In a case that Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan had filed in the Supreme Court 16 years ago but which was taken up only recently, an interesting development was revealed. Asad Durrani, a former head of the ISI, stated that upon the direction of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, and with the knowledge and concurrence of General Aslam Beg, the army chief, he had disbursed large sums of money to heads of various political parties to prevent a Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) victory in the elections of 1990. The court instructed the Federal Investigation Agency to look into the matter and prosecute the providers and recipients of these funds. Several of them are now dead. Mian Nawaz Sharif is among the notable still living. He is said to have been given Rs 3.2 million. His response to this allegation deserves to be noted.
It may be assumed that if any money was given to Mr Sharif it was in a bag of bank notes and not in the form of a cheque. No documents were signed to confirm the transaction. There would have been nothing novel if it did take place. The ISI has been spending money to make and break political parties and coalitions. Government agencies have been funding non-governmental institutions all along. The federal ministry of information and the provincial departments of public relations finance the print and electronic media to induce them to publish stories favourable to government.
When confronted with this allegation, Mr Sharif laughed and said it was ludicrous. Being a billionaire, a sum of Rs 3.2 million would not have been even like a bucket of water from the ocean. As far as other recipients of funds are concerned, albeit it was wrong of Asad Durrani to attempt to offer them money, it is equally clear that it was wrong of them to accept it. The Supreme Court’s disapproval of Asad Durrani’s action arises from the fact that the money he was disbursing to politicians was to come from the public exchequer.
The court has asked FIA to recover the money that the various politicians had received in 1990. Such of them who are still alive may deny that they received any. Those who admit to having taken some may already have used it and may no longer be in a position to return it. What is the FIA to do in these cases? The option of confiscating their assets would be uncertain.
One may ask also if our political parties are registered with the relevant government agencies as corporate bodies and if as a result their office bearers today are responsible for the actions of their predecessors 50 years ago. Legally they may be, but politically they cannot be since a whole lot of water has flown under the bridge since then.
The PPP was to be the target of Asad Durrani’s manipulations 22 years ago. Being the ruling party at present, it would be pleased to carry out the court’s order but the investigation and the contemplated punitive action will take many months to complete. The party may not remain in power that long. The next government is likely to include persons who have been accused of taking the money in question. They may not be interested in carrying out this project, which may then join the long list of cases in which the Supreme Court’s directives have failed to be implemented.
Going beyond the courts and looking at the ground realities of practical politics, we will find that a politician will want to attain high office in the ongoing system of governance or at least to have the ear of those who already have it. If he is not the leader of the majority party in the assembly, he may have to make deals with other members and groups to engineer a coalition to gain power. The process will include bargaining. Potential allies will want compensation for their support. They will want ministerial positions, development funds, or perquisites such as roads, schools, and clinics in their constituencies so that they have something to show for themselves when they go home.
Governments seduce politicians and they in turn do the same with their constituents. They will promise to bring to the people the good things if life that they know they will have neither the will nor the capacity to deliver. This tendency on their part may however be abating. Voters have of late become politically more perceptive and mature. They are now more likely to hold politicians to account concerning the promises they had made during their election campaigns and to withdraw support if they had subsequently betrayed their trust. The electronic media have played a facilitative role in this development. The people who have had no formal schooling and cannot read newspapers can now watch news shows and hear commentaries on television. Several TV channels go out if their way to cultivate political sophistication among their viewers.
The term ‘seduce’ carries the implication that a course of action which is not quite right is being contemplated. That is often the case. There may however be situations in which a man is being asked to make sacrifices for a noble cause which left to himself he would not do. The preachers are telling him that God will shower His blessings upon him if he follows their advice. In cases such as this seduction works the same way as persuasion does. It may then be said that the moral status of seduction depends upon the ends that are sought to be achieved. It may not be an exaggeration to say that the inclination to seduce others for the attainment of one’s own ends is a part of human nature.
The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at [email protected]