he history of Pakistani political lexicon is replete with cliches. Inane phrases and populist proverbs created over decades have totally fossilised. Phrases like the “country is passing through a delicate phase” or it is “at a crossroads where decisive steps need undertaking” sound hilariously pathetic for a country that is hardly ever out of its “delicate” phase or that creates a new “crossroads” per force once a particular path is treaded for a few years.

Military dictators have not only outright negated the democratic ideals of the country’s founder by imposing martial laws, they have also shown the cheek to proclaim that democracy is not suited to the country’s political, social and cultural ethos. Conversely, they themselves claim to have incubated politicians to nurture a preferred kind of “democracy”. That their protégés frequently turn on them is another matter.

Scholars of Pakistani politics insist that certain political parties or factions were manufactured in the “laboratories” that operate round the clock in Rawalpindi or Islamabad. There are also those who have strived to defy the “manufactured” politicians.

Connoisseurs of science fiction movies will recall Ridley Scotts’ 1982 film, Blade Runner – an adaptation of Phillip Kindred Dick’s 1968 novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, set in a cacotopian future Los Angeles of 2019 where synthetic humans described as ‘replicants’, bioengineered by a powerful corporation for slave work on faraway space satellites, escape to earth and are then hunted down by the protagonist – a policeman. The story of Pakistani politics and politicians is eerily similar.

On the one hand, the present impasse is testing politicians’ skills to the hilt; on the other, it offers them an opportunity to wean away from the establishment.

Too frequently have unelected men used one ruse or another to march into the power corridors and wrapped up the battered and bruised democratic façade with the refrain that “corrupt” and “incompetent” politicians had brought the country to the brink of disaster, necessitating an institutional intervention in the “broader national interest.” Many an analyst in the 1990s had insisted that the establishment had decided to govern by operating in the shadows. However, the culling of four governments midway within a decade did not stop the camel from taking over the tent.

Nawaz Sharif, handpicked according to a popular narrative by a general to counter the Bhutto factor in Pakistani politics has turned into the biggest challenge for the establishment’s ascendency post-1971.

Mindful that no politician from a smaller province might successfully challenge Sharif, the force that be decided to pull Imran Khan out of the political wilderness since launching his political party in 1996. Only a Punjabi politician could be fielded against Nawaz Sharif and since most Punjabi contenders had already run out of steam, the former cricketer got his chance.

Political parties need to move beyond being mere personality cults. One man is not a party nor should one person be allowed to pretend that he is. 

What happened during the 2014 PTI-led dharna, how the Panama Papers were used to mount a media campaign, how an iqama proved Sharif’s undoing, how courts worked overtime to pass a judgement that may not be cited as a legal precedent and how the 2018 elections were managed are all part of our recent history. The crux of it all is that the story of Pakistani politics so far remains a tale of pointless brinkmanship.

The futility of this brinkmanship, however, has thrown up a few glimmers of hope. The establishment’s ability to impact the political landscape at will has been challenged from within. The bid to pitch a “divine” Punjabi against a “devilish” Punjabi has backfired in the sense that the followers of both these politicians now see the establishment as a malevolent intruder.

Sensing the enormity of the political fragmentation, a perilous economic meltdown, toxicity of legal wrangling and unsustainable societal discord produced over the last four years the establishment appears to have opted for neutrality. The ‘decision’ was promptly hailed by the opposition and hated by the government. The yesterday’s opposition is today’s government, and the then prime minister is leading street protests.

In the short term, the government can celebrate its success in pulling down the PTI administration and the PTI can petition the courts to grant bails for its activists. In the long term, political, institutional and departmental consensus is needed for a democratic system to evolve and sustain.

First of all, the supremacy of the parliament needs ensuring. Politicians from all persuasions can justifiably be blamed for undermining the institution that is the bedrock of democracy. The most important pillar of a democratic façade has been rendered ineffective mostly due to egoistic attitudes of narcissistic politicians. This attitude needs changing for people’s mandate to have any value.

Courts have been accused of encroaching on the parliament’s space. This perception must be addressed. The parliament needs to appreciate the importance of judicial review. Matters involving constitutional clarity must be heard by all judges of the Supreme Court. The will of the custodians of people’s mandate should not be held hostage to the whims of a couple of judges. The parliament will do well to ponder over this and legislate accordingly.

The establishment has apparently decided finally to stay neutral in the political matters. Let’s hope and pray that it stays that way. The practice of “selection” must give way to a tradition of free and fair election. Anything less can have dangerous consequences.

Political parties need to move beyond being mere personality cults. One man is not a party. Nobody should be allowed to pretend that he is. The parliament and the Election Commission must do the needful so that political parties learn from the best practices in vogue in strong democratic countries. Much criticism has come the way of dynastic politicians. There is nothing wrong indeed with such politicians as long as they function in a rule-based order and not treat politics as a privilege.

Political parties should seriously consider bringing in professionals, including lawyers, to the debating and voting chambers so that the quality of debate and law-making is improved.

The writer works for Jang Group