His ministers too had started behaving in the same manner. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan was masquerading as the crown prince and had become as inaccessible to the National Assembly and its members as was his boss. Important portfolio holders had turned their ministries into personal fiefdoms ignoring the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. Close family members, led by brother Shahbaz Sharif, were behaving like princelings, accountable to none. Favourite civil servants and media persons were lording over their respective territories granted by his Grace. In such a situation turf wars were bound to occur and they did at the cost of governance.
One can disagree with the way Imran responded to the PM’s offer of setting up a judicial commission comprising three supreme court judges to probe the allegation of massive poll rigging in the May 2013 elections but no one can take away from him the credit of forcing the government — not prepared to open even four constituencies for audit --to unwrap the entire bundle. And had it not been for Imran’s intense campaign against the defects and deficiencies in the electoral system, the NA Speaker would not have formed a 33-member committee under the chairmanship of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar to come up within 90 days with concrete proposals for electoral reforms.
Here one should not also ignore the highly responsible role played during the entire episode by the PPP (the real parliamentary opposition party), the ANP and the MQM. The three had all the political reasons to further isolate the PTI but they maintained a neutral position all through keeping enough political pressure on the ruling PML-N to let the PTI exercise its democratic right to protest by launching a long march and staging a sit-in without, of course, siding with the latter in its unconstitutional demands. Also, the Jamaat-e-Islami, which is a junior coalition partner of the PTI in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial government, went out of its way to keep the two — the PML-N and the PTI — from coming to blows even before the march reached Islamabad.
In the 18 years that it took him to reach where he did on August 16, 2014 — the day before he went into what looked like a political tailspin — Imran Khan had matured into one of Pakistan’s formidable political assets, a leader with an uncanny ability to connect with the masses in a flash, exuding boundless charisma and displaying unquestionable integrity. Pakistan’s politics would be a lot poorer if he is allowed to disappear from the political arena just because he and his party had chosen to resign their assembly seats to pacify the charged PTI youth who seem to have refused to be mollified by the civil disobedience decision after having failed to get Nawaz to resign.
And since even resignations had failed to get this emotionally worked up youth to go back home without having achieved the goal promised by its leadership, Imran appears have been forced to decide to enter the Red Zone so as to be able to claim that he had forced the government to capitulate at least on one point. All through August 18 and a good part of August 19 Imran was seen doing his desperate best on the one hand to convince his worked up workers to remain calm while entering the Red Zone and, on the other, sending indirect signals from his podium to the government not to stop him forcibly from entering the Red Zone. He had even warned that if force was used the Army would take over.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 20th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
.@Xman: How wrong could you be. Democratic countries and even according to the Pakistani constitution, a PEACEFUL protest or march is the inherent basic human right of all the citizens. Above all it is also the right of the citizens to call for resignation of the leadership which is not performing as they promised the populace, they are suppose to be the servants of the people and not the other way around. In my view Mr.Ziauddin is elaborating on the principles of democracy in practice and cautioning against violence. In democracy people and their representatives has the right to ask or even demand their heads of the States whether Presidents or Prime Ministers to resign if they have genuine grievances. Case in point, there are certain Senators and Congressmen who want to impeach President Obama and say is openly, I don't see or hear any court in the US stopping them from what they are saying. On the other hand in Pakistan, the Superior Courts don't have the admirable track record ( ZABhutto case), it seems that some of their recent decisions are open for criticism. We all want including the author for peaceful resolution of this political crises in Islamabad.The recent statement of US State Department bellicose their ininterference in the internal affairs of Pakistan, I don't think they would stand for any electoral fraud in their country, not that it does not happen but when and if it is caught, is remedied with in days and not months or years and does not result into street protests.
@sterry: Dear Sterry,, I fully agree with Anon. Western countries caused most of the problems in the counties you mentioned, and there is a very good chance that Pakistan and Afghanistan would be in much better shape if the main protagonist, namely the US, had stayed at home over the last 14 years or so, instead of creating its usual self-interested mischief. Additionally, if the previous Pakistan leaders had carried out half a job IK would not have to be straightening out the mess.
@sterry: What are you talking about? Iraq was invaded by a foreign country... as was Libya.... Syria is fighting a civil war with foreign backed militants not a crisis between two political parties!
And Egypt, well they tried to stand up to the military junta... and then the military junta fought back and won!
None of these seems to have anything to do with a political party marching civilians into the capital to protest the govt...
These seem to be ridiculous comparisons!
@Bristleback: What principles does Imran Khan stand for? Rule of the mob and jungle rule? No thanks please. We have already seen what such behavior caused in Libya, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. By all means hold Nawaz Sharif accountable and vote him out after five years but Imran behavior has only told me he is not fit to lead a nation. And believe it or not, I supported him in the last election! He has surrounded himself by sycophants and politicians of dubious character which is why Imran Khan's words carry no weight either. The columnist here fails to see the big picture of stability, growth and development of a nascent democracy.
Never going to vote for IK ever again.
@Fahad: Given that PMLN has been around for so long as is so deeply entrenched in the system, the only way anyone is going to take them on and have a chance is going to be on the streets... no courts or police is ever going to dare to go against the Sharif's to allow a level playing field for the "democratic way" to unfold.
The columnist failed to mention the second force that is shaking the capital, Mr. TUQ and his followers. Their (IK &TUQ) unnatural integration and hand shaking is visible now... As far IK is concerned, why didn’t he fight a czar in a democratic way and strengthen the democratic system. This is a power struggle for Punjab, rest of country is completely disconnected. He failed us all.
You have focused on the bright side of this picture, which is fine, since every story has two sides. It is correct that the situation could have been prevented had Nawaz Sharif not been so aloof and 'czarist'. Also agree that other parties played a responsible role. I am just sad about two things: first, Imran may not henceforth be able to apply pressure for much needed reforms after this incident. Last year I was optimistic that he will be a force for legilative and proecdural reform, but some of that shine having rubbed off he may not be as effective any more. And the second thing that I am sad about is that the Army is back center stage in the political arena. So no reform in the civil-military imbalance (the root problem of Pakistan) is possible for the rest of Nawaz Sharif's tenure.
An anarchist inciting violence against state institutions praised by senior journalists, what an irony.
In a countries of billions, misguidede thousands will derail the system, then intend to use the same system to come into power. If you loses elections, accept it, rather than saying that we do not accept the results unless we are in power. He is fast becoming irrelevant and spent force, working to bring the military in power again.
So inciting a mob, representing only a minute fraction of total Pakistani population, in an attempt to paralyse government functions is a democratic right? Last time I checked that was equal to breaking the law. Just think what would the author do, if 15 people gathered around his house for a siege, only because somebody somewhere throughout that the author was not "behaving" in a professional manner.
Finally an article in status quo English media for Imran and the principles he stands for. Thank you for that.
It really is amusing the way leaders take on a role somewhere between princeling and dictator once they are elected. Almost the day after election they forget their promises, live like royalty, ignore the voters until the next election, and then it starts all over again. It appears to be worse amongst leaders of relatively unimportant countries, although I am not aware of any shining examples of leadership around the globe.