For the third time in four years -- the longest single stretch of time that he has been continuously prime minister in his three stints -- Nawaz Sharif is battling for survival in office. Each time he had secured a five-year mandate. Twice before he was pulled from office before completing his tenure and now he again finds himself in familiar territory.

He seems all but ready to be forced into being handed an unpalatable hat-trick of the political ignominy that is the fate of all electorally-victorious leaders who are elected prime minister by a simple majority of the National Assembly.

Six times elected prime ministers have been forcefully removed from office -- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Yousaf Raza Gillani once each and Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto twice each -- and not once did they lose the majority of the House that had elected them prime minister. And not once did they complete their five-year constitutional tenures.

It is in this broader backdrop that the latest trial of the prime minister must be contextualised. Sharif is awaiting possibly a decisive action by the Supreme Court next week that could cost him his office again. Looking at the trajectory of the legal trail of Sharif’s current trial, the apex court action is expected to be based on the findings and recommendations of a JIT appointed by it to investigate allegedly shady family businesses dating back four decades.

The probe scope itself is astonishing if the purpose is accountability of a prime minister in office -- there is no corruption charge against Sharif linked to any of his tenures, including the current one. No specific charge of any embezzlement or kickback. He is not even mentioned in the Panama Papers. He is being probed for business dealings of his family members who have been based abroad for decades.

And yet the whole action against the prime minister has been framed in the context and narrative of accountability. By the petitioners (political opponents Imran Khan, Sirajul Haq and Sheikh Rashid), by the opposition, by the media, by the higher judiciary that accepted the admissibility of a case that never went to trial and came straight to the Supreme Court, by the JIT that made no effort to mask its disdain for those being probed, and by an army of retired military officials serving as analysts on primetime talk shows who fail to see the irony of their act. 

Perceptions vs reality

The whole emphasis on accountability -- by disparaging military tweets and unrestrained proclamatory statements by trial judges -- is astonishing because of the way accountability is perceived and understood in Pakistan. If judges ignore the necessity of considering all those being tried as innocent until proven guilty and the political actors, military-bureaucracy complex and media refuse to consider the electoral system as the pivot of political accountability, then it is little wonder that perceptions trump procedures when it comes to formal judgements.

Consider: each time the removal of an elected prime minister has been authored, orchestrated or managed, it has been done by either the military or the judiciary and, often, both. Never by voters who actually keep bringing the same parties to power -- Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) five times, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN-N) thrice. Each time the charge-sheet against elected prime ministers has been alleged corruption or abuse of office. And yet, no prime minister has ever been convicted of corruption despite suffering long trials. And yet each of the prime ministers forcefully removed served jail terms, was forced into a long exile, was hanged or murdered. But no one who undermined the constitution and hounded the country’s elected leaders has ever been punished.

Read also: Fighting till the end

Politics is not the business of the military, public mandate is not the business of the judiciary and indifference to transparency and openness is not the mandate of the political parties. This has to be the guiding principle of a credible accountability mechanism.

So much for accountability.

It was interesting to note both General Amjad of General Musharraf’s National Accountability Bureau and Rehman Malik of PPP deposing before the JIT against Sharif. Neither of them could make anything stick against Sharif in relation to corruption in public funds while they were in power despite their best efforts.

This whole shady business of accountability for convoluted purposes needs to be itself held accountable. The subversion of public mandates, the court of public opinion manipulated by generals, judges and journalists, and the steep price paid by people’s leaders needs to stop. There is no need for the convoluted Pakistani brand that passes off for accountability.

It is ridiculous that there is actually no credible accountability mechanism in Pakistan. If there was, then why would the Supreme Court need to accept personally motivated petitions to declare Sharif corrupt when neither the accountability mechanism erected by General Musharraf nor the one put in place by the Sharif-led government and the People’s Party-led parliamentary opposition failed to do so?

Exceptions & immunity

And why would any credible accountability mechanism allow for exceptions in applicability? If the military and judges have their own accountability systems, then why have they failed to punish generals who staged coups and judges who validated coups and ordered prime ministers hung and removed through 30-second symbolic punishments?

Why should, by the same yardstick of self-accountability, the politicians need the Supreme Court to hold them accountable when they have their own ‘NAB’? If the military has been directly part of politics for half of Pakistan’s existence and the other half indirectly (by, for example, running their own foreign and security policies), and the judiciary has been upholding illegal removal of prime ministers who still enjoy confidence of the National Assembly and the dissolution of legislatures when their tenures were not over, then it means these institutions also need to be held accountable by the same mechanisms. Their right to exceptions holds no ground if they are all political players.

Pakistani political history is replete with miscarriages of justice. Perpetrators have never faced justice -- indeed some can be forgiven merely for having an imaginary backache -- while those never formally found guilty procedurally and legally have suffered cruel fates. While the military and judiciary are, in a large part, to blame for this, the politicians cannot be absolved of their singularly spectacular failure to enact a credible accountability mechanism that simultaneously meets best standards and brings everyone into the net.

If by now the politicians have not understood that they need to reinvent the system that aims for higher principles and duties of public interest, then their inadequacy of political vision will keep them in the blind alley while allowing other institutions of the state to continue exercising exception and immunity.

It is crucial that a consensus be developed on the necessity of institutions not overstepping their limits. Exceptions, exemptions and immunity in accountability and transparency are anathema to political stability and legitimacy of governance. Different sets of rules that do not embrace basic principles and best standards of accountability cannot engender stability.

Politics is not the business of the military, public mandate is not the business of the judiciary and indifference to transparency and openness is not the mandate of the political parties. This has to be the guiding principle of a credible accountability mechanism.

Court of public opinion

If perceptions are more powerful than facts in politics then Pakistani political parties have also failed spectacularly in countering all the propaganda against them from the other institutions -- through lack of public-interest politics and lack of proper transparency in governance.

How can it be alright that Pakistani leaders can conduct personal businesses with ruling families in three countries and not adversely impact national interest? How can there be no conflict of interest law that prevents military leaders -- in office and immediately after retirement -- accepting positions, cash prizes and other personal benefits from some rich countries that have deep political and security interests in Pakistan and the region who want us to be enemies of their enemies?

How can judges stop helping oust leaders elected by the people and not punish abuse of office that allowed judges in robes to be removed and held hostage en mass by some self-styled saviours? How can hypocritical legislators be allowed to remain in office that don’t attend parliament and keep badmouthing it? How can a constitutional package of electoral reforms, that can inject legitimacy to the election system, remain gathering dust and not be passed even though there is consensus on it?

Corruption is not just financial in nature and accountability is not just legal in variety. Corruption is also abuse of office, oath and duty. And accountability is also lack of responsibility. Punishment without conviction based on due process of law, in compliance with constitutional guarantees, is not accountability.

Governance without proactive transparency, demonstrable responsibility and accounting through regular cabinet and parliamentary oversight is corruption, not leadership.

A new high-standard, non-discriminatory transparency and accountability law that brings all pillars of the state under its net should be the starting point of a new political compact. This could help make the process of accountability just and equitable and streamline it procedurally.

But the bottom line is this: principally, the court of public opinion is the superior court as it has 200 million judges. Heed their judgement when they go out and vote, for they go out to hold their representatives accountable.