Security for politicians

VIP CULTURE, VIP protocol and VIP security are all matters that ought to be reviewed. No doubt, there is much abuse of state resources by powerful individuals who see matters of protocol and security as issues of prestige and public reputation. Yet, there is a difference between necessary security and unnecessary protocol. In more developed systems of governance, the perks and privileges enjoyed by public officials are carefully vetted, clearly delineated and publicly known. In Pakistan, however, a complicit bureaucracy and a prestige-craving political leadership have often transgressed the limits of good sense and genuine security needs. The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar made a decision to wade into the complex issue of security provided by the state to high-profile individuals when it issued an order in April for the withdrawal of all state security provided without due authorisation to individuals across the country. Pursuing the matter and in advancement of what appears to be a drive against VIP culture, the Supreme Court has sought the return of official vehicles in the possession of unauthorised individuals and has declared that politicians should provide for their own security in the upcoming election campaign. The decision could have potentially troubling consequences.

True, the Supreme Court has unearthed massive abuse of expensive, high-maintenance official vehicles, and in the deployment of state security personnel. If that were not the case, dozens of vehicles would not have been recovered so quickly by government departments acting on court orders. It is common practice for public officials and political leaders to continue to use official vehicles and retain security personnel after their spell in office. But a blanket ban on state security protection for politicians ahead of elections is inadvisable. The last two general elections alone are evidence of the significant threat that many political leaders and candidates face. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in the run-up to the 2008 polls continues to haunt this country’s politics. In 2013, mainstream political parties seen as secular and progressive were viciously attacked, forcing them to curtail their campaigning. In 2018, the security establishment itself has warned of possible violence being used to try and destabilise the country; surely, attacking poll campaigns would be high on the list of actors seeking to unleash mayhem. Rather than a blanket ban nationally, a case-by-case approach by security professionals assisted by the caretaker governments may be considered. Free and fair elections are safe and secure elections.