising civilian supremacy and will be remembered for the capitulation.

The PML-N government delivered on the development side, controlled energy crisis, improved economic indicators and confronted the establishment head on for the first time in the history of the country. The post-Panama resistance by Nawaz set in motion by his decision to travel via GT Road and subsequent political mobilisation not only ensured his and PML-N’s government survival but also successfully coined and communicated an alternate narrative in favour of civilian supremacy.

Besides neutralising the PTI through his narrative, Nawaz almost truncated, if not eliminated, the establishment’s other spurious tools. Although, the PPP and ANP made overtures as potential alternatives, in their heart both the security establishment and the political parties could not trust each other entirely.

In the current scenario, the PTI has no other option but to rely on establishment’s support for electoral gain. The party has lost its appeal as well as credentials due to poor performance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and by appearing to be a B-team of the establishment. It is now a club of fans and opportunist turncoats devoid of ideologically motivated political workers.

To reverse the damage done to democratic development, political parties, particularly the PML-N and the PPP, along with other smaller parties, need a consensus on a one-point agenda — of timely, free and fair elections. This will ensure the continuation of a democratic transition to consolidate the hard gains of the last strenuous decade.

The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat

Published in Daily Times, June 4^th 2018.