The recent bye-elections were marred by senseless squabbles between the PML-N and PPP, especially in Lahore. Mr Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N leader, says an attempt was made to “assassinate” him. “It is a miracle that I am alive”, he claims, “the bullet whizzed an inch past my ear”. Not to be outdone, Mr Faisal Salah Hayat, the Punjab chief minister’s chief PPP advisor, has regaled newsmen with tales of how he braved a rain of bullets on election day. Both have lodged cases of “attempted murder” against their opponents. Allegations of rigging also abound. The PML-N is accused of using bogus ID cards. The PPP is said to have stuffed ballot boxes. What are the facts?
There was no “assassination” attempt on Mr Sharif. A burst of Kalashnikov fire by activists of the Muslim Students Federation (once allied to Mr Sharif but now with Punjab chief minister Manzoor Wattoo) left one roof-top bystander dead, which would suggest that the gunnmen were not aiming at Mr Sharif’s shiny pate closer to the ground. Nor did Mr Hayat show a shred of courage on the day of voting. Both leaders were involved in scuffles and both beat hasty retreats when their opponents threatened to get really nasty.
The allegations of electoral foul-play are more credible. There are eye-witness accounts of how a couple of PPP candidates tried to “capture” some polling stations in order to stuff ballot-boxes. Fortunately, they chickened out and fled from the scene after being challenged by the police.
This is disgraceful. It proves that when it comes to a pinch the ruling PPP-PML(J) alliance is no different from the PML-N when it was in power. It is just as well therefore that Mr Sharif’s opposition party thrashed the ruling alliance at the polls in Lahore.
The bye-elections, however, have left a bad taste in the mouth. This is most unfortunate. Here was an excellent opportunity for politicians to demonstrate their political maturity and prove that they are capable of running the system competently without any “outside” or “neutral” assistance. But they have squandered it once again.
Why did the army not conduct the bye-elections? It takes two hands to clap. One reason for the army’s reluctance to get involved may have to do with an insidious campaign launched by Mr Sharif & Co to question the army’s “neutrality” in recent times. According to published statements of PML-N stalwarts like Syeda Abida Hussain and Sheikh Rashid, a conspiracy was hatched by General Abdul Waheed, Ms Benazir Bhutto and the United States government to oust Mr Sharif from power and bar him from returning to office by “rigging” the general elections held on October 6th. Thus when Mr Shahbaz Sharif, the opposition leader in the Punjab assembly, demanded that the bye-elections should be conducted by the army, his pleas fell on deaf ears at GHQ. Another factor may have been the government’s desperate efforts to win the Lahore seats by hook or by crook in order to “prove” that Mr Sharif had lost ground in his home-base. In the event, both sides have behaved questionably. Where do we go from here?
Ms Bhutto is now planning to force loan-defaulters and crooks involved in the co-ops scam to cough up or else. Even if the prime minister’s new measures succeed only in recovering a slice of the Rs 80 billion owed, the funds will help the government launch urgently required development-oriented projects. This is to be welcomed. But Mr Sharif & Co, who owe billions, are bound to cry “victimisation” all over again. Temperatures may therefore rise to uncomfortable levels.
Mr Sharif’s strategy is transparent. He believes he cannot afford to give Ms Bhutto any respite to consolidate herself in power. If she does, the argument goes, she may be able to provide “good” government to the people of Pakistan, thereby eroding Mr Sharif’s support base in the long run. In the short-run, of course, Mr Sharif thinks he risks losing many PML-N parliamentarians to the carrots proffered by the government. A state of running confrontation, therefore, is to be preferred in the interests of Mr Sharif’s Muslim League over a period of relative calm and stability in the interests of the country.
Mr Sharif, however, may find that such aggressive tactics, far from yielding any dividends, could easily rebound on him. Apart from provoking the government to pay him back in kind (in which case he will be the big loser), there is very little public sympathy for Mr Sharif’s “destabilisation” campaign. We are all fed up with the puerile games that politicians play. Even the business lobby, which supported Mr Sharif in the last election, now wants a break from political fire-fighting so that it can concentrate on making money in a stable environment. Ordinary people, especially, would like the government to make good on its promises.
If the opposition’s dog-in-the-manger policy persists, a backlash from the public may lead to Mr Sharif’s isolation. Therefore, he should be counselled, in the interests of stability and democracy, to get off his high horse and start talking to Ms Bhutto.