AT PENPOINT
Now that a year has passed, and now that elections have been held, the nation still faces the dilemma it did a year ago, when the attacks on military installations, and martyrs’ memorials had taken place, in reaction to the arrest of PTI chairman Imran Khan from the premises of the Islamabad High Court by Rangers personnel in a NAB case.
Imran was released after a few days, and promptly holed up within his Zaman Park residence in Lahore. Ultimately he was arrested from there by a police party which was offered no resistance, unlike a previous occasion, when there had been resistance by party workers, and the police had to beat a retreat.
There are two widely differing views of the events, which have not been tested yet in any court, even though bail hearings of arrested PTI workers have provided sufficient opportunity. One view, propounded by the PTI, is that the PTI erupted into protests when they learned of the arrest, or rather that their redline had been crossed. However, the protests remained peaceful, until agents provocateurs, belonging to secret agencies, committed mayhem upon military installations and martyrs’ memorials. According to this view, PTI supporters were innocent of all wrongdoing.
The other view is that the PTI had used Imran’s arrest as the signal for a coup d’état, not just against the government, but the senior military leadership. He was supposed to have been restored to office, with a military leadership of his choice. It didn’t happen that way, as the attempt to take over GHQ was successfully resisted. More importantly, the discipline of the armed forces held.
The break-up of the party afterwards was perhaps inevitable. A party whose members had boasted of their closeness to the military could not retain leaders who were forced to choose loyalties. Some still chose Imran.
The return of Mian Nawaz Sharif and the ensuing election did not lead to the ouster of Imran Khan. Clearly, he represented something more than his anti-corruption message. One view would be that he represented a spirit of envy. The view that traditional politicians are corrupt is not so much based on a revulsion against corruption, but on envy at those who have succeeded in gaining access to power.
The ordinary citizen’s life experience is of being kicked around, of what seem arbitrary exercises of power. There are certain people who appear to be able to work the system, and if need be overcome it. Joining that elite is seen as a result of the kind of wealth or job one has. Enter the politician, and also the universal franchise. Some of the pre-British landed gentry, noblesse d’épée et de robe (nobility of sword or robe) of the Mughal or Sikh courts, more of those who rose under the British, and then those who rose after Partition, emerged as those who could command enough votes to enter the Assemblies, and achieve those heights.
A landowner had to keep his patwari happy. But if he was elected to the Assembly, he could get access to the Minister who could transfer the patwari’s boss. The patwari would realize on which side his bread was buttered. May 11 was an attempt to deliver this power structure in the hands of those who wanted to perpetuate Imran Khan in power. It did not work.
What did Imran offer? Some saw the abolition of this structure, some wanted access to it. All those who resented anyone having access to it Of course, some had limited access, and wanted to preserve at least that much as they had. That was what Imran offered.
At one level, all revolutions offer the revolutionaries increased access. However, to succeed, they must also offer genuine change, based on a belief system. Imran’s ideology was essentially negative. Of course, that assumes that it reached the level of an ideology. One reason for its success was that it was so unsystematic. It offered a return to the certitudes of childhood, with the preservation of traditional culture along with the advantages of modernity.
The other parties do not see themselves as competitors with anyone except themselves. They do not feel envy for anyone else, not even other parties, so long as they can find a place at the trough. This envy is something that has not been dealt with, and will have to be if May 9 is to be put behind us as a nation.
However, the leader was not perfect. There were all sorts of questions about his personal life, which may explain why his followers are ready to indulge in fisticuffs to defend him. There were enough imperfections so that cases could be registered against him, and he was sentenced to jail. However, though that has ousted him from politics, the real case, that of involvement in the May 9 incidents, has not been brought against him.
He has been charged, but has been granted bail in those cases. Clearly, the evidence, if any, of his planning the indents, has not presented to the court. His claim that agents provocateurs committed the offences has also not had evidence presented in its support. Imran insists that a judicial commission of enquiry go into the matter. In short, the commission must find the evidence that agents provocateurs were at work.
The last time Imran had a commission investigate anything was the commission on the 2013 elections, which made findings that did not support Imran’s claim that the elections were stolen. His famous claim of ‘35 punctures’ in the Punjab was dismissed, not just by the commission, but by himself, as a political statement.
However, he cannot dismiss the May 11 events as merely a political statement, much as he would like to. They happened. And if he cannot prove his ‘agents provocateurs’ claim, it cannot be so easily dismissed, because it shattered his party, and allowed a strong government crackdown, not to mention the large number of leaders and workers at various levels who had to go to jail.
It must have been a relief to Imran that his candidates did so well in the elections, because it showed that his appeal had increased. If he had won in 2018 with establishment support, he had won again without it. True, the results were not as good as in 2018, but it still could have been helped to a majority.
Then came the question of the reserved seats, the play-merger with the Sunni Ittehad Council, and the ongoing legal battle, which has seen the membership suspended of all those women and minority legislators who had been allocated seats in place of the SIC. It was going to distort the proportions between parties. However, the SIC did not have a list of women or minority candidates. That list must be there on Election Day, as votes for a particular party are taken to be votes for that list. It does seem a conundrum, which may be best met by leaving the seats unfilled. After all, if seats are vacant, a House remains in order.
A large group has retained cohesion despite pressure to disintegrate, the PTI, and has a poor opinion of another large group, the armed forces, which retained cohesion despite pressure to disintegrate on May 9. The PTI may have as electoral competitors the other parties, but it sees itself as the competitor for loyalty with the armed forces.
The other parties do not see themselves as competitors with anyone except themselves. They do not feel envy for anyone else, not even other parties, so long as they can find a place at the trough. This envy is something that has not been dealt with, and will have to be if May 9 is to be put behind us as a nation.
