‘Charter of Non-Intervention’

May 05, 2018

IN accusing his principal political opponent of having received help from the military leadership to win the last general election, PTI chief Imran Khan has, perhaps unwittingly, highlighted an overarching problem in the country’s democratic process. In his trademark fashion, Mr Khan stirred fresh controversy in an interview with a private TV channel by making specific allegations about the role of individuals in the military in helping the PML-N virtually sweep the polls in Punjab in May 2013. Mr Khan stopped short of accusing the then army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani of ordering electoral rigging, but the claims he did make are quite remarkable. To be stressed is that Mr Khan offered no proof or independent corroboration of his claims and until now there has been no evidence of significant pre-poll, polling day, or post-poll rigging by the military or other institutions. Indeed, during the PTI’s ultimately failed quest to dislodge the federal government in 2014, there was no public mention of or hostility towards the military’s alleged role in manipulating the 2013 general election.

What is true, however, is that the arc of Pakistan’s political history has repeatedly and for long stretches been shaped by anti-democratic forces. No political party has been immune from credible allegations of collusion with forces that seek to undermine or destroy the democratic order in the country. The political empire of the Sharifs was made possible by the intensive support of Gen Ziaul Haq and his regime, and Nawaz Sharif has yet to disown his and his family’s close association with a dictator who distorted the country, its politics and society itself. More recently, the PML-N’s willingness to undermine the previous PPP-led coalition government led Mr Sharif to take the so-called Memogate affair to the Supreme Court. Mr Sharif has expressed some remorse for his role in that damaging episode, but regret has only been expressed after Mr Sharif had himself been ousted by the superior judiciary from the prime ministership and found himself in deep legal jeopardy.

With Mr Khan, too, now seemingly awakening to the threat of institutional interference in the electoral process, and with the next general election scheduled to be held in less than three months from now, it can be hoped that the major political parties will not only pledge to protect the democratic order but take some steps to prevent or minimise interference by anti-democratic forces. With all institutions having publicly pledged to support democratic continuity, the political parties will have to do their part in making the upcoming election transparent, free and fair. Perhaps the collective political leadership of the country will have to draw up another Charter of Democracy, this time focusing on non-intervention by institutions. A ‘Charter of Non-Intervention’ that has the support of the political leadership and incorporates sensible suggestions could help protect the next parliament from institutional interference.