The duo is back. Both have a similar agenda. They both, however, have chosen to strike at different levels. Imran Khan wants the Panama scandal to be probed, and the accused, especially the Sharif family, be convicted. Tahir-ul-Qadri wants the prime minister (PM) tried under treason charges for having links with India. Khan wants the prime minister’s removal, to begin with. Qadri does not just want PM’s removal, he also wants to have him slandered. It is not new to consider an incumbent prime minister a security threat for the country. Benazir Bhutto had been relegated to this realm at one point. Pervez Musharraf too would have been given the label had the Article 6 of the Constitution been allowed to be applied. Or perhaps the judiciary had been given a fair chance to grind their ax against the former president.
That Musharraf had been permitted to leave the country, and any negative provocation against the former army chief and the president was dismissed appears bizarre when the same treatment is denied to a democratically elected head of the state. Does the difference lie in the institution standing behind the political and the army leadership, respectively? Or does the difference lie in the malice that has eaten into the political milieu and not the military? Or is it only a perception that has played out too well to make one bad cop look good while the other just bad? We cannot deny that the army would defend Pakistan against its enemies on the borders. As it has been doing. The sacrifices given so far by the soldiers cannot be questioned. Musharraf’s decision to join the US against the al-Qaeda and Taliban after 9/11, and to storm the Red Mosque turned the boys we had nurtured in the backyard into militants, or what Hillary Clinton had termed as snakes. The snakes threw venom at their masters relentlessly.
Politicians have become saner since the last coup. The Charter of Democracy (CoD) that the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz created had made one difference: politicians now unite whenever they hear the boots coming. Other items in the CoD have been ignored. The masses are easy to con, perhaps. On Panama leaks, government is not in the mood to make a judicial commission. Instead, an accountability bill is being prepared to give overarching powers to investigation agencies. The Panama blame would be tried in this new mill. The tendency to protect one another against the army, and letting the malice of corruption survive would only take this country backward.
Politicians are voted into office not only to enjoy the perks or the grandeur of the power. The first responsibility of a politician is towards his constituents, which requires state institutions to be strengthened. It is only through the consolidation of public institutions that a government retains the right to govern. A politician in parliament speaks to his voter through laws that make the system more flexible, practical and accountable.
Lately, when the Sindh government demolished the offices of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) built on encroachments, a sudden clamour was heard from political parties to respect the mandate of the MQM. Some suggested going easy on the MQM, and giving them time to relocate. The MQM had been in absolute power in Karachi for the last 25 years. It may have brought the middle class to the assemblies, becoming a catalyst for change in the political milieu that had been ridden by the feudal class. But the fact that MQM turned its leadership drawn from the middle class into fascists and made them worse exploiters than the feudal lords cannot be ignored. Karachi has bled because of the MQM. It bled even when Musharraf was in power.
In his recent statement, Musharraf said that promoting the MQM was the political decision he needed to take to keep the wheel of statecraft moving. The question is if the army was to run the country using political wisdom, what was the fun of staging a coup and replacing the system? If the next was not better than the previous then what was the hullabaloo all about? If keeping the MQM in the political loop was important, if closing eyes to its militant activities necessary, and if keeping the MQM intact was essential in Sindh why did we need a new set-up? In another statement, Musharraf said he had nothing to do with the May 12, 2007 incident. Political wisdom is not exhibited when it comes to shielding dirty linen of others sharing a pie in corruption.
In the political wisdom of some sources, Tahir-ul-Qadri’s rejoinders or Imran Khan’s street presence is critical to keep the pressure on the Sharifs. Flowing from the same source is the political wisdom of spreading uncertainty among the people through media. Will there ever be the day when political wisdom would benefit the country, which would require some wise men thrown to dust?
The writer is a journalist. She can be reached at [email protected]