Politics is about a persistent, unending and continuous contest between elites. But if the elites, in order to absolve themselves of the burden of the contest, transfer the responsibility of disputing those in power on to their supporters, chances of a civil war may grow.
We have seen mobilisation of supporters and activists by the major political parties in the recent past. This practice has exposed the political parties as politically and intellectually deprived. It also poses an existential threat to the political system.
After the ousters of Nawaz Sharif in July 2017 and of Imran Khan in April 2022, their political parties – PML-N and PTI — alleged that the army and its generals were instrumental in dislodging them from power. Both the parties mobilised their respective supporters and activists to launch a protest campaign and refused to accord legitimacy to the governments of their opponents.
There is, however, one difference between responses of the two parties to the ouster of their leaders. The PML-N didn’t block the legal process under which Nawaz Sharif was ousted from the PM office. But, at the time of vote counting on the no confidence resolution against Imran Khan, the PTI did its best to subvert the constitutional processes.
The PML-N didn’t block the legal process under which Nawaz Sharif was ousted from the PM office. But, at the time of vote counting on the no confidence resolution against Imran Khan, the PTI did its best to subvert the constitutional processes.
It is clear that the PML-N attitude towards the system is less harmful than that of the PTI. But the problem is that the PTI’s damaging attitude could bring the system down and render the PML-N irrelevant.
The task before the prime minister is two pronged: to protect the system from the PTI’s harmful effects, and also protect the PTI from self-destruction. The PTI is a popular political force, which has a robust organisational base and massive following among the urban middle-classes of Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Its supporters and voters are particularly frustrated with the alleged corruption of the political elite and are interested in seeing the initiation of some kind of accountability. In such a scenario, if the PTI leadership decides to collide with the military or launches a prolonged protest campaign, the political and constitutional systems may collapse.
The present ruling party should avoid engaging with the business of winning the next elections. Winning elections pay dividends only if the system under which the electoral politics is being conducted remains intact. Therefore the PML-N must act more mature. First, the party should stop dreaming about fragmentation of the PTI, as some of them did pray publicly a few weeks back. Fragmentation or destruction of one would ultimately lead to destruction and fragmentation of the other.
The PML-N should pursue a larger political objective: preservation of the political system. It should work for achieving a broader consensus among political parties that whoever wins the next elections would be accepted by all as the legitimate government of the country.
Political events since August 2017 make one thing clear: Pakistan’s political system doesn’t face a threat to its survival from a direct coup d’etat. It is faces a threat of subversion from within the political system by political actors, with assistance from adventurous elements in the military hierarchy.
Political events since August 2017 make one thing clear: Pakistan’s political system doesn’t face a threat to its survival from a direct coup d’etat. It is faces a threat of subversion from within the political system by political actors, with assistance from adventurous elements in the military hierarchy.
Two of these subversions have already happened. First, the August 2014 protest march by the PTI assisted by a powerful spymaster with plans to storm the Prime Minister House and arrest the PM. Second, the massive rigging carried out in July 2018 elections. The third one has yet to take place but the suggestions have already come out in the open.
Our extremely naïve defense minister has come up with the suggestion that the army should appoint its own chief. As the month of November draws closer, the ruling party seems to be getting cold feet. The framers of the constitution had institutional integrity of the military in mind when they assigned the task of appointment of the services chiefs to the prime minister. What exactly could happen to the system in the absence of institutional integrity of the military seems something beyond the comprehension of our ruling party. Otherwise, the minister would not have come up with such a naïve suggestion.
PM has always received a summary recommendation for the top contenders by the COAS office to chose the best person for the job. I personally would hold panel interviews conducting a values based interview to assess COAS applicants commitment to democratic values given our history,
However, current incumbent has reportedly not yet asked for an extension according to ISPR. 2-3 months are a longtime in politics and if economy is stable by then who knows how confident PDM might feel. It’s also very broad based and long term stakes are low for each player so it can really surprise everyone,