Nawaz Sharif's journey from Prime Minister's House Islamabad to Lahore after he was disqualified on 28 July by the Supreme Court on the Panama papers case labelled as the 'GT Road March', and facetiously being referred to as the 'Reverse March' (as it is going away rather than towards the capital) can be rated in terms of its success on a scale of one to ten: 10, to play the victim card and thereby secure his party's voter support for 2018 elections, 5 an attempt to influence the references currently being prepared by the National Accountability Bureau on the instructions of the apex court in favour of his children and himself and 1, as evidenced from his speeches, to take on the judgement with the might of people power.
Nawaz Sharif's journey from the Prime Minister's House to Raiwind took two weeks - the night of judgement day at the Prime Minister's House, a week in his own house in Murree, 6 to 9 August in Punjab House Islamabad, three nights away his family with one night spent in Pindi Punjab House, one night in Jhelum in Tulip Hotel and one in Gujranwala.
This two week journey has been marked by a narrative that many within the party ranks have reportedly opposed. And for four very good reasons. First, it challenges the intelligence coefficient of PML-N's core voters notably the middle and lower middle class voters with some education who are aware of an alternate narrative to the one presented by Nawaz Sharif. PML-Ns core supporters also include the business community (wholesalers/traders/small, medium and large scale manufacturing sector) who, through their own business dealings, are fully cognisant of what is possible and what is not when dealing with large amounts of cash; or in other words they are unlikely to be convinced that a letter from a single source (even if he is a Qatari prince) provides a legitimate defense in the transfer of millions of dollars from one country to another. In addition, Nawaz Sharif and his family is continuing with the same litany namely that his name was not on the Panama papers but that of his adult children and failure to provide the money trail at four forums (the parliament, the apex court, the Joint Investigation Team and the public) or confirm the date of purchase of the Mayfair flats through credible documents that are readily available in the UK has simply strengthened the general perception that Nawaz Sharif may have been the source of these funds.
Second, it challenges the moral coefficient with the leader of the nation expected/required to meet higher (and not equal as argued by Nawaz Sharif and his loyalists) moral standards. One must acknowledge that Nawaz Sharif's high moral high ground was on visible display in the run up to the 2013 elections when he repeatedly denigrated a corruption tainted Zardari-led government promising ehtesab (accountability) if he was elected prime minister. Four years later his government has not held any prominent PPP politician to account for the mega-scams that were reported in the media during 2008-13. And his references to Surrey-gate (owned by Asif Ali Zardari) have paled into insignificance compared to the wealth of his immediate family as revealed by the hacked Panama papers. He must reveal his immediate family's source of income/assets (money trail); and must surely be aware that even though offshore accounts are not widely understood in Pakistan yet benami (accounts and landholdings) is a concept that is as familiar to the landless farmers/haris as it is to the business community/city dwellers.
Thirdly, the PML-N narrative is that Nawaz Sharif's disqualification compromises the development agenda. This is not logical for the layman as the PML-N government remains in power in the centre and Punjab, with the new prime minister insisting that the development agenda will be meticulously adhered to. And if one seeks the views of specialists/independent economists then Nawaz Sharif must answer serious criticism ranging from massive manipulation of data, heavy reliance on foreign and domestic borrowing to shore up reserves, an over-valued rupee and a focus on budget deficit reduction as opposed to pro growth policies for the past four years criticism that he has ignored.
And finally, the four-day, three-night rally from Islamabad to Lahore was an impressive display of state power and not that of a deposed prime minister. His car was accompanied by a heavy contingent of ill disguised police escort, ambulances, helicopters (with a cost estimate in billions of rupees to the treasury) and perhaps what irked his supporters the most was the decision to shut down transporters (of people and goods), all shops and businesses along the route, PML-N's core support base, which caused considerable inconvenience to those who use the GT road over the Motorway including the poor who cannot afford the higher toll tax on the Motorway and those whose towns/villages are at a distance from the Motorway. A ballpark figure for the loss due to the rally is at least around 15.25 billion rupees: 25 million rupees for the use of the state machinery, 7 billion rupees loss claimed by the transporters, the transporters failure to deliver goods to industrial/farm units for another 7 billion rupees due to loss of production and the shops forcibly closed along the rally's route claiming around one billion rupees.
While several prominent lawyers have maintained that the former Prime Minister's speeches are tantamount to contempt of court. In his later speeches during the rally, when attendance was considerably improved, he seemed to echo Tahirul Qadri by seeking support for any future line of action that, the listeners were left in little doubt, may be akin to a rebellion against the verdict of the apex court.
Some of the foreign media's focus on Nawaz Sharif's disqualification rather than his failure to respond to legitimate queries arising out of the Panama papers - questions that their own leaders in government, industry, finance have or are responding to - is unfortunate. Key questions remain unanswered by Nawaz Sharif and his children questions that were successfully raised since the Panama papers were first released to the world media in early April 2016 - more than 16 months ago and which have remained unanswered by him and his family.
Was the rally a success? It is unclear whether the large numbers that did gather to hear his speeches, especially during the latter part of the rally, would be remembered or whether the killing of one child by the elite force would be remembered. There is no doubt about the fact that the elite force crushed the child's legs by accident but then an element of intent was perhaps evident when it proceeded to crush the child's body and skull in spite of the onlookers shouting for the car to stop. Sharif did not mention the child's death in his speech in Jhelum though by Gujranwala he did mention that he would visit the child's family and make sure that they are set for life but only after, yet again, lamenting his disqualification.
This of course does not imply that the party will lose all its voters. One has only to look at the performance of the PPP in its home ground Sindh in 2013 to realise that political parties' strength in our nascent democracy does not solely rely on performance though there is evidence to suggest that our cities, particularly in Punjab, respond to performance. Asif Ali Zardari lost 35 seats in Punjab cities between 2008 and 2013 and, if the PML-N loses its seats in Punjab cities, it would no longer be in a position to form a government in the centre. Hence to conclude there is an emergent need for Nawaz Sharif and his coterie of advisors to come up with a viable narrative.