A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some elements of truth. That a half-truth is more dangerous than an outright lie is a fact that has found its best expression in prime minister Nawaz Sharif's 'explanation' that a visibly upset opposition and even the allies of PML-N government had sought from him following a highly significant development in the situation that was described by some impatient analysts as 'soft coup' a few hours after his meeting with army chief General Raheel Sharif. PTI chairman Imran Khan and PAT chief Dr Tahirul Qadri met separately the army chief at the GHQ on late Thursday night under an intense global and national media glare that declared that the army chief had stepped in to help resolve the grave turmoil on the request of no one but an elected prime minister. Unfortunately, however, the government did not deem it necessary to clarify the situation even when Imran Khan was 'informing' his supporters about the key elements of his talk with General Raheel. The government was still nowhere when Dr Qadri was seeking 'permission' from his so-called parliament of people to leave for the GHQ to meet General Raheel who, according to him, had agreed to play the role of a 'guarantor' and 'mediator' on government's request.
It finally broke its arguably criminal silence on the floor of the house but not before yesterday noon, 'explaining' how it received a phone call through which the army had told him that the PTI and PAT leadership wanted to meet the army chief and that the prime minister did not waste even one second to allow the top man in khaki to meet them. If one looks deeper into the press release that the ISPR issued later, the prime minister and his interior minister were not saying the whole truth. According to the ISPR, "Government requested the CoAS to play a facilitative role... ." Moreover, if one tends to believe what Imran Khan has said there are hardly any doubt about the fact that the army had been asked to play the role of a mediator and a guarantor. According to Imran, the army chief told him that the PM had said firmly that he would not step down and that the army had offered to ensure fairness of judicial probe into vote rigging allegations by becoming a guarantor but he had told the army chief that he would still stick to his demand for PM's resignation.
The press conference the interior minister held yesterday evening only contributed to growing doubts over government's contentions in relation to army's sudden involvement in this dangerous power game. He averred: "In view of a hard PAT-PTI stance, the government asked the Pakistan Army to facilitate the process... which is clearly legal and constitutional." Defence minister Khawaja Asif also insisted at a TV talk show that government's decision to ask army to play a facilitator's role was quite legal and constitutional mainly because of the invocation of Article 245 in Islamabad.
That the government has acted imprudently, unwisely and indecisively ever since the Model Town tragedy of June 17 is a fact that has manifested itself in causing a serious harm to its legitimacy of being an elected government in accordance with the Constitution of the country. Sadly for this country, squabbling between politicians has once again invited Army intervention, this time though elevating its role - so far as appearances are concerned - from that of a spoiler to a saviour. Few had any doubts about PAT leader Tahirul Qadri's intentions veiled in his 'Inqilab' slogan, but it did not help the image of PTI and its Chairman Imran Khan, who has been claiming to fight for the establishment of 'genuine democracy', when after telling his supporters the 'good news' of the PM's departure was on its way he triumphantly headed to a mediatory meeting with the CoAS General Raheel Sharif. Neither did Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif demonstrate the ability to sense the lurking dangers and resolve an essentially political dispute through political means. Strategic thinking demanded that he conceded the PTI's modified demand - no matter how unreasonable - for him to step aside for the duration of the vote audit to return at an opportune time. He remained intransigent all through the stand-off even as the media started reporting news of his brother, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, calling on the Army chief, sometimes along with Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan sometimes alone, and he later himself received the CoAS on different days for lengthy meetings. It was obvious to impartial observes that things were not going well for the government, and by implication for the country's nascent democracy.
Both the Prime Minister and the PTI leader share the blame for bringing matters to such a sordid pass. During his 15 months in office, Nawaz Sharif has done little to promote a democratic culture. Relying instead on an exclusivist style of governance, he surrounded himself with a small coterie of relatives and trusted friends for advice. He has even been ignoring the Parliament from which he derives the right to rule. Annoyed with the attitude, the upper house, where the rules require the PM's presence at least once a week in every session, the Senate passed a resolution last April demanding his mandatory appearance. When in trouble he sought and received the support of all parliamentary parties against the PTI's demand for his resignation, attaining a moral high ground. That obviously has not been enough for him to handle well the skewed nature of civil-military relations. He could have done better to learn from the example of his friends in Turkey where the ruling Justice and Freedom Party first focused on democratic consolidation through an impressive economic performance and then acted successfully to establish civilian primacy. That said, Imran Khan has damaged the cause of democracy by taking his protest to the extreme. Indeed, protest is a democratic right, but threatening to storm the Parliament and the PM's House together with a call for civil disobedience is unacceptable. By mobilising street power to oust a civilian government he has set a bad precedent that can haunt future governments, possibly his own. Even worse, he has been proudly telling his supporters that the 'umpire' would raise his finger by a certain time, thereby lending credence to a nagging suspicion that the entire affair could be a 'fixed' match. The tactics he has employed are reflective of excessive impatience, even naked lust for power, at the cost of the democratic system the people of this country have fought long and hard to restore.
The only saving grace, if any, in the final act of this drama is the manner in which the Army's 'mediation' or 'facilitation' effort has been framed: that the CoAS is to mediate or facilitate on the Prime Minister's request. That looks like an attempt to show that the Army is to resolve the situation staying within the legal sphere. It could be less problematic if seen as the government's voluntary decision to invite mediation or facilitation. That though would be a stretch. Even so, it offers the solace that even though the outcome is unlikely to favour the government, the system would survive albeit in a bruised state.
No comments:
Post a Comment