Daily Times

The martyr leaves a legacy and then returns on a higher pedestal. This is true for many heroic fighters who have done acts of bravery and survived. They then need to be garlanded and awarded and compensated. However, political martyrs are a different story. To save a bigger portfolio, a smaller portfolio is made a sacrificial lamb, and the lamb is then fattened to no end to make it worthy of this noble act. The recent reluctant removal of the Information Minister Pervez Rashid is a classic example of this gesture of “greatness”. In a highly controversial national security leak which has become a muted battle between the government and the armed forces, Pervez Rashid is removed on some ambiguous basis. The basis, confusedly, may be that he has to step down till the inquiry is completed or it may be that he failed to stop the report from being published, which according to Chaudhry Nisar was totally fabricated. Whatever the case maybe, he was asked to step down, he disappeared for a few days only to emerge in the Senate to receive a hero’s welcome.

The confusion persists. If Pervez Rashid has been removed on letting the information leak of a top brass security meeting, which in any case was later declared as being untrue, is he a culprit or a hero? Was this hero’s welcome signifying that he was innocent and the culprits were in a higher position than him? Was this reception confirming the ongoing political sentiment that Pervez Rashid is the price to lull the security breach storm? Chairman Senate Raza Rabbani praised the senator for discharging his responsibilities as a minister in an excellent way. If at all as the media indicated, he observed, any probe was to be held against Pervaiz Rashid, it would be in the fitness of things and a manifestation of the fact that all were equal before the law and the Senate should do the needful. He welcomed Pervaiz Rashid in the House and said that the “entire Senate stood by him — he was not alone”. Several senators, including PPP’s Farhatullah Babar and Sirajul Haq of Jamaat-e-Islami, went to the senator, shook hands with him and stayed with him for some minutes. How can a National Security breach lapse be responded to with such a response? The confusion compounds.

For clarity, they say, look into the context and the tradition. Politics in Pakistan is a game of thrones where democracy is more about the biggest throne, followed by the mid thrones and then the mini thrones. On paper, there is the Prime Minister who has a cabinet, which has a process, which has a decision-making modus operandi. But in practice, there is the Prime Minister and then there is his decision. What could be more telling than the recent judgement of the Supreme judge? The Prime Minister had taken many decisions on imposing taxes and other financial matters on his own whim and requirement. The judge had to explain something that is so natural of a democratic norm but so alien to the autocratic mindsets of our democratic rulers. Justice Saqib Nisar explained “All discretionary spending without prior approval of the cabinet is contrary to law,” a judgment authored by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar read. Explaining that the federal government is a collective entity described as the “cabinet” comprising of the prime minister and federal ministers, the judgement added that “neither a secretary, nor a minister or the prime minister is the federal government, thus the exercise, or purported exercise, of a statutory power exercisable by the federal government by any of them, especially, in relation to fiscal matters, is constitutionally invalid and a nullity in the eyes of the law.”

Hiring, promoting, firing, restoring is not done on any procedural basis but personal allegiance to the highest man in power. Therefore, why Pervez Rashid has been shown the door and why another controversial commission has been formed to discover the leaker behind the leaks is still a matter of opinion. The poor old man Justice Amir Raza, who is an ex-judge may perhaps be the best candidate to head this commission but since his appointment is not based on a process he is perceived as being a government loyalist, and that has made this commission even more farcical.

History of the government to deal with major incidents and scandals to the satisfaction of all stakeholders is not very comforting. The Model Town Commission was previously formed under another ex-judge, Justice Baqar Najfi. Under pressure from the media and opposition Rana Sanaullah, the Punjab law minister, and Dr Tauqir Shah, the Principle Secretary to the Chief Minister, were removed from their ministries till the inquiry was held. Justice Najfi report got leaked in the media. The report held the Punjab law minister, the Principle Secretary, and the chief minister responsible for the model town incident. The report was aborted, and till date, nobody knows why and where it has disappeared. Another commission was formed, whose composition was strongly objected by all parties. As expected the commission exonerated the three high profile people laying the blame on those who were just obeying orders. Rana Sana Ullah was restored with all the honours. Dr Tauqir was rewarded by being appointed as ambassador to World Trade Organization. To honour him for his “services,” he superceded Grade 22 officers in the trade division despite being Grade 20 and having zero knowledge of the complications of trade laws and its applications.

Similar incidences can also be found in Rana Mashhood’s removal and restoration of the video showing his corruption. As they say that once any leader has been to jail, and that might be a five-star jail, he enters the hall of political greatness and becomes almost invincible and unimpeachable. Similarly, any minister when removed under his own government is looked upon as a martyr who must be appreciated and compensated heftily to encourage his continued loyalty and “inspire” others to make these holy sacrifices. This culture of being more loyal than the king and more loyal to the king than to the country is what has made institutions and governance a mockery. Those in power are perceived as king makers and those under them seek their power to emulate them in getting up and ahead. Unless this model of success is not substituted with merit, rules and accountability, success will just be a matter of being in the “Who is with whom” list.

The writer is a columnist and analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com