Time for Sharif to move on

Dr. Maleeha Lodhi

AT the recent meeting of his party in Bhurban, former Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif sought to defuse the war of words that had raged for weeks between PML-N spokesmen and those of the ruling party. Tempers flared over so-called revelations by a former chief of the Intelligence Bureau about the role of the spy agencies in distributing cash among politicians in the 1990s. This reignited tensions between the country’s two major parties that had all but dissipated since the resolution in March 2009 of the judges’ issue and the revocation of Governor’s rule in the Punjab, which restored the PML-N to power in the province.
This blast from the past was halted by Nawaz Sharif at his party convention where he studiously ignored the Imtiaz affair and tempered the rhetoric by changing both the tone and content of his stance towards the government. Disclaiming any interest in destabilising the government, he declared he only wanted to play the role of a “patriotic” opposition. This was not the first time that the party’s leadership interceded to de-escalate tensions. Occasional flare ups are unsurprising between rivals and have little political import. What merits greater atten-?tion is how the PML-N is defining its role and charting its future in the country’s politics.
The enigma that needs to be unraveled is the party’s pronounced reticence to play the role of a vibrant and assertive opposition, staking out clear cut positions on key issues and providing alternate policy paradigms to differentiate itself from the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP). This has important implications for the PML-N’s identity and fortunes.
Such a role—as a government-in-waiting—should not be confused with confrontational politics or one that aims to unseat the government. Indeed one of the most encouraging aspects of post-2008 era is the effort by political parties to break from the zero sum politics and adversary culture of the past. Save for the PPP’s blunder of March 2009 when its leader imposed—and then was forced to revoke—Governor’s rule in the Punjab, both parties have shown a healthy respect for the other’s democratic mandate.
But this has little to do with and does not explain why Sharif and his party have chosen to play the job of an effective opposition. This has set up a paradox: the country’s most popular leader, according to opinion polls, is unable or unwilling to wield commensurate political influence to shape the public discourse or reset the policy agenda.
The PML-N’s post-election politics has swirled around three issues: restoration of the Chief Justice, undoing the 17th Constitutional Amendment and the demand for the trial of former President Pervez Musharraf. In confining itself to these issues it has not directed its energies to other governance and policy issues: of the economy, foreign policy or internal security. Nor has it said very much on the controversies surrounding government projects.
Three kinds of explanations can be offered. First, at a challenging moment for the country when it is faced with a complex array of internal and external problems, the PML-N leader may want to avoid taking unambiguous positions to minimise political risk, leaving it to the government to negotiate these issues and not have to share responsibility. A wait-and-dodge-issues approach is politically expedient because taking positions means expending political capital, which in any case is bound to displease some constituencies.
A second explanation often marshaled out by detractors of the Nawaz League is that it is trapped in the past and its politics is more about settling scores than meeting future challenges. Sharif has often sought to refute this charge by arguing that cleaning up the past is the basis to building a viable democratic future.However understandable Sharif’s sense of aggrievement, this preoccupation has made his party vulnerable to opponents reopening embarrassing aspects of its political past. A different set of reasons may lie behind the PML-N’s less than robust political role. One, its leadership’s deep suspicion of the establishment and two, an acknowledgement of its political limitations. The first is self-evident, and is reflected in frequent allusions by its leaders to unspecified conspiracies which they vow never to succumb to.
The perception of the establishment as a greater political threat to the PML-N than the PPP seems to have translated into an ultra cautious, almost passive political approach which has unintendedly undercut its effectiveness. This also explains why the party does not feel bound to engage the government in any rigorous policy debate. Despite having a more media-savvy team, the PML-N has often been driven by TV anchors into taking positions on issues ranging from the rental power projects to the US Drone attacks.
The second factor may be the leadership’s evaluation of the limits of its political power. The personal popularity of Sharif doesn’t translate into decisive political strength for the party. This is because first, the PML-N remains a Punjab-based party. Second, despite the province’s numerical weight in the power equation, an effective national role needs allies from the rest of the country. Today the PML-N is bereft of allies. Instead it has troubled relations with the MQM and the ANP. In contrast the PPP has shown itself adept in working with allies, co-opting groups, sharing power and occupying the political space ceded by the PML-N’s go-it-?alone approach.
The PML-N’s political limitations also arise from the fact that the PML-Q’s parliamentary party is still a factor: twice the size of the MQM membership in the National Assembly. Its recent splits have yet to erode this parliamentary strength as the breakaway members are all unelected. So the PML-N is unable as yet to match the PPP-led coalition’s political reach and power.
This raises important questions for Sharif’s party and its political future: about its identity, character, programme, and its relationship with other political parties. As he has often correctly stated, Pakistan’s problems are no longer amenable to partisan solutions and need consensus building to fashion national remedies. But are the PML-N’s political endeavours focused on creative thinking on issues and forging political relationships on shared policy approaches to practice what it is preaching? Sharif needs to give his party a fresh vision and challenge the PML-N to think innovatively about how to address the imposing challenges that will determine Pakistan’s future. Not to do this could convey an impression that the party’s pursuit of power is shorn of public purpose.
The PML (N) needs to clarify its ideological centre of gravity in the country’s changed circumstances today and also inspire followers beyond its loyal vote bank. Such a process of redefining and reinvigorating itself will renew its image as a party of the future and not just one that aspires to office on the basis of having being wronged in the past. Link...