Nawaz Sharif’s assumption of prime ministerial office last Wednesday marks a historic moment in Pakistan’s troubled journey to representative democracy. Defying the odds – he was earlier twice dismissed from office – he was able to show a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly in his third attempt to rule Pakistan.
The extraordinary, and unprecedented, irony in the situation was that the military coup-maker, General Pervez Musharraf, who had ousted, imprisoned and later exiled him over a decade earlier was languishing in house-prison only miles away, hoping to find reprieve in a reciprocal exile.
The happy occasion materialized out of a sense of doom and gloom, even disbelief, that prevailed in the months preceding it. Few believed that elections would be held, with conspiracy theorists spinning out scenarios of long-term interim governments based on judicial-military interventions. Fewer still reckoned that Pakistan would have a national government that was not crippled by corrupt and grubby coalition partners. Indeed, there was a pleasant surprise when the dreaded PTI tsunami threatening “revolution” fizzled out to become a benevolent tailwind for the PMLN’s reform agenda. The electorate, it seems, would prefer to repair Pakistan rather than risk recasting it.
In the self-congratulatory advisories in the National Assembly last Wednesday, however, no one had the grace to recall the extraordinary political “sacrifice” made by the PPP in ushering in a new constitutional era. Benazir Bhutto cobbled the Charter of Democracy with Nawaz Sharif in 2006 in London and paved the way for his return to Pakistan from exile. It was she who persuaded him not to boycott the 2008 elections and have faith in democracy. It was she who gave her life pledging the fight against Taliban terrorism. It was her daughter Aseefa who broke with protocol by welcoming Nawaz Sharif to the Presidency with a bouquet. And, most important of all, it was her husband Asif Zardari who voluntarily shed the powers of the Presidency in favour of the prime minister, who decreed that Nawaz Sharif may win office for a third and even fourth time if he had the support of the people, who assembled a string of constitutional amendments to empower an independent judiciary, media, election commission and neutral caretaker governments to oversee the transition to democracy. If Mr Zardari had chosen to play a spoiler’s role, as his predecessors, including the Sharifs, had done so many times, there would have been military rule instead of representative democracy in Pakistan today. Where do we go from here?
Nawaz Sharif’s parliament speech was not the rhetorical thunder of a vanquishing gladiator. It was a sober reflection of the hard realities facing Pakistan in which “everyone” has to tighten belts, work together and shoulder responsibility. Policy statements were in short supply, suggesting debate-in-process. This is a sign of maturity too, given the contentious and seemingly intractable nature of some issues, like civil-military relations, foreign policy and radical economic reform. The prime minister’s raw vision, rather than concrete plans, for “transforming” Pakistan, was amplified by reference to a bullet train from Karachi to Khyber, a motorway from Gwadar to China and a new economic hub and “free port” a la Dubai or Singapore in Gwadar.
But it was Mahmud Khan Achakzai’s speech that made the greatest sense of all. He argued that if General Musharraf was to be tried for treason then all those who had aided or abetted him for nearly a decade should also be hauled up. In a way he was mocking the selective memory and actions of the media, judiciary and political parties whose discriminatory approach to the issue has been self-serving. In effect, he was advocating a Truth and Reconciliation approach: the civilians should admit and censure their servility to the military in the past and the military and its intelligence agencies should vow to take orders from the civilians and stay clear of political meddling and destabilizing conspiracies. Most significantly, he stressed the supremacy of parliament to which all institutions of the state – military, media and judiciary – should be accountable. This was an obvious reference to the new judiciary that has strayed far beyond its constitutional ambit and has become perpetually unaccountable even to parliament.
After the uncertainty and anxiety of the last year or so in which two prime ministers were sidelined following tensions amongst the judiciary, government and military, and widespread unease over the electoral process, there is a palpable sense of relief in the smooth transfer of power. But this will evaporate soon enough as the media mills and have-nots grind out their grievances and complaints over selection of ministers, advisors and envoys, and tough budgetary provisions. Terrorism and drones will simmer. The opposition will start baying for blood. The judiciary will not get off its high horse in a hurry. And the military will eye opportunities to recover lost strategic ground. The grim look on Nawaz Sharif’s face says there won’t be a honeymoon at all. – See more at: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20130607&page=1#sthash.VxQeVjw7.dpuf