TNS – The News on Sunday

WP_Query Object ( [query] => Array ( [post_type] => post [orderby] => post_date [order] => DESC [post_status] => publish [cat] => 8 ) [query_vars] => Array ( [post_type] => post [orderby] => post_date [order] => DESC [post_status] => publish [cat] => 8 [error] => [m] => 0 [p] => 0 [post_parent] => [subpost] => [subpost_id] => [attachment] => [attachment_id] => 0 [name] => [static] => [pagename] => [page_id] => 0 [second] => [minute] => [hour] => [day] => 0 [monthnum] => 0 [year] => 0 [w] => 0 [category_name] => special-report [tag] => [tag_id] => [author_name] => [feed] => [tb] => [paged] => 0 [comments_popup] => [meta_key] => [meta_value] => [preview] => [s] => [sentence] => [fields] => [menu_order] => [category__in] => Array ( [0] => 8 ) [category__not_in] => Array ( ) [category__and] => Array ( ) [post__in] => Array ( ) [post__not_in] => Array ( ) [tag__in] => Array ( ) [tag__not_in] => Array ( ) [tag__and] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__in] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__and] => Array ( ) [post_parent__in] => Array ( ) [post_parent__not_in] => Array ( ) [posts_per_page] => 9 [ignore_sticky_posts] => [suppress_filters] => [cache_results] => 1 [update_post_term_cache] => 1 [update_post_meta_cache] => 1 [nopaging] => [comments_per_page] => 50 [no_found_rows] => ) [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [taxonomy] => category [terms] => Array ( [0] => 8 ) [include_children] => [field] => term_id [operator] => IN ) ) [relation] => AND ) [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( ) [relation] => ) [queried_object] => stdClass Object ( [term_id] => 8 [name] => Special Report [slug] => special-report [term_group] => 0 [term_taxonomy_id] => 8 [taxonomy] => category [description] => [parent] => 0 [count] => 1174 [cat_ID] => 8 [category_count] => 1174 [category_description] => [cat_name] => Special Report [category_nicename] => special-report [category_parent] => 0 ) [queried_object_id] => 8 [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS tns05_posts.ID FROM tns05_posts INNER JOIN tns05_term_relationships ON (tns05_posts.ID = tns05_term_relationships.object_id) WHERE 1=1 AND ( tns05_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (8) ) AND tns05_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (tns05_posts.post_status = 'publish') AND tns05_posts.post_date >= '2017-07-23' AND tns05_posts.post_date <= '2017-07-24' GROUP BY tns05_posts.ID ORDER BY tns05_posts.post_date DESC LIMIT 0, 9 [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69112 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:24:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:24:04 [post_content] => The News on Sunday (TNS): Daggers are drawn. We’re in the midst of another political crisis. How do you interpret the current logjam. Is Imran Khan accusing Nawaz Sharif of corruption to win a legitimate power game or the establishment  too fatigued with Nawaz Sharif? Dr Mohammed Waseem (MW): There are two issues here: First is corruption. Second is the potential danger of derailment of democracy. On one side the opposition led by Imran Khan is constantly talking about corruption. He has taken the plea that corruption of the prime minister is a wrong lesson given to the people of the country. He believes that unless the PM is proven guilty of corruption, and leaves his office, the lesson will not be conveyed to the nation. Then, again, there are various aspects of corruption. One is the political use of corruption. Since 1948, when Ayub Khuhro was dismissed on charges of corruption, till today, corruption has been used as a kind of a bogey. Sure, corruption is also a reality. It is a way of life. People have considered Nawaz Sharif along with most of his predecessors corrupt. It is plausible that the Sharifs multiplied their fortunes by fair and unfair means. Most politicians have piled up their wealth in similar ways. Based on this, the public believes that corrupt politicians must be dealt with. Which brings us to those behind the agenda of correcting corruption. Who are they? Presently it is Imran Khan. But there are charges of corruption against him too. Ideally the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) should have dealt with the charges levelled by Imran Khan against Nawaz Sharif. But, the NAB is essentially geared to go only after the opposition. Under Musharraf it was used as an instrument to go after politicians that opposed him. Nawaz Sharif had initiated the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance in 1997 to nab the opposition of that time. Since such institutions do not work effectively under an incumbent government to detect its own wrongdoings, there is often recourse to the Supreme Court. That brings judiciary in clash with legislature. In the midst of all this is the civil and military conflict. It’s obvious that the military administration is tired of Nawaz Sharif. For them it is not simply a case of corruption. It is a case of civil-military relations. It is a case of survival of democratic institutions. It is a case against the political class. TNS: Would you explain this further please? MW: Interestingly the contradiction in the civil-military relations draws on another contradiction which is between the middle class and the political class. The point is that the three institutions of state – army’s officer cadre, bureaucracy and judiciary – are drawn from the middle class. The middle class ethos condemns corruption. The middle class people have hated the guts of the political class for the last 70 years. They have a very institutional outlook. They are a salaried class and their tax is cut at source. They go by the book, handle affairs according to the file, and possess a high level of morality. Middle class is the custodian of morality and war against corruption. They have a justification to uphold a moral cause. [box type="shadow" align="alignright" class="red_lines" ]Political instability is rooted in civil-military tension. If Nawaz Sharif is dislodged, there will be instability in Pakistan. The Panama case is a cul-de-sac.[/box] It is this very middle class that has never been happy with democracy – which has made it the standing constituency of the military rule. If you talk to a sensible, educated, conscientious middle class person, he or she will say “I’m a democrat. I love democracy.” BUT, he or she holds many grievances against democracy. He opposes the system of patronage, out of turn appointments. His or her thinking is reflected through bureaucracy and judiciary — the establishment – which is the true ruling class of Pakistan, not the tribals and feudals as is generally understood. I think the tribals and feudals exercise power and authority only in their locality. The ultimate political act is about who gets what. It is the bureaucracy that allocates funds and army grabs quite a lot of them, and together they run the system. And, it’s the judiciary that in most cases gives judgments in favour of the establishment against the politicians. After the 2:3 verdict of the Supreme Court on the Panama case, one cannot say if judiciary is totally in the pocket of the establishment. Sill, history shows that judiciary obliges the establishment – Musharraf was allowed to go abroad, Raymond Davis was allowed to leave the country… So we can safely say that judiciary is bound by the establishment ethos. I feel there is a potential clash of institutions. Judiciary must not rough ride a course of action that leads to it. It must be conscious of its potential role in destabilising the country. Political stability is the greatest national cause. And political instability in Pakistan is rooted in civil-military tension. It is obvious that if Nawaz Sharif is dislodged, there will be instability in Pakistan. The Panama case is a cul-de-sac, in my opinion. TNS: How could the stakeholders have avoided such a situation? Who is responsible for this impasse? MW: Obviously Nawaz Sharif. If he had distinguished between legal and illegal means, he would not have suffered as he did. But beyond that, the structure of power is such that it is not cognizant of a role for Nawaz anymore. TNS: The Supreme Court verdict on the Panama case is expected soon. Guilty or not guilty, what are the possible scenarios for Nawaz Sharif? MW: There are two scenarios: One he continues as PM. Two he is nabbed. If he continues as PM, of which the possibility is thin in my opinion, then there’ll be no big change. He will be chastened down, weakened, but will win the 2018 elections. If the entire Sharif family is disqualified, a proxy from within the party will be appointed. Once that’s done, I fear, only instability will follow. People will start disserting the party and probably the establishment will succeed. In between there may be a caretaker or national government. Caretaker government will hold the next elections. National government may last for two or more years backed by the army. By now it is well known that the whole idea is to dislodge Nawaz Sharif before the 2018 elections and weaken the PML-N, and a proxy candidate (Imran Khan) of the establishment is set in. The establishment is not shy of owning him. Nawaz Sharif was establishment’s proxy in 1990. Now they are fed up with him. They will be fed up with Imran Khan too, in fact much earlier than they were with Nawaz Sharif, because Imran does not have an agenda. The way ISPR is sending messages, it appears it’ll be a non-coup coup. The saga of Nawaz Sharif’s corruption is likely to continue, whatever may be the verdict of the Supreme Court in the ongoing case of corruption against Nawaz Sharif. Corruption cases will be pursued against him in future too. If Imran Khan comes into power next, he will not allow Nawaz Sharif any relief. Read also: “People’s court is the ultimate court”  TNS: It is being said that the politicians are being held accountable for the first time in the history of Pakistan? Would you agree? We do have a history of the constitution and democracy being ambushed by accountability. What do you think of this form of accountability? MW: This is a media trial by default. The court should have never allowed public comments to be aired from the vicinity of the Supreme Court. A dais has been placed outside the court and everyday both the parties come out to argue their case.  What is then the difference between a court trial and a media trial? This points to a kind of a plan – to discredit Nawaz Sharif before the final verdict. The articulate public has already decided that Nawaz is corrupt and that he must go. TNS: How will the current events pan out in future, and affect the institution of democracy and political processes? MW: For the last 10 years, the media, particularly the electronic media, has destroyed the political class. It has rendered it untrustworthy, corrupt, hostile, divided. Who is gaining from it? The issue is who will help the public sort out their issues. Democracy is about representation of people. Politicians are brokers between the remote, post-colonial state and the vernacular speaking masses. The establishment is so powerful that it can destroy the politicians, and bring in other weaker brokers. TNS: During debates and discussions on politics in general and the Panama case in specific, we see debasement of public discourse. Politicians are called thieves, dacoits and liars. Has the media changed Pakistan’s character by providing mindless content to score rating points? Have we lost our polite cultural etiquettes? MW: Sure. Imran Khan is accused of spoiling the nicety of dialogue by being a street boy. The standard of communication has drastically gone down mainly because non-elite have become actors. You see, there can be disagreement after developing consensus. But here there is no consensus on the system. The country is in the grip of a class that is not democracy sensitive. The most educated people of Pakistan are least sensitive about democracy. [post_title] => “Here there is no consensus on democracy” [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => consensus-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/peoples-court-ultimate-court/ [post_modified] => 2017-07-23 10:56:16 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-23 05:56:16 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69112 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 1 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69101 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:23:37 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:23:37 [post_content] => What the Panama leaks case has demonstrated, above everything else, is the need for an accountability mechanism to take timely notice of corruption in high places and which can be applicable not only to politicians and bureaucrats but also to holders of exalted positions in the judiciary and defence services. This is not a new discovery of an essential facet of responsible governance; only the matter involving Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his clan has underlined the urgency of devising a comprehensive accountability law. Otherwise, corruption in the upper echelons of the state has been in public debate for more than a century — that is, if we treat the corruption of the Mughal and East India Company durbars as closed chapters and put colonial rule — one of the worst forms of institutionalised corruption — aside. Corruption in business and state services grew rapidly during the last two world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945). As a result, we find Indian leaders on the eve of partition worried about the impact on public life of the ill-gotten fortunes made by many during the war, with Jawaharlal Nehru thinking of a law to deal with the neo-rich and Liaquat Ali Khan proposing to tax them. The irony of history is that instead of eradicating corruption from business and services, the politicians themselves started yielding to the temptation of amassing unearned wealth. The Quaid-i-Azam gave a call to fight the biggest curses the subcontinent was suffering from — bribery, corruption, nepotism and favouritism — in his very first address to lawmakers on August 11, 1947. Successive governments, elected as well as those appointed by coup-makers, have made numerous laws and regulations that have failed to achieve the desired results because of structural flaws in these measures and their selective application. Soon after independence, the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 was enforced. It is essentially an anti-bribery law and has largely been used against state employees who have no protectors or allies in the higher layers of the administration. Political corruption has only marginally been touched by this law. [box type="shadow" align="alignright" class="red_lines" ]When we look back at the history of anti-corruption campaigns in the country we are struck by the fact that political parties have generally concentrated on laying snares for the other. This was amply visible during the 1980s and early 1990s.[/box] Two years later came the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act (PRODA) that was designed to punish holders of public and elective offices for corruption, jobbery, bribery, favouritism, nepotism, and embezzlement. The measure was selectively used against opposition elements to the extent that its repeal figured high on the agenda of the Constituent Assembly members who tried to clip Governor General Ghulam Muhammad’s powers in 1954. The Ayub regime promulgated the Elective Bodies (Disqualification) Ordinance in 1959 to punish holders of public office or members of any elective body for misconduct by disqualifying them for seven years. Ayub Khan’s main objective was to put political leaders out of action and many of them obliged him by opting for banishment from politics for seven years instead of facing trial. (On the expiry of the sentence many of them surprised Ayub Khan by returning to the political arena and organising a movement that led to his downfall.) Read also: “Here there is no consensus on democracy” Ziaul Haq revised the Ayub formula for getting rid of politicians who were not with him and had them disqualified by mixed civil-military tribunals. The politicians who supported his plan to postpone the solemnly promised election under the slogan of ‘accountability first’ were not only kept free to make personal fortunes but were also encouraged and helped to do so. As if the failure of selective use of flawed accountability measures devised during 1947- 1990 was not enough, the first Nawaz Sharif government set up special tribunals to haul up Benazir Bhutto for misconduct and only succeeded in being condemned by national and international observers for launching a witch-hunt. The strategy was changed in 1997 when an Ehtesab Act was adopted and a Chief Ehtesab Commissioner with wide powers appointed. The law was applicable to the judiciary and the armed forces as well as to holders of public offices and bureaucrats but it was not sincerely implemented. Finally, Gen. Musharraf came up in 1999 with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance for investigating complaints of corruption against holders of public office or any citizen. A usurper of power, however, could not possibly come with clean hands. His bona fides became suspect when his accountability chief, Gen Amjad, chose to quit his job instead of making exceptions in case of the favourite cows. The law also gained considerable notoriety because of the rather generous use of the plea bargain provision which the people saw as an escape route for the corrupt. The Panama case has underscored the possibility of NAB’s susceptibility to political power though the NAB strongly rejects all charges levelled against it. Now we have come to the point that a heavy-footed and easygoing administration, known for dragging its feet over all important legislative proposals, claims to have finalised a new accountability bill, which has almost completely been accepted by all parliamentary groups. And the Senate has lent its weight to the call for a comprehensive accountability law that does not recognise any holy cows. When we look back at the history of anti-corruption campaigns in the country we are struck by the fact that political parties have generally concentrated on laying snares for the other. This was amply visible during the 1980s and early 1990s when the main parties were proposing accountability periods that suited them. If one party wanted accountability to be done for the period since 1978, the other party wanted the period to begin in 1988. However, realising the pressure for a fair accountability regime both PPP and PML-N had accepted the need to bridge the gap between the draft bills they had submitted in the National Assembly. If the Assembly had not been dissolved in 1996, a satisfactory accountability measure might have materialised. That this did not happen is another reminder of what the state loses when the democratic process is disrupted. The problems in implementing accountability laws experienced so far include, besides selective application, difficulties in securing evidence of wrong doing that is available only with the government and it declines to share evidence. There was a case in which the Supreme Court was denied access to the record of parliamentary debates on a constitutional provision. The executive always has possibilities of manipulating or influencing investigations. Of course, some institutions possess information that even government departments do not have but the use of this information depends on the keepers’ own interest in any given matter. The new law must, therefore, ensure not only complete autonomy of the accountability commission but also its access to all the record and the data it needs to properly perform its job. Our lawmakers should realise that the fight against corruption in high places has been on the world’s agenda for many years. They may be able to learn something from the British accountability laws made over the last couple of decades and the debates going on in Europe on eliminating or curtailing the immunities political leaders enjoy while in office (such as the French presidents), and the efforts made in India to provide for judges’ accountability. While discussing accountability of elected representatives the fact of their being chosen by the people is generally ignored. It is necessary to consider how much weightage should be allowed to representatives whose corruption is discovered after they have been elected. Sometimes the people are blamed for choosing bad persons to represent them. Democracy will have better chances of flourishing in Pakistan if the wiser elites stopped sneering at people’s choice of their representatives or candidates for high public offices. One cannot do better on this point than recalling a Supreme Court observation in Malik Feroze Khan Noon vs the State: “The question whether a fool or a sage, a saint or Machiavelli should be chosen as Prime Minister of the country is the concern of the Parliament and the President and in that matter neither of them needs any judicially carved pronouncement or advice.” (Quoted in Hamid Khan’s, A History of Judiciary in Pakistan) [post_title] => Our uncertain democracy [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => uncertain-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-22 23:37:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-22 18:37:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69101 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69110 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:19:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:19:00 [post_content] =>

The News on Sunday: Why, in your opinion, the political situation has come to this pass for the PML-N? Could the situation be handled in a different way?

Suhail Warraich: The PML-N had adopted a laid-back approach on the issue of Panama leaks. They should have countered the Panama issue with their own narrative, with raising the awareness of the general public, as did Imran Khan, and with bringing up the kind of evidence that was required to prove their point. They didn’t do that. And this, I think, is their basic fault. Having said that, we should also understand that when someone, who happens to be affluent, is facing this kind of investigation, he finds himself in a fix over which piece of information to share with the courts and which information to retain. Because he knows that one wrong move would land him in trouble, opening up new set of problems. So, this can be one reason for the Prime Minister for being reluctant to share critical information with the courts. I can remember the times when Benazir Bhutto was facing the cases in courts. She would also think twice before disclosing a piece of information, especially the one which might lead to opening of new cases against her. TNS: In view of the political uncertainty at the moment, do you foresee divisions within the PML-N? Is the party leadership at one page on how to deal with the crisis? SW: I don’t think there’s possibility of a rift going on within the PML-N leadership at the moment. The party has been in power for quite some time now. It has so many experienced ministers, perhaps more than in any other party. So, I think it is reading too much into the problem at hand. But I think once, and if, the party’s leader, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is disqualified, then the party has no future. And until it happens, the party has no threat of disintegration from within. [box type="shadow" align="alignright" class="red_lines" ]PML-N’s voters will be disillusioned in case Nawaz Sharif is disqualified by the SC. I don’t think that the PML-N will have a future in that case. [/box] TNS: Given the possible scenarios that you’ve painted, does the PTI as a party, have a strong organisational structure to sweep the next elections and form government at the Centre? SW: With Nawaz Sharif not in the picture, it will be a very different situation. It will be a political wave in favour of Imran Khan and the PTI. But if Nawaz Sharif remains in his place, there will be not much left for the PTI in the political arena. If the case is referred to NAB it will be a win-win situation for Nawaz Sharif. But if he is disqualified, it will be a difficult situation for the PML-N as a forward bloc of the party maybe formed and differences will emerge within the party. Some members will leave the party as well. TNS: How do you see the impact of the Prime Minister’s possible disqualification on the voters of the PML-N? SW: PML-N’s voters will be disillusioned in case Nawaz Sharif is disqualified by the SC. I don’t think that the PML-N will have a future in that case. But if he is disqualified by the lower courts, he will have the right to appeal. The party’s voter is the middle class businessmen. He does not believe in participating in protests and rallies as do the voters of the PPP. A PML-N’s voter only steps out to vote for the PML-N. They don’t even have many supporters to run their election campaign as do the PPP’s. If a political rally is announced tomorrow, PML-N’s voters are not likely to respond to the call and come out on the roads as the voters of the PTI and PPP do. Read also: The curtain’s drawn TNS: Is it a correct perception of the PML-N that they are facing a media trial? SW: To some extent, yes; because it is not possible that the JIT is doing all this on its own. There may be some powers behind it. And media could be partly one of those powers. When the society is divided on an issue, the media has to take sides. In fact the media remains divided in this way all over the world — some part of it takes up the government’s stance while the rest is against the government. In fact, more than the media, our institutions remain divided. TNS: At this moment in time, how relevant is the notion that accountability should be across the board and not targeted against just one person, family, or party? SW: Definitely, it should be across the board. They have tracked down documents relating to Nawaz Shairf since 1972 and have acquired minute details of their businesses. So, this process of accountability should not end here. PPP has also undergone strict accountability in the past. We have the example of Benazir Bhutto who faced courts. Now we don’t know how Imran Khan’s accountability will be done. But in Pakistan, we have only held politicians accountable so far. No generals, judges, or journalists have been held accountable. The reason for this is that we, the middle class, only see politicians as scapegoats. I would stress that it should be across the board. For example, I should also be open to accountability as I sit here criticising others. There should be no holy cows when it comes to accountability. TNS: Is there still a way out for Nawaz Sharif or is it all over for him? SW: The only way out for him in my view is going to the people’s court. Nawaz Sharif should put his case before the people. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto went to his voters and told them he drinks alcohol and his people accepted that. So, the ultimate court is the people’s court. [post_title] => “People’s court is the ultimate court” [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => peoples-court-ultimate-court [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-23 10:59:38 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-23 05:59:38 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69110 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69114 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:17:08 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:17:08 [post_content] => The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s proceedings after the Panama Papers’ disclosure, naming the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s family in the long list of people owning offshore companies, has raised the already high political temperature of Pakistan. Two major opposition parties — Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Peoples’ Party —had been urging the prime minister to step down after the JIT findings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan became a political battlefield for the whole last week. Dozens of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf supporters would gather outside the SC, chanting slogans in favour of their leaders and parties, sometimes trying to confront each other. Inside, following the submission of Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT’s) 10-vloume report, the three-member bench of the apex court heard the Panama case on day-to-day basis. The JIT report declared that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family had failed in giving the money trail of its London properties as was alleged in the Panama papers last year. The PML-N presented the whole case as a ‘conspiracy’ against them. However, they did not name the conspirer publicly till last week. But it seemed they were indirectly pointing fingers at the military establishment for this alleged plot. On the one side, there were discussions and rumours within the ruling PML-N regarding the fate of the elected prime minister. On the other side, rival political groups sought his removal and called for new elections to benefit from the political crisis, apparently going against the ruling Sharif family. [box type="shadow" align="alignright" class="red_lines" ]The main opposition parties — the PTI and PPP — are at their best to get political mileage from the situation. Following the JIT findings, leaders of PPP were seen present in the court on hearings. [/box] “The prime minister and his family failed to prove their case before the court. They have been dodging the court for the past one year. Now they are attacking the JIT for making findings against them,” says Arslan Ahmed, a PTI activist, adding, “There is no conspiracy. It was not the army or Imran Khan who named Nawaz Sharif and his family in Panama Papers.” PML-N workers are convinced that this whole case was a game to oust the Sharifs from power. Last week, a senior PML-N leader, Khawaja Saad Rafique, publicly termed Panama issue a conspiracy engineered by international powers to oust the PM from power because of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). “This conspiracy has been directed from abroad and performed by actors within the country,” he claims. PML-N insiders tell TNS that there is a split within the party regarding how it is being dealt with by the party leadership. Some party workers believe it is the Sharif family’s internal matter and they should prove it in the court. Many others are not happy because the party top leadership did not take them into confidence regarding the issue. “Only close party and cabinet members are being updated about the strategy while the rest keep mum,” says a senior PML-N member of the National Assembly, asking not to be named. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, senior minister of the government and veteran member of PML-N has distanced himself from the prime minister for reportedly not taking him into confidence regarding the Panama case strategy. Read also: Editorial Experts believe the PML-N will split into groups if Nawaz Sharif is disqualified. The key players are members of the kitchen cabinet and some close aides. “It was after one year that the prime minister called the parliamentary party meeting after the JIT findings were made public,” resents a PML-N MNA. Many PML-N members believe that Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification or resignation would be a major setback to the party in the next general elections. There are serious discussions within the PML-N to bring in-house changes and complete the tenure rather than dissolving assemblies and giving further opportunity to the rival political parties. The main opposition parties — the PTI and PPP — are at their best to get political mileage from the situation. Following the JIT findings, leaders of PPP who had earlier declared that the PTI committed a mistake by moving the SC against Sharifs, were seen present in the court on hearings. The biggest beneficiary of this political crisis is the PTI which took up the Panama Papers case against the Sharif family and moved the court. Imran Khan, who is also facing a case in the SC for his offshore company, has warned of mass protests if Sharifs survive the court. These two parties are united in demanding resignation from the prime minister but divided on holding early elections. PPP, which has a majority in the Upper House, will exploit the situation in the parliament. Last week, it had moved a resolution against the Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The party also intends to start a debate on the JIT report. “The case is clear now. Everybody knows they have no money trail and that is why they are relying on conspiracy theories,” says Shafqat Mehmood, a senior leader of PTI. He believes the Sharif family itself is responsible for this situation because they had been hiding facts from the public and courts. He says the opposition parties were united in seeking resignation from the PM, particularly after the JIT report. Many see a political crisis looming, following the final verdict of the court. “The opposition parties will continue to get mileage from the current situation because the options for Nawaz Sharif are narrowing down. It is his moral and political defeat,” says Zahid Hussain, noted political analyst. He thinks the Sharif family has had an opportunity to clear itself from the court rather than relying on alleged conspiracies and giving ample opportunity to the opposition parties. He believes the political crisis can be somehow tackled through an in-house change. [post_title] => The curtain’s drawn [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => curtains-drawn [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-22 23:45:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-22 18:45:36 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69114 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) [4] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69109 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:13:55 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:13:55 [post_content] => Pakistan is at the clichéd crossroads again. As these lines are being written on Thursday, most people think the fate of the Sharifs will be decided in the Supreme Court on Friday, or a few days later. As the case that began in April 2016 with the Panama Papers coming out and implicating the prime minister’s family as owning offshore companies is nearing closure, it has shaken Pakistan’s polity to the core. It has once again exposed the vulnerabilities of our political system and the political players are aligning as per their interests, without thinking about the long term impact of their own decisions in the current crisis. There is, of course, weight in the argument that the prime minister’s accountability should not necessarily be construed as a threat to democracy, because this is where the elected representatives’ high moral ground lies — that they are more accountable than all other institutions. In Panama, there are lessons for the politicians to steer clear of corruption of all kinds. In Panama again, there are lessons about all the unelected institutions — centres of power nonetheless — that are still beyond the ambit of accountability. The mother of all cases has pitched one party against the other and, as Dr Mohammad Waseem says, has brought “judiciary in clash with legislature” and exposed the perpetual civil military conflict. In the words of Dr Waseem again, “the contradiction in the civil military relations draws on another contradiction between the middle class and political class. As per his analysis rooted in history, the three institutions of the state — army, bureaucracy and judiciary — are drawn from the middle class and are opposed to the ‘corrupt’ political class. With such a backdrop, the aftermath of the Panama case potentially holds more instability and uncertainty for democracy in this country. That consensus on democracy as the best system for this country is what needs to be preserved at all costs. Read also: Our uncertain democracy  [post_title] => Editorial [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => editorial-85 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-22 23:49:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-22 18:49:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69109 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) ) [post_count] => 5 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 69112 [post_author] => 29 [post_date] => 2017-07-23 03:24:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-22 22:24:04 [post_content] => The News on Sunday (TNS): Daggers are drawn. We’re in the midst of another political crisis. How do you interpret the current logjam. Is Imran Khan accusing Nawaz Sharif of corruption to win a legitimate power game or the establishment  too fatigued with Nawaz Sharif? Dr Mohammed Waseem (MW): There are two issues here: First is corruption. Second is the potential danger of derailment of democracy. On one side the opposition led by Imran Khan is constantly talking about corruption. He has taken the plea that corruption of the prime minister is a wrong lesson given to the people of the country. He believes that unless the PM is proven guilty of corruption, and leaves his office, the lesson will not be conveyed to the nation. Then, again, there are various aspects of corruption. One is the political use of corruption. Since 1948, when Ayub Khuhro was dismissed on charges of corruption, till today, corruption has been used as a kind of a bogey. Sure, corruption is also a reality. It is a way of life. People have considered Nawaz Sharif along with most of his predecessors corrupt. It is plausible that the Sharifs multiplied their fortunes by fair and unfair means. Most politicians have piled up their wealth in similar ways. Based on this, the public believes that corrupt politicians must be dealt with. Which brings us to those behind the agenda of correcting corruption. Who are they? Presently it is Imran Khan. But there are charges of corruption against him too. Ideally the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) should have dealt with the charges levelled by Imran Khan against Nawaz Sharif. But, the NAB is essentially geared to go only after the opposition. Under Musharraf it was used as an instrument to go after politicians that opposed him. Nawaz Sharif had initiated the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance in 1997 to nab the opposition of that time. Since such institutions do not work effectively under an incumbent government to detect its own wrongdoings, there is often recourse to the Supreme Court. That brings judiciary in clash with legislature. In the midst of all this is the civil and military conflict. It’s obvious that the military administration is tired of Nawaz Sharif. For them it is not simply a case of corruption. It is a case of civil-military relations. It is a case of survival of democratic institutions. It is a case against the political class. TNS: Would you explain this further please? MW: Interestingly the contradiction in the civil-military relations draws on another contradiction which is between the middle class and the political class. The point is that the three institutions of state – army’s officer cadre, bureaucracy and judiciary – are drawn from the middle class. The middle class ethos condemns corruption. The middle class people have hated the guts of the political class for the last 70 years. They have a very institutional outlook. They are a salaried class and their tax is cut at source. They go by the book, handle affairs according to the file, and possess a high level of morality. Middle class is the custodian of morality and war against corruption. They have a justification to uphold a moral cause. [box type="shadow" align="alignright" class="red_lines" ]Political instability is rooted in civil-military tension. If Nawaz Sharif is dislodged, there will be instability in Pakistan. The Panama case is a cul-de-sac.[/box] It is this very middle class that has never been happy with democracy – which has made it the standing constituency of the military rule. If you talk to a sensible, educated, conscientious middle class person, he or she will say “I’m a democrat. I love democracy.” BUT, he or she holds many grievances against democracy. He opposes the system of patronage, out of turn appointments. His or her thinking is reflected through bureaucracy and judiciary — the establishment – which is the true ruling class of Pakistan, not the tribals and feudals as is generally understood. I think the tribals and feudals exercise power and authority only in their locality. The ultimate political act is about who gets what. It is the bureaucracy that allocates funds and army grabs quite a lot of them, and together they run the system. And, it’s the judiciary that in most cases gives judgments in favour of the establishment against the politicians. After the 2:3 verdict of the Supreme Court on the Panama case, one cannot say if judiciary is totally in the pocket of the establishment. Sill, history shows that judiciary obliges the establishment – Musharraf was allowed to go abroad, Raymond Davis was allowed to leave the country… So we can safely say that judiciary is bound by the establishment ethos. I feel there is a potential clash of institutions. Judiciary must not rough ride a course of action that leads to it. It must be conscious of its potential role in destabilising the country. Political stability is the greatest national cause. And political instability in Pakistan is rooted in civil-military tension. It is obvious that if Nawaz Sharif is dislodged, there will be instability in Pakistan. The Panama case is a cul-de-sac, in my opinion. TNS: How could the stakeholders have avoided such a situation? Who is responsible for this impasse? MW: Obviously Nawaz Sharif. If he had distinguished between legal and illegal means, he would not have suffered as he did. But beyond that, the structure of power is such that it is not cognizant of a role for Nawaz anymore. TNS: The Supreme Court verdict on the Panama case is expected soon. Guilty or not guilty, what are the possible scenarios for Nawaz Sharif? MW: There are two scenarios: One he continues as PM. Two he is nabbed. If he continues as PM, of which the possibility is thin in my opinion, then there’ll be no big change. He will be chastened down, weakened, but will win the 2018 elections. If the entire Sharif family is disqualified, a proxy from within the party will be appointed. Once that’s done, I fear, only instability will follow. People will start disserting the party and probably the establishment will succeed. In between there may be a caretaker or national government. Caretaker government will hold the next elections. National government may last for two or more years backed by the army. By now it is well known that the whole idea is to dislodge Nawaz Sharif before the 2018 elections and weaken the PML-N, and a proxy candidate (Imran Khan) of the establishment is set in. The establishment is not shy of owning him. Nawaz Sharif was establishment’s proxy in 1990. Now they are fed up with him. They will be fed up with Imran Khan too, in fact much earlier than they were with Nawaz Sharif, because Imran does not have an agenda. The way ISPR is sending messages, it appears it’ll be a non-coup coup. The saga of Nawaz Sharif’s corruption is likely to continue, whatever may be the verdict of the Supreme Court in the ongoing case of corruption against Nawaz Sharif. Corruption cases will be pursued against him in future too. If Imran Khan comes into power next, he will not allow Nawaz Sharif any relief. Read also: “People’s court is the ultimate court”  TNS: It is being said that the politicians are being held accountable for the first time in the history of Pakistan? Would you agree? We do have a history of the constitution and democracy being ambushed by accountability. What do you think of this form of accountability? MW: This is a media trial by default. The court should have never allowed public comments to be aired from the vicinity of the Supreme Court. A dais has been placed outside the court and everyday both the parties come out to argue their case.  What is then the difference between a court trial and a media trial? This points to a kind of a plan – to discredit Nawaz Sharif before the final verdict. The articulate public has already decided that Nawaz is corrupt and that he must go. TNS: How will the current events pan out in future, and affect the institution of democracy and political processes? MW: For the last 10 years, the media, particularly the electronic media, has destroyed the political class. It has rendered it untrustworthy, corrupt, hostile, divided. Who is gaining from it? The issue is who will help the public sort out their issues. Democracy is about representation of people. Politicians are brokers between the remote, post-colonial state and the vernacular speaking masses. The establishment is so powerful that it can destroy the politicians, and bring in other weaker brokers. TNS: During debates and discussions on politics in general and the Panama case in specific, we see debasement of public discourse. Politicians are called thieves, dacoits and liars. Has the media changed Pakistan’s character by providing mindless content to score rating points? Have we lost our polite cultural etiquettes? MW: Sure. Imran Khan is accused of spoiling the nicety of dialogue by being a street boy. The standard of communication has drastically gone down mainly because non-elite have become actors. You see, there can be disagreement after developing consensus. But here there is no consensus on the system. The country is in the grip of a class that is not democracy sensitive. The most educated people of Pakistan are least sensitive about democracy. [post_title] => “Here there is no consensus on democracy” [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => consensus-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/peoples-court-ultimate-court/ [post_modified] => 2017-07-23 10:56:16 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-23 05:56:16 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tns.thenews.com.pk/?p=69112 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 1 [filter] => raw [format_content] => ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 5 [max_num_pages] => 1 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => 1 [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => 1 [is_tag] => [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => [is_404] => [is_comments_popup] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash] => db1169c0b02392f7845b184a6030aa64 [query_vars_changed] => 1 [thumbnails_cached] => )