Accepted, Prime Minister Gilani hasn't many passionate takers of his style of politics. Many point the finger at the frequent U-turns he makes, or is 'asked' to make; much cited, and spectacular, being his disowning his much-publicised recent promise to undo the bifurcation of Hyderabad district.
Of course, he wouldn't like to be painted in that colour, but his predicament is that he is walking a tight-rope of striking a delicate balance between his position as unanimously elected prime minister and a member of the Pakistan People's Party headed by President Asif Ali Zardari. Be there a clash of interests or mismatch of perceptions it is always the president's position that prevails, or so it seems.
Prime Minister Gilani would not have gone to Muzaffargargh to pitch in for the disgraced Jamshed Dasti but it was his party's decision that he should go there and muster support for the PPP candidate who had earned the nation's unqualified censure for his fake degree electoral fraud. PM's defence was that "the parliamentary board (of PPP) had decided to field a party worker.
Now what could I do but to electioneer for him". Well Mr Prime Minister you could very well refuse to go there in order to support a morally and ethically bankrupt politician. But you went there, in full force (as your tight security protocol became a cause of serious injury to an independent candidate). And what did you say to the people; you said the PPP would brook no opposition and those who are angling for their turn should 'park their horses in the shade and wait'. You were at your best as a street election campaigner.
Wading further into the election fray at Muzaffargarh the prime minister also pledged a mega development project, in violation of the Election Commission's laws that during electioneering not only the ministers, much less the prime minister, should desist visiting the constituency but also refrain from making promises of economic assistance and development projects. Prime Minister Gilani asks what is unethical in it when the development project he announced is already included in the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP).
The answer: To the extent that you offered something which was already on the plate you had committed no offence, but don't you think you had tried to influence the voter's mind by your words as the prime minister of Pakistan. And what an irony that the prime minister was so helpless, perhaps like a straw driven by the wind, he was canvassing for a candidate who had openly confessed his moral and ethical failings, and all this at the state expense.
PM Gilani's assertion that parliament should be strong there are no two opinions. But he seems to be pleading for a joint parliamentary defence against the media, civil society, independent judiciary and general public. Yes it may be the vested joint interest of members in the legislative houses that the media and civil society should overlook the political parties' support for the fake degree holders in the by-elections.
Of course, to the extent that the graduation degree condition is no more applicable to the candidates the members are right also. But for the media and other segments of civil society it's not the legalistic but the moral and ethical aspects of electoral candidacy that are of serious concern. One may ask whether a candidate would qualify for election if he had forged a degree and also admitted that crime. And why should the prime minister expect the media to be silent over it especially when he travels all the way to muster support for such candidates.
Strength of our parliament lies within it, but to bring it to bear its members have to prove themselves worthy of such an empowerment. How come all the important decisions impinging on the country's present and future were taken somewhere else and not in the parliament of Pakistan? Instead of tilting at the media the rulers should do some soul-searching and try to figure out whether or not its performance matched with the electorate's expectations.
Only to insist that 'we are elected by the people' and do nothing since that election is a betrayal of the people's trust and disservice to democracy. Democracy is not only elections; it is a continuing interaction between the people and the elected government. No wonder every constitution caters for mid-term elections - only to make sure that once elected the rulers don't go to the Ephesus's sleep.
Comments
Comments are closed.