With the formation of governments after the February 8 elections, the discussion on TV channels, newspapers and WhatsApp groups has moved on to who will get what ministry, how long will the governments last and what will become of the economy.
These questions would be legitimate if the results of the election were not bogus and engineered. Since the central legal-constitutional principle of government as per the will of the people stands violated, other questions at this moment are irrelevant.
This basic principle is enshrined in the Constitution. People will elect their representatives and those representatives, through that mandate, will govern for a specific period of time. In a civilised state, this principle is enough and no one goes on to ask whether the voting exercise will be free and fair. Here we do ask such questions because in our case the exercise of voting rights, historically and unfortunately, has never been either entirely free or entirely fair.
Much effort is being spent to declare Khan’s supporters as cultists. Facts are also presented to show Khan as a dictatorial dimbulb whose three years in power gave the country nothing. I have my own views on Khan and his performance. They are available to anyone who wishes to go back to them. But this moment is not just about Khan. It’s about the legal-constitutional compact that must underpin not just the functioning of the state but also state’s relationship with the people. At best these are diversionary tactics, at worst whataboutery. We need to focus on that principle. No more or less.
In the run-up to the much and illegally delayed elections, every effort was made to clobber one of the leaders, his party and his supporters. This was, to put it in military lingo, a shaping up operation.
The principle is also important at another level — who gets to configure the system, how, to what end and in whose interest. Why? Because how the system is designed tells us about who wields power over whom and whether the system is equitable.
One can also, as one should under normal circumstances, problematise the simple principle I am stressing because vox populi far from being vox dei can, to quote de Tocqueville, lead to “tyranny of the majority”. That again, despite its importance, is peripheral to the moment. The moment belongs to the people and the stealing of an election.
This time, as everyone knows (including the supposed winners), the exercise was turned into a farce from the get-go. In the run-up to the much and illegally delayed elections, every effort was made to clobber one of the leaders, his party and his supporters. This was, to put it in military lingo, a shaping up operation. The idea was simple: ensure that former Prime Minister Imran Khan is taken out of the contest and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is bludgeoned to a point where it can barely stay in the contest.
This was done through sentencing Khan on laughable charges and depriving the party of its election symbol. The strategy was twofold: force PTI candidates to contest as independents and sow confusion among the voters by assigning multiple symbols to them. In other words, to deprive the party of the unity that an election symbol ensures to candidates of a party.
Additionally, candidates were not allowed in many cases to file nomination papers and actively prevented from canvassing or holding corner meetings. Seconders and proposers were picked up. Supporters were beaten or incarcerated. In short, the PTI was sent into the arena against multiple contestants blindfolded and with hands tied behind its back.
But while the engineers had proposed, the voters had other ideas about how to dispose. On February 8, PTI voters defeated the assumption that the shaping up operation would dishearten them. But something else happened too. Many people also voted PTI not so much for PTI but against the engineering that had reached absurd and brazen levels. Their vote was anti-intervention.
Our new leaders expect that life will go on as before: but it will and it won’t. It won’t because the system’s weaknesses are structural and generational change is happening. It will because, beholden as our leaders are to the army, their expected Pavlovian conditioning will ensure their lease of life.
We also know now that when the results started coming in, the engineers were taken aback. Thus began the attempt to change the results. Once again, there was not even a pretence at subtlety. Those who were losing started winning. By all accounts, including the private confessions of Noon League friends and government functionaries, the party lost all but two National Assembly seats from Lahore, the former bastion of its power.
Protests and legal challenges have followed. Some results might be overturned but that won’t be enough to restore justice. Following on from the rigging of an election, we have now seen the forced delivery of an unwanted government. At the national level we have a motley crew in the form of Pakistan Democratic Movement 2.0, ideal and easy to manage by the engineers. Our new leaders expect that life will go on as before: but it will and it won’t. It won’t because the system’s weaknesses are structural and generational change is happening. It will because, beholden as our leaders are to the army, their expected Pavlovian conditioning will ensure their lease of life. Woe betide if they develop a bark. That will be their undoing.
Given a multiplicity of factors, something’s gotta give. There are two models: the good, old English gradualness or storming the Bastille. If the system continues to gamble for resurrection, the rupture could become violent. If, however, someone at the top of the system develops a vision that goes beyond his nose, then we might see a benign transition to a more equitable and fair reconfiguration.
A rupture can take a polity in unintended directions, many of which are undesirable. A transition can be deftly directed. Let’s hope the army understands that for it to retain the image of a national army it will have to respect the wishes of the nation.