Politics through other means …. Shahzad Chaudhry

Why the turmoil of contestation? We seem to be fighting for credibility and democracy, the two binding pillars of the state-society construct. If a rearguard is needed to reinforce either – after the fact of an electoral exercise and government formulation – you may as well be living in the netherworld. Begin with the February 8 elections which is the root cause for the follow-up strife on the political scene. The PTI thinks it won a clear victory and must have its right to be at the helm. Majority judiciary may think it has a case to make given how the polls were conducted. The other half of judiciary holds aloft principles in the face of facts and evidence and supports those in power. The judicial and legal system of the country stands wholesomely subverted. Round one to those who had aimed to achieve this long-held objective. The last bastion, the military, will do well to beware.

In PDM-1 and now the apparently democratically elected government of PTI’s opposition, variously called PDM-2 – a mix of the rest – is in position of power enabled by a not so insignificant support of the establishment. In such construct then a conflict is inherent and takes on different shapes. The government is laden by the guilt of having been handed the reins without an electoral and moral justness – it has been conjured by collusion of all forces which did not wish to see the PTI in power. The PTI is targeted through administrative measures and allegations of criminality arising out of May 9 agitation using one arm of the state while another, larger segment of the judiciary, stands in its defence against what it perceives is state excess. The construct manifests in institutional disenchantment leading to a feared clash. That threatens viability of the state – raison d’etre of a nation.

The establishment, the executive, the parliament, parts of judiciary and the election commission are in a face-off against the PTI and the other part of the judiciary. Lines have never been as clearly drawn as now. What makes it portentous is the retirement of a chief justice of the supreme court aligned with the larger institutional sentiment and the induction of another who seems independently inclined, unlikely to be browbeaten. At the centre of it all is the person of Imran Khan who must be kept out and away, preferably behind bars where he can have minimal interaction with the people. He continues to be widely adulated among the masses the more he is turned into an underdog in the face of state’s overwhelming management.

A country mired in multiple crises can ill afford to create even greater crises just to keep one man out of power in the short to medium term. We are talking of say next 3-4 years. But the strife and conflict we create by using measures which remain obvious to any casual observer may be a burden far too much for a beleaguered state to carry. There can be a genuine case for a period of undisturbed governance to ride out of difficulties posed by the challenges this nation faces and hence a selective conglomerate from across the political spectrum to find sustainable governing mechanism in the form of the current set-up. But what may one do when the disaffected opposition is heavily favoured by the electorate? A decision to disfranchise the voter and their preferred political choice then induces its own strain as is perceptible in the existing tension in the Supreme Court. The traditional refrain of a civil-military imbalance further accentuates the discord.

That the establishment fell out with Imran Khan is well known and has roots in personality clashes as well as high handedness and callous disregard for the military and its hierarchy which was instrumental in bringing him to power in the first place. He publicly made light of the institution and its leadership and may have been wrongly advised to take that route by a small coterie of advisers who had their own agenda and axe to grind – the talk of the US being instrumental in regime change points to what influences were at play in guiding IK to such a consequence. Right or wrong, he fell to a Vote of No Confidence allegedly triggered by the military indicating to the rest that they no longer favoured IK. That alienation persists. That foretells the short-term fate and hence the prognosis that little will change in the fortunes of PTI or its leadership.

This is a godsend for many. Especially IK’s political nemesis, the PMLN that he reduced to insignificance in its own stronghold, Punjab, and the PPP which already stood marginalised and lost its traditional anti-PMLN vote to a surging PTI. Both therefore jumped at the opportunity playing loyal subordinates to the establishment in fulfillment of their goal to see the PTI and IK buried. They have cleverly situated establishment’s own grouse with IK as a convenient ruse and use its shoulder to do their deed. The two parties have also set the parliament and the election commission on a collision course with the judiciary by openly defying supreme court judgments, dissuading other institutions from compliance, and manipulating laws and the constitutional provisions through a steady stream of amendments to find favour in the courts. This is an open assault on the foundation of the state-society construct, undermining both the constitution and fundamental rights of the people.

What is at stake is the basic construct of the state and the guiding document, the constitution, which helps retain the structures of the state and the society and their rights and obligations. All that is being assailed in an institutional stand-off in which no side is willing to relent. The basic structure in the state-society formulation is under the threat of dissolution. The first casualty are laws which govern the state and the society which no one is willing to respect. What may have only been chaotic till now is heading into an uncharted anarchy with its own attendant consequences. It threatens the state and its foundations.

There are no arbiters now. It used to be the military that would intervene when governance stagnated. A reset would be put in place through a fresh mandate. The precarious sociopolitical environment possibly inhibits resort to such a recourse. One aggressed party is another’s aggressor while law and its executioners stand disabled by constitutional engineering and institutional stand-off. Crass political interests rule the roost. The military could simply pull back thwarting the notion that they stand with or against anyone and let politics and law find its way. Or the rest – PTI and its brand of supporters – bide the time for another chance. That will save the state and its guiding constitution from being mauled with such impunity. It is time to save the nation and the country.

Courtesy Express Tribune