Should popularity lead to disobeying the law?

ISLAMABAD:

Five years after PML-N supremo and former premier Nawaz Sharif was disqualified, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, being another ex-chief executive of the country, met the same fate.

After being disqualified on July 28, 2017, Nawaz in August that year decided to go back to Lahore via Grand Trunk Road, saying he was bringing his case before the public as his disqualification was tantamount to rejecting the wishes of around 200 million people of Pakistan.

Fast forward to October 21 2022, Imran was disqualified by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana reference.

He too is busy mobilising the people for a second long march towards Islamabad – probably via Grand Trunk Road among other routes – as he, along with his party’s leaders, believes a leader should not face political death through a legal decision as he has the support of 220 million people of the country.

The claim of having massive popularity is not new just like the ban on contesting elections over legal or technical grounds.

Nawaz and Imran both believe that only those who voted them into power should remove them instead of the opponents filing petitions and references to knock the other side out of the political arena.

Yet, when the PML-N and PTI leaderships were asked if disqualification was an insult to voters and if popularity among the people permitted disobeying the law, their answers were as different as their political ideologies.

“The law has to prevail. You cannot break the law, no matter who you are; no matter how many votes you have,” PML-N senior leader and former premier Shahid Khaqan Abbasi told The Express Tribune.

“The vote, where it gives one sanctity and authority, also places great responsibility on a person,” the PML-N stalwart added.

On Nawaz’s 2017 statement that only those who voted politicians into power should have the right to remove them, Abbasi said one could express their opinions, saying it was an expression of personal views.

Commenting on disqualifications, Abbasi said it was the responsibility of the judiciary that everyone was treated fairly and equally under the law.

“Compare the Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan cases objectively and the reality of our judicial system becomes obvious,” he added.

Surprising as it may seem, Abbasi had said even before the ECP had disqualified Imran in the Toshakhana reference that he was not in favour of any politician’s disqualification as politics should be contested within constituencies.

Commenting on disqualifications and on the comparisons being drawn, PTI leader and former information minister Fawad Chaudhry questioned: “How can this rule apply to corruption?”

The PTI leader argued that the public reaction was different in the disqualification of both the leaders.

Referring to Imran's popularity and victory in the recent by-elections, Fawad said the PML-N leaders could not even have dinner at public places because the people knew how they had “looted” the country and then changed laws to avoid accountability after coming into power in April this year.

Lashing out at the ECP over its verdict, Fawad said the people were fully aware that its judgment was an attempt to bring the PTI chief on a par with Nawaz.

He added that the incumbent prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and his son were also facing corruption cases worth billions of rupees, but the rulers’ entire focus was on knocking out a “popular” leader who had “countrywide support”.

The PTI leader maintained that no comparison could be made between Nawaz and Imran.

“The people will only accept the decisions based on merit,” he added.

Political experts believe that legally excluding someone from the race undermines the political and democratic process.

Even JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman was reported to have said the process of disqualifications should end now and politicians should be competing in the political arena against each other.

On politicians taking their cases to the public and mobilising them for rallies, the political commentators questioned if an individual or a group should have the right to disobey the law when their mind, conscience, faith or leader tells them that a decision or a law is unjust.

“I think the rule of law is the very basis on which democratic system stands,” Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) President Ahmed Bilal Mehboob said. “Public approval is a must for anyone to hold an elected public office but only if the person continues to conform to the law,” he added.

“If he violates a law, he must face the consequences no matter how popular one is. In fact popular leadership should demonstrate exemplary conformance to law,” the PILDAT president noted.