Quaid’s visit to Staff College Quetta November 22, 2012

Quaid’s visit to Staff College Quetta
November 22, 2012

Every time General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Chief of Army Staff, speaks, and he generally speaks on sensitive political issues, he creates confusion all around and makes thing worse for himself. As I read his incredible address at the GHQ, I could only shake my head in disbelief. Exposing seniors army officers to highly controversial political issues and then issuing the statement to the press is bad enough, but denying it with a straight face is tantamount to insulting the intelligence of people. General Kayani’s statement published on November 5 is widely interpreted as a pointed attack on the Supreme Court. Without directly referring to the court, the General said that the country was passing through a “defining phase” and issued a veiled warning of “consequences if the state institutions did not work in harmony.” “No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest,” he said. “The fundamental principle,” he said, that no one is guilty until proven should not be forgotten, a pointed reference to the judiciary. It is backhanded support to the retired Generals, who are facing criminal charges in an election-rigging case dating from the 1990s. General Kayani is quite obviously seeking to establish red lines for the Supreme Court. Exactly 64 years ago, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Founder of Pakistan and Father of the Nation, visited Staff College Quetta and, with uncanny prescience, warned senior officers against involvement in politics and the affairs of government. He expressed his alarm at the casual attitude of “one or two very high-ranking officers”, and warned the assembled officers that some of them were not aware of the implications of their oath to Pakistan and promptly read it out to them. And he added: “I should like you to study the constitution, which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implications when you say that you will be faithful to the constitution of the Dominion.“ Earlier, on the day of Pakistan’s independence, August 14, 1947, Mr Jinnah, who had just become Governor General, scolded one young army officer. The officer had complained that “instead of giving us the opportunity to serve our country in positions where our natural talents and native genius could be used to the greatest advantage, important posts are being entrusted, as had been done in the past, to foreigners. British officers have been appointed to head the three fighting services, and a number of other foreigners are in key senior appointments. This was not our understanding of how Pakistan should be run.” Mr Jinnah, it appears, had a presentiment of sorts and was deliberate in his answer. He warned the officer concerned “not to forget that the armed forces were the servants of the people and you do not make national policy; it is we, the civilians, who decide these issues and it is your duty to carry out these tasks with which you are entrusted.” The Pakistan Army is a people’s army, in the sense that it belongs to the people of Pakistan, who take a jealous and proprietary interest in it. It is not so much an arm of the executive branch as it is an arm of the people of Pakistan. It is the only shield we have against foreign aggression. Why politicise it? Why expose it to the rough and tumble of politics? Isn’t it ironical that 64 years after Mr Jinnah’s visit to the Staff College and the policy statement he made on the role of the army in the affairs of government, when a petitioner spoke of the army’s respect for judiciary, the Chief Justice quipped: “Yes, we witnessed it yesterday (Monday November 5).” The Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court had final authority in all legal and constitutional matters. This authority, he said, is enshrined in the constitution and is unassailable. In Pakistan, as in all federations, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role. It is the sole and unique tribunal of the nation. The peace, prosperity, and very existence of the federation rest continually in the hands of the Supreme Court judges. Without them, the constitution would be a dead letter; it is to them that the executive appeals to resist the encroachment of Parliament; Parliament to defend itself against the assaults of the executive; the federal government to make the provinces obey it; the provinces to rebuff the exaggerated pretensions of the federal government, public interest against private interest etc. They decide whether you and I shall live or die. Their power is immense. But they are all-powerful only so long as the people and the government consent to obey the laws and implement the decisions of the court. They can do nothing if they scorn it. It is now abundantly clear that the executive is determined to defy the apex court. Attempts are being made to subvert the people’s will and overturn the judicial revolution. It is the last desperate gamble of a corrupt fascist autocracy. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry faces an uphill task. An awesome responsibility rests on his shoulders. The survival of the federation as a democratic, progressive state now depends on his court. The judicial revolution triggered by him is irreversible. Let there be no doubt about it. Any attempt to undo it will be resisted. The people have planted an independent judiciary in the path of our turbulent democracy. No longer would the executive be a law unto itself. Today, there are many now willing to spill their blood to defend their hard-earned independent judiciary. Try to destroy the independence of judiciary, and the moment is not far off when this beautiful country will be plunged into a civil war. The Supreme Court should be the barrier that protects the citizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we allow it to be stymied or sabotaged by corrupt rulers or permit it to be desecrated or demeaned and it crumbles, who will be able to stand in the winds that follow? Not many people know that a landmark judgment of an earlier Supreme Court, gives the rubber-stamp Parliament the ultimate power to emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of our constitution. It would now be free, under the garb of amendment, to change a democratic government into a dictatorship or hereditary monarchy. It could do away with the Islamic provisions of the constitution and change the federal constitution of Pakistan into a unitary form. It could even subordinate the superior judiciary to the executive and make the Supreme Court the judicial arm of the government. In other words, it could mutilate the constitution and change it beyond all recognition. It is scary! The judges of the Supreme Court are bound by their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. The constitution places that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Supreme Court, which has the power, in fact the duty, to strike down any legislation enacted by Parliament that, in its view, is repugnant to the constitution. The Supreme Court is more than the usual law court. In its keeping lies the destiny of Pakistan. Its decrees mark the boundaries between the various branches of state. Upon its action, depends the proper functioning of the federation; in fact, its very survival. The power to determine constitutionality of amendments made by Parliament is of the very essence of judicial duty. In the midst of civil strife and war, as Burke pointed out in his reflections on the French revolution, “laws are commanded to hold their tongue amongst arms. But in peace time, the law is supreme and its interpretation is the exclusive prerogative of the civil courts.” Now that “democracy” has been restored and law is unfettered, and supreme once again, the court must exercise its power to restore the balance between “the one, the few and the many.” Is there any remedy for this state of things? None. Because a corrupt presidency and a corrupt executive are in league with a rubber-stamp Parliament. Ultimately, the true guardians of the constitution and the Supreme Court are the people of Pakistan. People power alone can protect the Supreme Court from corrupt rulers and corrupt power-hungry Generals. Our rulers know that the street is all they have to fear. Confronting them has now become a patriotic duty. Today, there is no other path for our country, but the one which led to the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other deposed judges. The writer is a retired civil servant and senior political analyst. Email: roedad@comsats.net.pk Website: www.roedadkhan.com

QK Archives: Interview Qazi Faez Isa

Published 2007 the news on Sunday
"This is the Law of the Jungle"
- Qazi Faez Isa
Barrister and advocate of the Supreme Court




By Sairah Irshad Khan

Back

Qazi Faez Isa is the son of Qazi Mohammad Isa, the foremost freedom fighter from Balochistan and a close associate of the Quaid, whose efforts were chiefly responsible for Balochistan joining Pakistan.

Q: Would you say that the emergency is tantamount to martial law?
A: This emergency has no legal or constitutional basis. This is something hybrid, which the constitution does not allow or permit. You could call it martial law or any name you want to give it. In other words, it is no law at all; you may call it the law of the jungle.
Q: What are the legal ramifications of the new Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)?
A: The PCO states that the constitution is held in abeyance. The constitution does not provide for it, the constitution does not envisage a provisional constitutional order. It has zero legal or constitutional sanctity.
We must understand the special nature of the constitution. The constitution declares that each and every citizen of Pakistan, and every person within Pakistan, even if he is a foreigner, has to abide by the constitution of Pakistan. You cannot hold the constitution in abeyance. It defeats the purpose of a constitution. The constitution is not a simple law, it is the paramount law. Article 6 of the constitution says that anybody who tries to abrogate it by force of arms, or otherwise, or assists in its abrogation, commits high treason.
Q: What, in your view, are the legal or ethical limits, if any, of judicial activism?
A: The 1973 constitution is very crucial for the survival of the country. It is the only constitutional document ever to have been promulgated unanimously by each and every member of the National Assembly. Out of 200, 196 voted in favour of it. There were four abstentions, not a single vote of dissent against the passing of the constitution in 1973. In the document, the framers of the constitution provided Article 184, which also stipulated the boundaries of judicial activism. The boundaries are, firstly, that the court can take up only a matter of public importance, and secondly, one that pertains to fundamental rights. So if a wholescale infringement of fundamental rights is taking place, Article 184 enables the Supreme Court to act. This is, of course, in the larger interest of the people. For instance, if a dam that is providing water to say 10,000, or even 1,000 people, is being polluted, their fundamental rights are being violated. They may not have the resources to initiate a case against the violators, but the court can take up the matter. So it is a wonderful device. It's good for the poorer segments of society, it protects them and it supports them - and it is very much a matter of fundamental rights. Now if I have a personal dispute with somebody, this doesn't come into the picture at all. So, the test is fundamental rights and public importance. If the Supreme Court takes notice of a matter which does not fall within these two conditions then it can be said to be acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Q: The parameters of judicial activism set by the constitution notwithstanding, there has been a debate in certain quarters about some of the recent rulings of the Supreme Court under Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, namely the release of the Lal Masjid militants and the order to the authorities to pay blood money to the families of those killed in the operation on the masjid. In light of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in the country, how wise were these decisions? Is there any provision for when the law can be modified in the larger public interest?
A: The chief justice did not pass any orders in the matter of Lal Masjid that you are referring to. Instead, orders were passed by Justice Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Javed Buttar, who, incidentally, were among the first to have been offered the oath under the PCO and who took the oath under the PCO. Furthermore, what I have been able to understand of the Lal Masjid scenario, it's the government itself which has made it into a large issue. The government claims it is committed against terrorism, but what does the federal minister for religious affairs say? He says in the media that the two brothers [Maulanas Ghazi and Aziz] had arms in their cars, but he intervened and got them off. Isn't he supporting terrorists?
There are many laws to arrest somebody, there are anti-terrorism laws, anti-subversion laws and others. What the courts say is to please proceed according to these laws. If people are terrorists, lodge an FIR, arrest them, there is a whole mechanism provided. You can't just pick up a person and keep him incommunicado for years. That becomes a missing persons case. The Supreme Court has never said to release people who are guilty of terrorism or even suspects in terrorism cases. The court says to process them according to law or make laws if the [existing ones] are deficient. To simply pick up people and detain them, however, is unconstitutional. The courts have no option but to release such persons - a person is, after all, innocent until proven guilty.
Everything the Supreme Court did was according to the law and constitution. It cannot be accused of doing something for its personal interest. On the other hand, on the very same day that the proclamation of emergency was issued, Major General Arshad Waheed announced that the military had released 25 militants in exchange for 213 army officers whom the militants had taken captive. So who is releasing these people? Had the court said to release them? Let's put matters in their true perspective.
Q: In his address to the nation following the proclamation of emergency, General Musharraf spoke about the arrests of various law enforcement personnel and of the collision course the judiciary had chosen to embark on vis à vis the executive, which had "paralysed the state machinery and demoralised the law enforcement agencies." How would you respond?
A: The Supreme Court has said a number of times that if the government does what it is required to do, there would be no need for it to take any action. The Supreme Court will be more than happy not to do anything. It is only when the government is so thoroughly incompetent that the Supreme Court has to initiate action in all matters, in environmental matters, in building matters - even in traffic matters in Karachi. There is so much corruption everywhere. The Supreme Court has only been intervening because its jurisdiction has been invoked, under Article 184, in matters of public importance affecting fundamental rights. They have never acted beyond this domain. And the general public has been very pleased whenever the Supreme Court has acted. The poorest of the poor support the actions of the Supreme Court.
You must also realise that in this parliament, there is no opposition. In fact, there is no parliament. These parliamentarians are a burden on the exchequer, and you and I are paying for them. We have the largest cabinet in the world. What it does, we don't know. There are no question and answer sessions, matters are not decided in the parliament, nothing is debated. I think the Supreme Court played a very valuable role because without it there would have been anarchy on the streets and probably much worse. So the Supreme Court offers people a ray of hope.
Q: Do you believe the emergency was entirely triggered by the judgement of the bench hearing the case for General Musharraf's election to the presidency?
A: A request was made from the lawyers side that a full court should hear the matter. You will recollect that before this judgment, there was another petition which was heard by a nine-member bench. Out of these, four of the judges said that the president could not file his nomination papers. The others dismissed the petition on a technicality saying that the person who had filed it was not an aggrieved person. In the second constitution of the bench, those gentlemen who had decided against Musharraf said that since they had already decided the matter, their conscience would not permit them to be part of this bench. So the new bench was probably the most sympathetic bench available that the president could get. You will recollect that it was headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, who, when the chief justice was removed, was made the acting chief justice by no less a person than General Musharraf himself. So where is there cause for grievance? If you're not happy even with those who are perceived to be supporting you, does that mean you should get your own court?
Q: Presidential aspirant Justice Wajihuddin made some observations recently. He said that those who were to benefit from the NRO - quite pointedly the PPP - were in collusion with President Musharraf. He also pointed out that the new chief justice of the Supreme Court, Abdul Hameed Dogar, had been elevated to the Sindh High Court by the PPP government, the implication being that his elevation was certainly not anathema to the PPP. Do you agree?
A: I don't know if Justice Wajihuddin has made these statements. I don't want to comment upon conjecture and surmises.
Q:Justice Javed Iqbal went on record to state that Aitzaz Ahsan, as counsel for Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed, the plaintiff in the case, had prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily. He maintained that considering Aitzaz's "political affiliations, he did not deploy what could have been a devastating argument against Musharraf's nomination papers." Do you concur with this allegation?
A: I would say that Aitzaz Ahsan is a reputable counsel. I think these comments are certainly not justified.
To say that Aitzaz, because he is affiliated with the Peoples Party, intentionally mishandled the case, is absolutely untrue. We all know that Benazir Bhutto is not happy with Aitzaz Ahsan, so the last person that she would be listening to or vice versa, would be Aitzaz Ahsan.
Q:What happens now to all the rulings that had been made by the Supreme Court prior to the proclamation of emergency? Can they be overturned?
A: Each and every judgment of the Supreme Court stands unless it is overruled.
Q:Can it be overruled by the current bench of the Supreme Court?
A: There is only one Supreme Court, there is no new Supreme Court. Anybody who takes oath under the PCO is violating the constitution and thus cannot be accepted or recognised as a judge.
Q:That notwithstanding, this is not the first PCO, and whatever their legitimate position, the courts have continued to function…
A: There is one big difference this time… this has never happened before. In all the earlier instances the Supreme Court found some fig leaf to justify military intervention by inventing the doctrine of necessity or by other means. The difference this time is that on the day of the proclamation of emergency and the issuance of the PCO, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court struck down the PCO. The Supreme Court held, "The order states, no judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts including chief justices shall take oath under PCOs or any other constitutional step. Any further appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan and the judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of High Courts and judges of provinces under the new development shall be unlawful and without jurisdiction." So there is an order operating. And what are the consequences of violating this order? Article 190 of the constitution stipulates that all executive and judicial authorities in Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. So it is a binding order on each and every one of us. There is no way out of this order now. The fundamental difference this time is that the Supreme Court immediately convened and seven judges, the chief justice and the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, including the second and the third, Justice Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Javed Iqbal, passed this order. So it carries a lot of weight. The judges went on to state, and this is very interesting, "The chief of army staff, corp commanders, staff officers, and all concerned of civil and military authorities are hereby restrained from acting on the PCO." I think this concludes the matter and there is no fig leaf this time.
Q:What happens to all the judges who refused to take oath? Do they just go home?
A: No, they continue to be judges under the constitution and law.
Q:The courts will function without them. So will it not be just in name - unless the PCO is rescinded?
A: The only courts in Pakistan that can function are under those judges who took an oath under the 1973 constitution. All those who were judges on November 3, continue to be judges. In the constitution of Pakistan, there are only three ways a High Court or Supreme Court judge can be removed. One, if he dies in office. Second, if he resigns his office. Third, if the supreme judicial council removes him. The framers of the constitution, and this happens everywhere in the world, knew that you must provide security to a judge of the Supreme Court because he would be deciding sensitive matters and at times when you have powerful parties arrayed against you, for example the government or the president, you want to ensure that the judge is not going to be worried about his job. So there is absolute security of tenure. A Supreme Court or High Court judge cannot be removed at all. The minute you do that you fall foul of Article 6 and you are guilty of high treason. So Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry remains chief justice, and there is no other. Sabihuddin Ahmed is chief justice of the Sindh High Court. It is as simple as that, it's black and white.
Q:How do you see the future of the judiciary?
A: The future couldn't be bleaker. You can't have democracy without an independent judiciary, you can't have democracy without an independent media. Each and every officer of the armed forces and the civil bureaucracy, each and every member of parliament, should be asked about the oath they took under the constitution. Schedule 3 prescribes an oath of office for every one of them, as it does for the president of Pakistan and the prime minister. Under this oath they all swear to preserve and protect the constitution. So now each member of parliament, each federal minister, each provincial minister, each member of provincial assembly, the chairman of the Senate, each one is violating their oath of office. So either they don't have the consciousness, or the conscience. Have they not read the oath that they took? Are they protecting the constitution when they go by this order which says that the constitution is held in abeyance?

Q:So is there going to be no fight-back by the legal fraternity?
A: The legal community is not entering the courts at this time.
Qoesn't that affect all those whose cases desperately need to be heard?
A: Would you want a case to be heard by a person who has now sworn - and this is very important - not to challenge or to entertain any challenge against the proclamation of emergency or the PCO. Both these devices have been used to take away your fundamental rights. So if they decide to close, for instance Newsline, for printing this interview, what is your recourse? None. Ordinarily you would have gone to the High Court and filed a petition under Article 199, because you could say your fundamental rights had been violated. What will you do today? Nothing. The courts have sworn to uphold the proclamation of the PCO, which says that fundamental rights are out of the window. I know people will suffer, but they will suffer far more, [if they become party to this]. You have to prevent the disease from spreading.
Q:So the fight-back is essentially by an act of omission…
A: I don't know where the constitution of Pakistan says that only the legal community is obligated to uphold the constitution. It is each and every one's duty - not just that of civil society, but of every individual, including those in the military.
As for the lawyers, in one day, 500 lawyers were arrested. This is a world record. Three hundred and forty-four FIRs were lodged in Lahore, in just one police station. And lawyers have been charged with all sorts of offences. They were in court, the police barged in, hit them with batons, tear-gassed them and then lodged FIRs against them.
So the entire leadership of the lawyers has been incarcerated, including the second, third and fourth tiers. Still they are brave souls, they are coming out, and are paying perhaps the biggest price. Apart from the assaults on them, if they don't appear in court, nobody is going to pay them. And it is not as though they will derive any personal benefit from their battle. This battle they are fighting is for Pakistan.
Qo you think the current status-quo will remain?
A: Our faith teaches us patience - one should never give up hope and must speak up against tyranny. But the reality is that a single phone call from Condoleezza Rice ensured that, earlier, no emergency was declared. I'm sure if President Bush, who pretends to want democracy in Pakistan, was to make a phone call, things could be immediately reversed. Unfortunately today, the people of Pakistan are not determining the events that are taking place in Pakistan, it is America who decides what happens in Pakistan.
And now the American nation has to, for once and for all, decide, do they stand by the people of Pakistan or do they stand by one individual?

KP 2018 a broken elite and Frontier myths

This unpublished piece was written shortly before the 2018 election

21 July 2018

PRIOR to the tragic attack on Haroon Bilour, the stronghold of Awami National Party (ANP) in Charsadda was packed with a sea of people waving the red flags of the ANP.

The peculiar nature of the upcoming  Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) elections is best described by the story narrated by a young, Pashto broadcast journalist who was covering said ANP rally.

What is striking about his story is that the young worker attending the rally initially said he would be voting in favour of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) and he was only at the rally to pacify his father who was an ardent ANP voter, however after the rally he had a change of heart.

Anecdotes like this remind us how this 2018 election is a time when a hand full of myths about KP and especially what has been described as the 'Imran Khan factor' ought to be challenged.

The myths given here are not that difficult to unpack when taking into account the evidence before us.

The first myth is that KP does not re-elect the same government twice.

The province voted against the PPP wave of 1970, in favour of the PNA and PML-N in 1977 and 1993 respectively and voted for the MMA over PML-Q and for ANP over PPP in 2008. It was this pattern that has created the conventional wisdom that no party can win re-election in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. The reality is a bit more complicated, in face that the PML-N was re-elected in the 1993 elections but with a different Chief Minister namely, Pir Sabir Shah. Further, by virtue of coalition politics, parties like ANP were elected in 1997, initially working in coalition with other ruling party's.

The second prevalent myth is that KP incumbents are punished for not delivering on promises.

Just over a year ago the odds looked stacked against PTI. Its mandate in 2013 was, contrary to media spin quite fragile. It had only narrowly won a plurality vote share and had formed a weak coalition with the JI, independents and Aftab Sherpaos QWP. Unfortunately, the PTI was driven by factionalism with a Chief Minister of dubious work ethic, whilst being held hostage to the whims of party dissidents and their junior allies within JI. On the ground the province was devastated by TTP linked violence early on and in equal measure struggled with indifference by the Federal government on key projects like CPEC.

So while on the surface although it seems reasonable to assume these myths have a valid basis, when we look a bit deeper we find the key trends that have shifted the sands behind these two calculations.

The first myth is driven by simple demographics, KP has the second highest bloc of young voters in the 18 to 35 years age group, 48 pc against the national average of 43pc in the rest of the country. These are first or second time voters who do not necessarily share the voting preferences of the previous generation. This is further complicated by the high levels of competition amongst voters and candidates reflected in the province having the second highest number of candidates per seat after Balochistan.

This youth bulge has converged with technology and social media to create a voter who absorbs information very differently from the voter from ten years ago. Many following the global trend of taking in information from platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. The numbers of Facebook users alone, is nationally now at 33 million from 8.6 million in 2012 with 35 million smart phone users - a whopping seven fold increase from the 5-6 million in 2012. PTI being an early adopter of these technologies has benefitted by being able bypass the traditional media according to it's needs, to get its message out. So one can presume that for a voter lost due to disillusionment in the government’s performance it offsets that loss with the addition of new voters and that too in areas they did not have support before.

The third myth was that KP's provincial governments were vulnerable to federal government pressure being elected to the province which worked against the winning party. This was proven in the past from 1972-1973 NAP governments toppling and by the challenges faced by the PML-N government in 1993 as well as the MMA from 2002-2007. This myth has been challenged directly as a consequence of the subsequent 18th amendment and the associated devolution of power, which led to an increase in the provincial budget from Rs 170.904 billion for the fiscal year 2008-2009 to Rs 603 billion in 2017-18. This increase provided crucial fiscal space for PTI to spend heavily on a variety of initiatives. An example of this can be seen in the health budget which went from

Rs. 30.3 billion

in 2012-13 to Rs. 66.49 billion in 2017-2018. In relative terms this has been a big change but in absolute terms this has been a modest increase.

For the public, this relative increase influences the perceptions of delivery by the government.

While  initiatives of the government do not stand up to scrutiny, in terms of perception they are enough to ensure the party’s support has broadened. The dark side to this is that the heavy increase in spending on big projects initiated and the increase in salary due to recruitment drives means the provinces finances will face a major economic crisis within the next two or three years. It also leads to disillusioned supporters of the party when the realities of acts of omission and commission by the party are later revealed.

It is pertinent to note here that despite the tragic recent attacks, overall the security situation has largely been improving. The contrast is stark, from a peak of 5497 casualties in 2009 to 29 being the highest number in 2017.

A fourth myth is that the opposition is far more organised this time compared to last time.

There is an element of truth in this as there is no smoke without a fire, especially in the case of the ANP which in the last election was devastated by relentless terrorist attacks, according to one estimate in 2016 they had lost over 500 workers and several legislators too. However, a lack of serious reflection within the party’s after the last election has meant that where workers were well organized, like in the ANP, or where electables have been brought in like with the JUI-F the party’s now lack the ability to attract new voters. Critically the opposition has decided for reasons best known to their leadership to go solo when their biggest anti pti successes have been together.

The ensuing instability created a vacuum that coincided with a generational leadership transition in the PPP towards Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, ANP towards Aimal Wali and Haider Hoti, JUI-F towards Maulana Lutfur Rehman and PML-N towards Maryam Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif. This has created a vacuum and by virtue of the dictum “nature abhors a vacuum” it has left PTI with a clear advantage.

Next, the 'Imran Khan factor' is probably the most contested myth, with many critics of Imran Khan arguing that one reason for his popularity is the political vacuum of the 2000s. From 2004 till 2013 he received unprecedented levels of media coverage at a time when his electoral support was negligible. This advantage packaged with his populist slogans as key reasons for his support. There is truth to this as his own celebrity status created a platform which helped him to reach out to future supporters. It is true that his populism has certain appeals. But it is also equally true that other politicians have received disproportionate coverage in comparison with Sheikh Rashid for example, and some other politicians also attempting to use populist rhetoric without being able to translate it into mass support. If however, media coverage was the main indicator to measure this, one would expect areas with the highest television penetration and those that spoke in the same language as the electorate like Karachi or Urban Punjab to be areas of highest support for PTI and not Pashto speaking areas with less media penetration, let alone coverage.

The answer to this then comes back to the understanding of populism and the socioeconomic changes KP went through compared to other provinces. Populisms inherently employing an 'us versus them' framing is most successful, when the other side is discredited or fragmented and when it converges with technological change. In case of KP the weakness and fragmentation of the opposition was combined by convergence of unregulated social media with PTI's support within the media, this combination has gave the party crucial advantages for the upcoming elections.

Finally, the myth of the role of the establishment with respect to KP. It’d be a gross untruth to suggest there is no state level interference in this election. However, within the context of KP on its own - for reasons explained earlier - there seems to be little need for large scale interference. Keeping that in mind, what is going on in Punjab or Balochistan is then relatively at a larger scale than what is currently occurring in KP. The only other threat to PTI's re-election is a sympathy wave for PML-N in KP. While that was truly a possibility under Maryam Nawaz - whose keen interest in KP was in contrast to that of her uncle - the ongoing case means no challenge from this party is likely to be seen from there.

In the final calculation PTI's KP victory looks comfortable. In a time of the 2018 elections - short of some major misstep. Demography, populism, technology circumstances and Imran Khan in a time of political vacuum. The misreading of what is to come is a consequence of a provincial political elite that does not as yet fully understand all factors which can potentially lead to this.

.

QK Archives: Wali Khan demise of a dream

Wali Khan — demise of a dream

By Adil Zareef

“Only a dead nation remembers its heroes when they die. Real nations respect them when they are alive.” These golden words were famously uttered by the great Bacha Khan of the Pakhtuns; Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan as known to the rest of the world and nicknamed the “Frontier Gandhi” by admirers and foes alike.

I learnt this quote from Baba (Wali Khan) during one of his lengthy discourses on the freedom struggle, and what became of the subcontinent after the birth of India and Pakistan. This “special relationship” was conferred upon a few others besides me, being class fellows of Gulalai Wali Khan, herself an idealist and a dreamer like the rest of our generation. Che Guevara’s icon was our trademark, being a symbol of resistance for the rest of the world.

Many a time, I thought of writing a biography of this great and dignified man who shaped my political and social thought during my formative years. But the exigencies of the world took me away from this indulgent idea and today, I am left vexing to write an obituary to this legend known to the world as Khan Abdul Wali Khan.

As numerous cable networks scramble to make headlines of his sad demise, the above-mentioned quote compels me to write this.

It is indeed a difficult task to write about a political titan who earnestly shared his thoughts and ideas, and whose courage and principled life will serve as a beacon to many who watch political pygmies and charlatans straddling the political horizon change colour more easily than any chameleon.

But the national press will assuredly lavish praise on this great legend for standing stiff against a string of dictators from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf. Perhaps resilience was in his blood, as was the resistance to Kalabagh Dam and the Afghan War, the détente with India and the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, which diverts precious human and economic resources away from the development and progress of the subcontinent.

These causes symbolised Bacha Khan’s struggle for justice and fair play, and moulded Wali Khan’s political career. Thankfully, the legacy seems to carry on in the political heirs of ANP.

On closer scrutiny, one can identify the unifying strain of resistance against injustice and inequality in all these struggles, just as Kalabagh Dam seems to unify nationalists of all hues against the World Bank-led hegemony of international consortiums to plunder the resources of third world nations in the name of development and progress, giving them in return a lasting legacy of debt, perpetual enslavement and environmental and social catastrophes.

Kashmir and Indo-Pak détente was Wali Khan’s theme as well as his father’s. With the end of the Cold War, the subcontinent offered an opportunity for a huge market for the western world. It is strange to see Pakistan and India dancing the proverbial foxtrot with Western prodding, albeit with a few missed steps, while the Iron Wall on the Afghan border remains as high as ever, if not more pronounced.

It sends the discomfiting message that one is free to dance the bhangra with fellow Punjabis across the border, but Pakhtuns cannot do the Atanh together and are destined to remain divided along the Durand Line! Wali Khan’s dream of a united Pakhtun nation remains unfulfilled despite their Punjabi compatriots jump-frogging the Wagah border.

The Afghan conflict was a defining moment in Afghan and Pakistani politics. Wali Khan, like his compatriots, had objected to a super power meddling in the region, arguing that it would “bleed the Pakhtuns”. Watching the turmoil in Waziristan and Bajaur and the rest of NWFP, this prophecy seems to have come true.

Now the religious right seems more vociferous in anti-Americanism than the left was during the bygone yeas of the Cold War. But the lesson of non-violence and peace was never a Pakhtun trait, or else ours would have been a happier world.

Wali Khan bade farewell to politics after his defeat to Maulana Hasan Jan. He left the political scene simply, a graceful act in this dastardly world of politics. When asked his reason for retirement, he said that he had no place in politics “when the mullahs and ISI decide our destiny and politics”.

Fifteen years on, one wonders who has had the last laugh