The end or a new beginning?

In the latest blow to be suffered by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif since the Panama case verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that disqualification from being a member of parliament under Article 62(1)(f) is for life or at least for as long as the judgement holds the field. The five-member bench handed down a unanimous decision, but Justice Azmat Saeed in a supplementary note disagreed with the reasoning employed in the judgement although he agreed in the end with the final conclusion. While the verdict was not entirely unexpected, it has set off a debate, with the legal fraternity divided between those who feel the verdict is too harsh and others defending it to the hilt. This divide reflects the broader division in society as a whole on the issue. The PTI's reaction of joy at the knocking out of Nawaz Sharif from the electoral field is echoed in slightly softer tones by the PPP, which holds Nawaz Sharif himself responsible for bringing this upon himself. Does the verdict mean, as some reporting has it, the end of Nawaz Sharif's career in politics? Or, as others have argued, is it the end of the beginning of the 'minus one' campaign and the start of a new phase of resistance on his and his party's part? Certainly, irrespective of the merits of the SC's interpretation of the silence in Article 62(1)(f) regarding the length of disqualification on being found wanting on the touchstone of being sadiq and ameen (honest and truthful), the verdict and Nawaz Sharif's response are likely to feed into his ongoing rhetoric of victimhood. The real challenges for Nawaz Sharif now are to ensure his legacy endures for the benefit of heir-apparent daughter Maryam Nawaz, protecting the Sharif assets abroad that set off the whole chain of events up to and including the latest SC verdict, and heading off the trend nibbling at the margins of the PML-N so far of defections from its ranks so it can go into the coming general elections with its strength relatively intact. On present trends, the SC verdict is likely if anything to inadvertently strengthen his barnstorming campaign up and down the country, but particularly in the PML-N stronghold of Punjab. Of course, victory in the general elections for the PML-N is crucially dependent on the polls being held in a transparently fair and free mode. Judging by the shenanigans that accompanied the overthrow of the PML-N-led coalition government in Balochistan, its subsequent impact on the Senate elections and the rolling series of adverse verdicts against Nawaz Sharif by the courts, the dice seem loaded against such an outcome. This conundrum has added to the uncertainty looming over our heads in the run up to the general elections.
The only possibilities for Nawaz Sharif to be able to re-enter electoral politics is if either the superior judiciary reverses the disqualification period judgment or parliament brings in a constitutional amendment to repeal or alter Article 62(1)(f) and thereby overcome the fate ordained by the SC for Nawaz Sharif. Both possibilities are fraught with uncertainty, haziness, difficulties and roadblocks. The first envisages a reversal of the verdict under a future superior judicial set up, but going by the track record of our jurisprudence, seems unlikely. The second option too suffers from the difficulty of obtaining a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament (the PML-N has already lost the widely expected majority in the Senate as a result of the events since the Balochistan government debacle and the upper house elections that followed). The received wisdom is that there is no such thing as 'never' in politics. Some media reporting has referred to the coverage accompanying Nawaz Sharif's conviction in the hijacking case in 2000, his sentence of 21 years and the subsequent exile that hatched his return after many years. So far, the PML-N is fighting the battle in the courts and through jalsas (public meetings). But if push comes to shove and the general elections fail to meet the minimum standards of transparency, fairness and free exercise of the universal franchise, the country could witness a great deal of trouble. The difference with the past in this respect is that this is the first time a leader from the Punjab finds himself locking horns with the ubiquitous establishment. In the classic Chinese idiom, we seem to be in for interesting times.