Personal, not principled

Plato’s dialogues are widely regarded as incomparable with regard to both philosophic depth and literary merit. The dialogues typically portray Plato’s venerated teacher Socrates engaged in a lively, if at times intense, debate with different people on one or more subjects.

The principal advantage of using the dialogue as the vehicle of his thoughts is that it allowed the greatest philosopher of all times to present arguments both in favour of and against a particular position, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions.

The most famous of the dialogues is ‘The Republic’. Contrary to Socrates, his interlocutor argues that men are interested in justice but only when it suits them. Should they stand to lose by justice, they would rather not seek it. So, justice is what satisfies ‘my’ interests.

This argument reminds us of one of the perennial themes in Pakistani politics – being pro- or anti-establishment. Given the preeminent position the establishment has held in the country’s history – often acting as the arbiter of the last resort – it will require no less than a man, or a woman, of steel to be by choice on its wrong side.

Going by popular narratives, both past and present, there hasn’t been a dearth of such exceptional persons. Do such narratives have any substance? Or is being anti-establishment no more than a myth, at times amounting to making a virtue out of necessity? In view of the limitations of space, let’s discuss with regard to the three major political parties which are in the fray at present, starting with the PPP, the oldest of them.

As the narrative goes, the PPP has always been in the forefront of the people’s struggle against despotism. Like other political myths, this is at best a half truth. While at times the party had a head-to-head with the powers that be, it has played up to, as well as rubbed shoulders with, them from time to time.

In 1988, Benazir Bhutto struck a deal before being appointed as prime minister. As part of the pact, she followed the outgoing military regime’s foreign, security and economic policies. Then in 1993, she made a common cause with president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who was an archetype establishmentarian, in forcing a popularly elected Nawaz Sharif to step aside. The 2007 National Reconciliation Ordinance, which exonerated the party leadership of corruption charges at one go, was a classic example of political logrolling and realpolitik.

However, it was the stance taken by the PPP in the wake of Nawaz Sharif’s exit in 2017 that established its credentials as pro-status quo. Time and again, the party counseled the deposed prime minister to take his disqualification for life on his chin, whereas to date it has not reconciled itself to the judicial decisions that despoiled its interests.

On to the PML-N, whose leadership was brought up in the lap of a dictator. It was his pro-establishment credentials that catapulted party leader Nawaz Sharif first into the office of the Punjab chief minister and then to that of the prime minister.

After he had fallen out with his mentors, Sharif was forced to step down in 1993, but returned again as PM in four years. Having been shown the door in less than three years (in 1999), he spent a few years in exile following a deal with the then military ruler. He returned in 2007, taking advantage of the NRO, sorted out matters with the establishment and finally became premier for a record third term in 2013. However, his tug of war with the powerful resumed, leading to his exit in 2017 by a judicial verdict.

The fall resurrected Sharif’s aggressive instincts and he was on fire like never before. It was for the first time that a frontline leader from Punjab had crossed the red line. However, if anyone thought an anti-establishment figure had finally risen, they were left to regret in time. It transpired that behind the thick veil of the demand for democracy and civilian supremacy lay personal grievances. Once those were duly addressed, the hawk turned into a dove and swords were turned into ploughshares. The PML-N returned to power in 2022, with Sharif’s younger brother in the driving seat, as a stop gear arrangement, and then in 2024 for a five-year term. Its anti-establishment narrative had already disappeared into thin air.

Finally, we come to the present pope-cum-prince of Pakistani politics, Imran Khan. If politics is the art of deception, Khan stands above his rivals head and shoulder. His initial anti-graft narrative made nine out of ten Pakistanis believe that corruption lay at the root of the nation’s perennial problems, from poverty to indebtedness and from unemployment to terrorism; and that he, and only he, was the crusader who was capable of dealing a deadly blow to it.

Few, including his financers and mentors, suspected that in the name of cleaning the system, he was creating a cult, whose zealous followers would be in their own league in doing a hatchet job on others for their leader. What can be a greater manifestation of his incomparable art than that at the same time he carries the image of being both the prince and the pope, the playboy and the savior?

At any rate, Khan won the prized post of the prime minister in 2018, partly with the help of the electable and money-spinning machines, whom he had previously decried day in and day out. For the following three years, he would praise his powerful mentors to the skies and employ state resources to build up his cult to the neglect of a deteriorating economy and rising militancy and extremism. Matters came to a head when the sense of being indispensable, and thus invulnerable, made Khan – like Sharif in the past – bite the hand that had so far fed him.

Even before he was voted out, Khan started pointing the accusing finger at the establishment, using vocabulary that others had felt shy of doing. After his exit, his tirade entered the no-holds-barred realm, which added to his cult stature, with the help of both the international mainstream and social media, which his team of professionals and his well-wishers remain miles ahead of others in tapping on.

At the same time, Khan has from time to time shown the willingness, if not the desire, to have a dialogue with the country’s powerful quarters. Simultaneously, he has consistently ruled out talks with the political leaders on the other side, because he believes them to be devoid of effective authority. But one wonders what his talking points for the proposed dialogue would be. They can’t be for civilian supremacy, because once one contemptuously refuses to negotiate with the civilians, one is pulling the rug from under the civilian facade and making one’s intentions known.

The alternative, and the plausible, answer is that he would rest content with the establishment’s political role but only if it’s once again to his advantage. At least, in this respect, Khan is no different from his political rivals.

Thus being anti-establishment is no more than a myth in Pakistan’s high politics. Just as most of us are interested in justice only if its scales are tipped in our favour, our politicians by and large are against the establishment’s interference in politics when it’s done in favour of the other side. Once they stand to gain by it, they have no problem with it; nay, they’ll vouch and itch for it.

The writer is an Islamabad-based columnist. He tweets/posts @hussainhzaidi and can be reached at: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com