No government has good words for the dispensation it topples, for that would amount to forfeiting the justification for change. But how much and for how long should a government derive political advantage from berating the preceding custodians of power before the exercise becomes counterproductive?
In Pakistan, the game of blaming the outgoing regime began to be played within the first decade of freedom when an undemocratic, if not entirely unconstitutional, method was used to throw out the Nazimuddin ministry, or Prime Minister Nazimuddin only — as many of his Cabinet colleagues retained their posts in the new government, and a story of food scarcity and emergency wheat import was cooked up.
The real demonisation of the outgoing rulers began when regime changes were brought about through extra-constitutional means or abuse of the head of state’s special powers to dissolve the National Assembly. While abrogating the Constitution from which he derived his title as President, Gen. Iskander Mirza not only denounced the government he had illegally sacked but also poured scorn on the whole tribe of politicians and told them to leave the country while the going was good. The only notable person obliged to leave the country was Gen. Mirza himself because Gen. Ayub Khan took just three weeks to rip off the veil of a presidential coup.
The Ayub regime carried out extended demonisation of not only politicians but of democratic politics itself, which he decreed was incompatible with the Pakistani people’s genius. To rid the country of corrupt and incompetent politicians, he disqualified them for nine years — the period required to get himself elected as President twice. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq disqualified the politicians belonging to the party he had ousted from power for seven years, the time he thought was needed to bury the system of party-based elections, Parliament and democratic governance. (The wonderful scheme of disqualifying politicians for life was still in the womb of time.)
The purpose of recalling this bit of Pakistan’s political history is to emphasise the point that only regimes established through a coup d’état or by presidential decisions to sack elected governments by abusing their authority have needed to demonise ousted politicians. The governments formed after the 2008 and 2013 general elections didn’t have to do this beyond a short while. And the government formed after the 2018 general election does not need to rely overly on denunciation of the preceding setup.
The essential fact is that regardless of the debate over the fairness or otherwise of the polls, the PTI’s entitlement to govern the country, until its term ends in a constitutionally valid manner, has been established and accepted by the relevant institutions and the people at large. It is completely free to carry out its programme within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. An accountability process is going on; let it continue as independently of the executive and as fairly as possible.
Government spokespersons have no need to waste their time on targeting ousted rivals, and there is certainly no justification for calling political opponents enemies of the state. Whenever it is necessary to answer any Opposition charge, a small department of denial and rebuttal can do this, instead of all the federal and provincial leaders firing off their heavy guns. If they continue in this manner, the people might conclude they have nothing else to do.
Over the decades, the challenge of properly governing Pakistan has been getting heavier by the year. Some say for four decades, others suggest a longer period of misgovernance. There is broad agreement that during his 11-year rule Gen. Zia-ul-Haq created the greatest mess of all the rulers. Post-Zia governments could not clean up the mess, and, in fact, made their own contribution to it. If the PPP and N-League do not agree, they may accept this for the sake of argument.
Thus, the PTI may argue with some justification that it faces more serious challenges than the preceding governments. That means a much harder and appropriately directed struggle is required to realise the elusive goal of good governance.
Nothing will be gained by abusing fellow politicians or finding other scapegoats. Indeed, there is need to break the Pakistani politicians’ tradition of keeping their mouths open and their ears closed. The government should, in any case, have no fears of the Opposition because in Pakistan, governments have not been brought down by their opponents; they have usually fallen under the weight of their own blunders. Instead of recalling the follies of the preceding regimes, the focus must be on avoiding replicating them.
It seems that the PTI has enmeshed itself in its pre-election rhetoric and has difficulty in realising that the country cannot be turned around in three or six months. All that can reasonably be achieved in 100 or 180 days is identification of priority objectives and, if possible, the development of sound strategies.
By arrangement with Dawn
