Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was forced out of office in a soft coup on Friday, highlighting once again how tentative democratic values are in that country. The background was Panama Papers in which Mr Sharif’s children and a close aide were held guilty of possessing properties in London through secret offshore accounts managed by third parties.
A five-member Supreme Court bench unanimously decided to disqualify the PM after what was evidently a sham investigation by a specially constituted joint investigation team — in which an ISI officer was represented alongside one from military intelligence — whose findings were forwarded to the National Accountability Bureau. There was no trial. This is certainly strange business.
In a fundamental sense, Mr Sharif was pushed out for not honouring his oath of office to defend the Constitution. But did the apex court bench adhere to its own role under the Constitution, which enjoins that no one can be held guilty unless guilt is established through a fair trial?
Corruption in high places is common not only in the poorer parts of the world but also in some G-7 countries. The judicial system must help by transparently fighting it when a case comes before it. The trouble with Pakistan is that its higher judiciary tends to go with those in authority, and specially avoids crossing swords with the military, though there have been exceptions.
Also, in Pakistan, the trend has been for the armed forces to oust a civilian leader by bringing charges of corruption — when death sentence is not issued — and replace him with another civilian, who might be similarly treated if he does not fall in line. In the event directly military rule replaces civilian rule, the generals too rake it in. No one has the courage to bring a case of corruption against them. The men in khaki leave only when they want to leave.
In Westminster-style democracy, which Pakistan claims to be, a PM should be ousted only on Parliament floor, but this is not a preferred method in Pakistan. There is no open, transparent, judicial trial either. This is why it is safe to call the resignation of Mr Sharif a camouflaged coup. This particular Pakistani leader has been PM three times and not once has he been permitted to complete a full term. They might as well ban him from contesting election again or, better still, banish him to Pakistan’s version of Siberia, unless they plan worse things like a long jail term and torture.
India-Pakistan terms have been at a low ebb. In the foreseeable future, they can get much worse, and we should remain ready to meet politico-military eventualities, meaning heightened terrorism and intervention in Kashmir — independently or in collusion with the Chinese. It doesn’t matter which civilian leader is made to replace Mr Sharif.
