Banning PTI …. Shahzad Chaudhry

To what end? Imran Khan banned TLP, and it is occupying the nerve-centre on the main arteries of Pindi and Islamabad; all simply look on, quite helplessly. We banned Awami League — not literally but in effect — and we lost half the country. No more is now left to lose but for a complete disintegration and dissolution of the idea of Pakistan. ZAB banned NAP in 1975 which governed Balochistan, and we remain embroiled in the consequence of that unfortunate decision first triggered by bloated egos of political opponents.

Who may have toyed with the idea of banning the PTI, and why? We can only imagine. The recent decision of the Supreme Court, howsoever big in political terms, alters nothing. The government stays in power. Yes, without the two-thirds majority that it may have been eyeing. But again, to what effect? Where is the need for an urgency and the panic of not carrying a two-thirds majority? A government with a dubious mandate — the dominant perception following February 8th, not created by social media — should not anyway tamper with the Constitution. It will not carry popular acceptance. It is better to be without any tinkering of it. Extensions in tenure which need constitutional cover have been so widely trashed as a concept that anyone intended to extend will only carry the burden of a compromised and transacted position. For all other options executive decisions are enough.

One can only hope, or speculate, how it may have gone: Nawaz Sharif, the erudite chief patron of PML-N — already quite dismayed at poor showing of the party in last elections and opposed to PDM’s decision to form a government than choose elections following VONC against PTI government — may have suggested that the party has lost its right to govern following the rebuff by the SC. Alternately, having agreed to a compromised and negotiated government under the PML-N only if a two-thirds majority was delivered to the ruling coalition may have asked for the PTI to be rescinded as a political party. The government having lost its sham for authenticity and credibility fell to the imperative of reversing the effects of the SC decision, come what may and with whatever may it take including the foolishness of banning the largest party in the parliament and the most popular political party in the country.

The political alternates are equally worrisome for those who form the power elites in the ruling structure. PTI hasn’t done any good to itself by choices it made on May 9th, 2023, and after. It needed to act more responsibly and while most of its political positions may be right there is a manner of its pursuance which need not have been disruptive but within the framework of the Constitution and political process. Its decision to remain in parliament, even in opposition when it largely felt it had been denied its mandate, was constructive and positive. It now seems that even as the party and its leadership has learnt from its missteps it is those opposed to it who are stonewalling the possibility of a conciliation. There is a need on both sides — PTI and those arrayed against — to help settle the issue in a saner way than end up on the road to further instability and chaos. Acute conflict on the political stage can only encourage others in the dynamic to choose extreme ways to get even, always at the cost of the state and its people. The path is best avoided.

Consider. Pakistan is fighting a battle for its writ in most areas of the KP province. As flames of TTP’s terror engorge upon more territory how can any government think of banning a political party governing that province? It was only a couple of weeks ago that the National Security Committee sought support and investment of all provincial chief ministers to fight Azm-e-Istihkam to eliminate this menace. It was correctly derived that only a whole-of-nation response can evict those meaning harm and neutralise them to an abiding effect. Else, KP too might take the route of Balochistan. We know how Balochistan went the wrong way — banning political parties — but why repeat the same mistake? In political spite? Is Ralph Peters having the last laugh or are we inadvertently fulfilling his prophesy?

It gets us back to the unfortunate proclivity of getting even and ‘whataboutery’ that this brand of politics has become. There is no way to stop the foolishness and break out of this circular arc of destructive logic that has taken the role of a mantra. Which really begs the question: what is this brand of politics about? Surely not the state and the society — the two founding elements of the country we call Pakistan. When neither is served, who is being served? Sham egos and acquired vanity have no place in a country begging for an inclusive leadership and a joint effort to evict the malaise. There are critical objectives at hand, foremost of which is to find stability so that what meagre help becomes available is put to productive use. Stability will not spawn by denying a large segment of the population its franchise and eliminating what for the moment stands most popular. It is by embracing all that we will get there. Neither it should be about one man which should hold ransom the fate of this nation. No one person is larger than the nation.

There is another facet which too must take precedence and notice. The current order of governance over time has been loudly proclaimed hybrid in nature. Right or wrong, that is the ‘perception’. Any undertaking by a political government inevitably carries the undertones of concurrence by the military. Politics has a way of distancing itself from each step when it goes wrong, blaming it instead on the military. They have invariably and always successfully contrived innocence based on this logic. Military alone is docked with all responsibility and the malignance attached to it. 1971 was a military failure or a political failure? Today’s discourse conveniently lays all blame at the steps of the GHQ. Ditto, a political or security related anomaly from recent times.

It is time for the military to distance itself from such political grandstanding that claims sanctity or authenticity by its association with the military. Politics leaves no stone unturned to prove itself on the same page as the military and then deride such perception with allegations of interference and overzealousness. It is time for the military to not only conceptually and physically distance itself from political manipulation but denounce it in clear terms. Else, the military will be the only one left with the baby and the bathtub. It is anyway foolish to ban a political party.

Courtesy Express Tribune