Army benefits as Pakistani politicians squabble
A little more than a year after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took office, following a historic election that marked the first democratic transfer of power from one civilian regime to another, the groundswell of political hostility that his Government now faces, exposes the fragility of Pakistan's democratic institutions. This past week, Opposition leader Imran Khan, who was also in the running for prime ministership and lost miserably, along with the maverick Pakistani-Canadian cleric Tahir-ul-Qadri, alleged that the 2013 general election was rigged. Demanding Mr Sharif’s resignation, they led a ‘long march' from lahore to Islamabad, that saw several thousands of protesters arrive in the national capital. Both men have sought fresh elections and called for a ‘revolution’. The demonstrations have undoubtedly been the most significant political challenge to the Sharif Government but it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will quit office.
However, this is not to say that Mr Sharif has the luxury of letting the crisis play itself out. As the clashes between supporters of Mr Sharif's Pakistan Muslim league (Nawaz) and Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in Gujranwala on Friday showed, the protests could easily turn violent and bloody. In facts, shots were fired, and especially if Mr Khan had been injured, the crisis would have spiralled out of control. Moreover, Pakistan already faces several other grave challenges, such as the energy crisis and a failing economy. It simply cannot afford a political logjam at this point. In this situation, Mr Sharif has done well to extend an olive branch to Mr Khan. The two leaders must come to an agreement, and stick to it. An electoral audit is one way out of the mess. It allows both parties a face-saver and buys them time to reconcile their differences. However, that does not take away from the larger problem of opposition leaders seeking to topple an elected Government with voter fraud charges, a year after the poll. This is the sign of a political class that is yet to mature within the democratic framework. Afghanistan has a similar problem, as the ongoing electoral dispute between its presidential candidates stand proof.
In Pakistan, such ‘long marches' have often been used by Opposition leaders to build pressure on the Government. The assumption is that the consequent law and order crisis will pave the way for the military to step in and oust the elected regime. The tactic has received mixed results. For example, Benazir Bhutto's first ‘long march' in 1992 failed ostensibly because the then Army chief looked the other way. Her second attempt, a year later, fetched better results as the military pressured the Government to hold a fresh election, which she won. Her third attempt, in 1998, led to the toppling of the Nawaz Sharif Government but then Army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, grabbed power. By 2009, the lawyers' movement was putting similar pressure on the Musharraf regime. Mr Sharif seized leadership of that movement (even led a long march), which galvanised his political rehabilitation process. It is too early to comment on the military's role in the current crisis, but few doubt that the Generals in Rawalpindi will seek to leverage this political crisis in their favour.