End of Sharif dynasty?

Zahid HussainJuly 29, 2017

The writer is an author and journalist.

THE inglorious exit of Nawaz Sharif may have come as a serious blow to the countrys most
powerful political dynasty. The devastating ruling by the five-member Supreme Court bench has
not only seen the former prime minister disqualified for life but has also indicted almost all the
Sharifs who have dominated the countrys political scene for more than three decades, whether in
or out of power. But one is not sure if it marks the end of the familys political legacy. It is evident
that the baton of leadership will now be passed on to Shahbaz Sharif, thus maintaining the
dynastic hold over power at least for now.

Indeed, the unprecedented judicial action against a sitting prime minister is a watershed moment
for the countrys democratic evaluation and has been described as a step forward in efforts
towards establishing the rule of law. Notwithstanding the scepticism over the judgement
perceived as radical, the action came from within the system and not outside the constitutional
framework. It also signifies a milestone in the development of an independent judiciary not
subservient to the executive, though the perceived harshness of the ruling can rightly be disputed.

For sure, the ruling appears to have generated an upheaval and a period of political uncertainty
that is bound to happen when any entrenched political dynastic order is shaken. It also appears
that the ruling has further deepened political polarisation in the country. But it certainly does not
threaten the democratic political process as speculated by Sharifs supporters.

The judgement is a serious blow to dynastic politics but

In fact, it is a serious blow to dynastic politics that has been the biggest impediment to the
development of democratic institutions and values in the country. The Panama ruling has also
broken the widespread perception that Sharif being a Punjabi leader was untouchable while
leaders from Sindh and the other smaller provinces could easily be dispensed with.

So this hue and cry over the fall from grace of Sharif and describing the events as a setback to
democracy is beyond comprehension. The case against Sharif went through a whole legal process
and cannot be described as part of a conspiracy or a judicial coup.

It became quite apparent that the prime minister was in deep trouble after the JIT report came
out with a damning indictment of him and his family. It went beyond the familys failure to
provide a money trail for the London properties and included charges of perjury and non-
disclosure of some foreign financial assets. But such extreme action against the entire family and
a consensus ruling came as a shock not only to the government but also to those outside.

Indeed, indictment of other family members and sending corruption cases against them to NAB
has disrupted the dynastys succession plan. While the court ruling against Maryam Sharif was
expected after the allegation of forged documents, the inclusion of Shahbaz Sharif in the list was
unexpected. That has exacerbated the PML-Ns leadership predicament.

But many in the party appear confident that the junior Sharif can still lead them despite facing
charges in NAB. There is a move by the PML-N to play the victimhood card and project the
ousted prime minister as a political martyr. But one is not sure that will work in the present
situation. Sharifs influence over the party has become limited with his moral and political
position weakened.

A child of the establishment Nawaz Sharif was politically baptised by Gen Zias military
government in the early 1980s as part of the plan to prop up an alternative leader to challenge
Benazir Bhutto. His trajectory from Punjab chief minister to prime minister in the 1990s owed to
the backing of the military and the powerful civil establishment of Punjab. That political power
also saw a massive rise in the familys business fortunes. That financial scandal continued to dog
him throughout his political career particularly after his ascent to the countrys top position. It
finally caught up with him after the Panama Papers named his family, and caused his downfall.

With his rise to the pinnacle of political power, Nawaz Sharif tried to break away from the
influence of the military establishment that also brought him down in his previous terms. The
former protg turned into the nemesis of the military establishment. It is not surprising that he
remained locked in perpetual conflict with the military leadership throughout his third term in
office.

Although the Muslim League has historically remained close to the military establishment,
Nawaz Sharif tried to transform it into a mass populist party, though he may not have been fully
successful in his endeavour. Still, over the years, despite ups and downs, Sharif developed a
popular mass base that elected him to a record third term in office. The backing of the powerful
Punjabi civil establishment, including the bureaucracy and sections of the judiciary, also
appeared to have helped his familys stranglehold over Punjab.

A big question is whether a disgraced Nawaz Sharif will be able to keep the party united. More
importantly, will the Punjab establishment continue to back the PML-N under the younger
Sharifs leadership after the damning indictment of the family? Previously, cracks showed up in
adverse situations. The biggest example was the formation of the PML-Q after Musharrafs coup.
Interestingly, many defectors returned to the ranks with a sizeable number on the treasury
benches, even in the cabinet. That will be the most serious challenge to the Sharif family. Party
unity will also depend on the ability of the PPP and PTI to make inroads in the PML-N
stronghold in Punjab that remains the main political battlefield. The other provinces are not
affected by Nawaz Sharifs downfall.
There doesnt seem much chance of his return to power, but one is not sure if the family rule is
over.

The writer is an author and journalist.

[email protected]

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017

International law in Pakistan

The writer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists.

PAKISTAN became a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2010, a
move that many hoped would herald greater human rights protection in the country. The
government, however, never fully acknowledged the obligations it undertook under the ICCPR
and the treaty was rarely used to guide the countrys laws and policies. On the contrary, senior
government officials often publicly disavowed international human rights law as a Western
concept alien to Pakistans values.

Quite alarmingly, Pakistan has seen some major reversals in human rights protection since
becoming a party to the ICCPR: the government resumed executions and Pakistan became one of
the highest executioners in the world. Parliament enacted laws allowing military courts to try
civilians for certain terrorism-related offences; and the authorities started a new wave of
crackdowns on NGOs, journalists and human rights defenders, attempting even to close down
NGOs on the ground that they presented a very bleak picture of the countrys human rights
situation to the UN.

In this context, the UN Human Rights Committee the treaty monitoring body responsible for
overseeing states parties compliance with ICCPR carried out its first review of Pakistans
implementation of the ICCPR recently.

The judiciary has sometimes appeared dismissive of

In stark contrast to the hostility to international human rights norms that was seen domestically,
Pakistans delegation in Geneva refreshingly expressed its deep moral and legal commitment to
international human rights obligations. To demonstrate Pakistans commitment to international
law, the delegation also cited the routine enforcement of ICCPR provisions by courts in the
country.

To some extent, the delegations claim is true. Since Pakistan ratified the ICCPR, provincial high
courts and the Supreme Court have relied on international human rights norms, including
certain ICCPR provisions, in a number of cases, interpreting fundamental rights in the
Constitution in line with evolving international standards. Such jurisprudence has not only
expanded the ambit of constitutional rights in the country, but has also shored up some welcome
domestic legitimacy to international human rights norms.

In December 2013, for example, the Supreme Court delivered an important judgement on
enforced disappearances. The court held that international law on enforced disappearances,
including under the ICCPR and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearances (CED), reflected customary international law and courts could
interpret fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution in their light, even if Pakistan had not
ratified the CED, to achieve the ends of justice.

This was closely followed by another far-reaching judgement on the right to freedom of religion,
in which the Supreme Court interpreted Article 20 of the Constitution relating to freedom of
religion in light of Article 18 of the ICCPR, and expanded its ambit to include freedom of
conscience, thought, expression, belief and faith. The Supreme Court also noted that
international human rights standards serve as moral checks and efforts are continually being
made to incorporate these rights into domestic law.

In other judgements, high courts and the Supreme Court have interpreted constitutional
provisions related to the right of freedom of movement, the right to life and dignity, and the right
to political association in light of international standards, and have observed that the ICCPR is a
legally binding treaty and the Pakistani state was bound to follow international human rights
norms in view of the commitments it had made to the international community.

However, on many other pertinent issues such as the application of the death penalty and the
legitimacy of laws adopted with the stated aim of countering terrorism, for example, the same
courts have appeared dismissive of international human rights treaties as authoritative
guidelines, let alone as legally binding obligations.

In August 2015, the Supreme Court in its majority judgement dismissed arguments based on
international human rights law in the determination of the legality of military trials of civilian
terrorism suspects. The court noted that during the course of arguments, some reference was
made to international commitments made by Pakistan, but contrary to its prior jurisprudence
of reading them into the ambit of fundamental rights, shifted responsibility for the application of
these norms by stating it is for the federal government to ensure that the course of action
undertaken by them does not offend against the public international law or any international
commitment made by the state.

In other cases, courts have deemed international law irrelevant to their determination of the
lawfulness of the death penalty, including in cases concerning the execution of people with
mental disabilities.
The disinclination of some judges to interpret fundamental rights in the background of
international human rights standards is also visible outside the courtroom.

In a consultation of superior courts judges on possible law reform of criminal offences related to
religion, some judges found that the ground realities in Pakistan militated against the desirability
of taking guidance from international standards.

The jurisprudential inconsistency described indicates that the application of international human
rights law in domestic courts appears largely dependent on the worldviews of individual judges
and the sensitivity of the issues raised in the particular case. Clarity on the nature of international
human rights law obligations and their interaction within Pakistans domestic legal system is still
lacking.

In many parts of the world, including in states that follow the dualist theory of international law
like Pakistan (where international law cannot be invoked directly in domestic courts without
being expressly incorporated into national law), judiciaries have been at the forefront of
implementing human rights standards even where legislatures have failed to enact specific,
enabling legislation. In the region, Nepals supreme court, for example, has played a leading role
in setting standards on remedy and redress for human rights violations during Nepals decade-
long conflict based on the jurisprudence of treaty-monitoring bodies.

Recently, before the UN Human Rights Committee, Pakistans delegation claimed that the
government had initiated a number of programmes to raise judicial awareness about
international human rights law. One hopes these initiatives assist courts in fulfilling their
obligation to uphold human rights, an obligation that falls on all branches of the state, including
the judiciary.

The writer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists.

[email protected]

Twitter: reema_omer

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

ON July 25, Ram Nath Kovind was sworn in as Indias 14th president. The Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh mouthpiece Organiser characterised him as one deeply rooted in the
ideological stream of the RSS. Like all prime ministers, Narendra Modi wanted a safe person in
the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

Indias presidents have been a varied lot. The first president, Rajendra Prasad sought to grab
power for himself less than two months after assuming the presidency. He sent Nehru a note
dated March 21, 1950, in which he sought to reopen the very issue on which, in his presence, the
Constituent Assembly had decided. The president is a constitutional head of state in a
parliamentary democracy in which the prime minister is the chief executive.
Granville Austins criticism of the president is apt: Had his first attempt to ignore conventional
restrictions and to play the part of his own prime minister not been foiled, parliamentary
government in India would have disappeared before it was two years old.

All PMs want a safe man in the presidency.

His successor, Dr S. Radhakrishnan was ambitious and also addicted to intrigue. The American
ambassador, Chester Bowles, recorded: On several occasions, he expressed to me in a half-
joking manner the wish that somehow after Nehrus death or retirement, the whole country could
operate under president rule for a few months. Indira Gandhi was hardly the person who would
suffer an uncle as president. She refused him a second term.

Zakir Husain, a model president, died after a heart attack in 1969. The Congress party overruled
Indira Gandhi, and selected her critic as candidate for the presidency. She selected her own
favourite and got him elected, splitting the Congress. V.V. Giri was the first rubber-stamp
president. His successor Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed became infamous for signing the Proclamation
of Emergency in 1975 when he knew that the conditions warranted no such measure.

A successor Zail Singh began as a rubber stamp under Indira Gandhi but became a dangerous
problem when her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi snubbed him. Twice, in 1987, he
contemplated dismissing the prime minister. If he had not been deterred, Zail Singh would have
plunged the country into a deep crisis.

The Indian presidency truly came into its own only in 1992, 40 years after the constitution came
into force, with the election of Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma as president. He was neither a rubber
stamp nor an intriguer but a constitutional head alive to his limits and to his duties. He asserted
his independence within a short time.

On Dec 6, 1992, when the Babri Mosque was demolished, he had a statement issued: The
president, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, has strongly deplored vandalism that has caused damage to
the masjid in Ayodhya and has observed that such acts are absolutely against the doctrine and
practice of Hinduism and all other great religions.

His successor K.R. Narayanan emulated him and strongly condemned the killings of a missionary
and his son by RSS affiliate Bajrang Dal. The retiring president Pranab Mukherjee did not
emulate these examples when lynching of Muslims in the cow protection campaign became
endemic. He contented himself with uttering careful comments which would not hurt the BJP but
were so couched as to pass for criticism. Having successfully worked hard to become president,
he had no desire to rock the boat. A fawning media lauded him to the skies. So did the prime
minister, Narendra Modi.

Indian practice has yielded conventions which are well recognised. First, the president is entitled,
to question the governments bills, appointments, and policy proposals particularly judicial
appointments and imposition of direct central rule in the state.

Second, within limits, presidents can comment on affairs of the state in public. Only rarely are
public expressions of disquiet considered proper. Third, the president is entitled to admonish and
even censure the prime minister in private. Fourth, he has a right to know. Fifth, there is now a
practice where the president can receive opposition leaders who may came on their own or with a
delegation, to lodge a protest against the government.

Sixth, the president is not bound to accept a request by the prime ministers to dissolve the lower
house and can exercise his judgement. Seventh, the power of dismissal of the government cannot
be exercised except on extreme grounds mentioned in authoritative works.

Eighth, not only the opposition parties but the chief ministers also invoke the presidents moral
authority as guardian of the constitution. The question whether the president has a right to
address parliament or send messages to it in his own discretion is open.

Hence the need to keep a safe man in the presidents house. In his very first speech on 25 July
Ram Nath Kovind made known his fealty to the BJPs creed.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017

Why the anger?

0
[email protected]

ANYBODY who uses Twitter much will have noticed the rage evident in many tweets: whenever I
have dared to write a critical comment about Imran Khan and his party, I have been attacked
and often abused by PTI trolls.

This is an experience other journalists have had when treading the same path. But the PTI has no
monopoly on this kind of web rage: I have received similarly angry emails and tweets from
supporters of other parties, even though they are fewer and less vicious.

I figure if I get hate-filled messages from all major parties, I must be doing something right.
Luckily, I also get my share of supportive emails and tweets. However, why is there so much
anger out there? Why cant we accept divergent opinions without getting so worked up?

The PTI has no monopoly on web rage.

But we arent alone in this rising tide of fury. The world over, many are experiencing the same
anger; more and more people are taking to threats and foul language to express their
disagreement with views that differ from theirs. All too often, this is expressed in violent acts.
Donald Trumps presidency as well as last years noxious electoral campaign has opened a
deepening divide in America. Liberals voice their contempt for Trump supporters in acid tones,
while those who voted for him use threats of violence against what they call the liberal elites.

A journalist friend who was covering the presidential campaign for a liberal American daily spoke
of his fear of the many Trump supporters who carried guns to rallies. In this audience, their
heros tirades against the lying media resonated deeply.

In Britain, the acrimonious debate over Brexit may be over, but the anger Remainers feel for the
Leavers who voted to leave the EU remains high. Last year, Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered in
broad daylight by a right-wing extremist.

Though this brutal act was an aberration, the war of words rumbles on, even in a usually tolerant
country like Britain. Recently, MPs on both sides have reported threats and abusive tirades on
social media.

Gina Miller, an immigrant, campaigned for parliaments right to vote on Brexit, and was roundly
abused by the right-wing media for her successful efforts. Viscount Rhodri Phillips was especially
nasty, offering 5,000 to anybody who ran her over. He went on to say on Facebook: If this is
what we can expect from immigrants, send them back to their stinking jungles. He was jailed for
12 weeks for threatening violence.

Why has British politics become so unpleasant? asked The Economist recently. The answer to
almost everything these days is Brexit which has split the country and inflamed opinion The
weekly went on to give a number of other causes underlying the current strand of rage running
through public discourse.

In Turkey, there is now a permanent divide between President Erdogans supporters and his
opponents. This split also represents the fault line between educated, urbanised, secular Turks
and their deeply conservative, nationalistic fellow citizens who form Erdogans core support.

In India, Prime Minister Modi has polarised the country with his extreme Hindu nationalism and
strident rhetoric. Again, the divide is between educated Indians who prize Nehrus secularism,
and those who idolise Modi for giving them pride in their country. Time and again, the latter have
resorted to violence against those who do not share their views. The minorities are especially at
risk in the new India.

Such differences of opinion have been around for a long time, so why have they taken on such an
ugly edge now? In part, the internet acts as a megaphone for angry voices: instead of fulminating
in the local pub or the privacy of their homes, enraged people now have a public forum on
Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.

Thus, passionate, often lonely, individuals can unleash their hate-filled messages towards those
who disagree with them. So apart from being used to radicalise people, the web has become a
vehicle to vent your fury.

This rise in intolerance bodes ill for democracy that rests on the premise that you can disagree
with your opponents without becoming offensive. In Pakistan, as we can see currently, this
understanding is usually ignored. This breach of the rules of civil discourse has poisoned politics
for years, but has now reached a new high.

The MQM has been particularly virulent in its use of threats of violence, but other parties have
not been far behind. The current polarisation, particularly in Punjab, threatens to bring our
delicately poised democracy down. In this poisonous debate, the PTI has taken the lead with its
leader hurling threats in all directions.

How to drain the hate from our politics? One day, perhaps our leaders will have the maturity to
sit down and forge a consensus about what is permissible. Sadly, I dont see this happening soon.

[email protected]

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017

Panama judgement
EditorialUpdated July 28, 2017
650

33

Today is set to be a historic day for the judiciary and politics in Pakistan. Prime ministers have
been removed before and prime ministers have survived, but none have been subjected to the
kind of public and mostly transparent scrutiny that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his
family have undergone.

Whether Mr Sharif is determined to be unfit for public office, his case is referred to the
accountability courts for trial or the Supreme Court decides on some other course of action, an
undeniably welcome precedent has already been set: a sitting prime minister and his family have
been required to explain the sources of their income and wealth.

In a country where public officials, elected and unelected, routinely and brazenly live beyond
their known and legal sources of income and wealth, the Panama Papers case may be the
beginning of a new era of public disclosure and accountability. The Pakistani people deserve a
better, more transparent and more accountable leadership in all state institutions.

With the political stakes so high, it is inevitable that there will be a great deal of disappointment
today in one camp or the other. What is important is for the Supreme Court judgement to be
respected and for its orders to be promptly obeyed.

Long after today, and much after Mr Sharif exits the political landscape, the country will need an
independent judiciary to help keep the democratic process within the ambit of the law and the
Constitution. At times, both the petitioners and the respondents in the Panama Papers case have
drifted perilously close to politicising the court and bringing the institutions of democracy into
disrepute.

The Supreme Court may have demonstrated undue restraint towards the political circus that
threatened to engulf it, but the court has an opportunity to further the cause of accountability and
strengthen the democratic project by delivering a well-reasoned, well-argued judgement. By
doing so, it will rightly put the onus on Pakistans political leadership to respond with a
democratic maturity to the verdict and accept it as part of a continuing process to strengthen
democracy.

Finally, the political class itself must introspect after this episode. While robust political
competition is important to democracy, the PML-N and PTI have allowed their rivalry to drag the
country backwards. The spectre of the 1990s has returned and there is a possibility that between
the determination of the Nawaz Sharif-led PML-N to remain in power come what may and that of
the Imran Khan-led PTI to ascend to power no matter what, the democratic project itself may
unravel.

Democracy will not be threatened merely by the exit of Mr Sharif, nor will it be boosted
automatically by the triumphant elevation of Mr Khan. The two leaders must urgently learn a
humility that neither has seemed capable of so far.

Published in Dawn, July 28th, 2017

Counter-narrative needed
EditorialJuly 29, 2017
0

MODERN religiously inspired militancy in Pakistan, as well as other countries, is nebulous and
constantly changing shape. The militants, it seems, make full use of technology and are often one
step ahead of the state. Governments, on the other hand, respond in a predictable moribund and
bureaucratic fashion, which explains why militant groups are so difficult to neutralise. While the
state has taken the field against extremists Zarb-i-Azb, Raddul Fasaad and other military
operations being prime examples away from the battlefield, the response to countering
militancy is wanting. For example, as reported in this paper on Friday, the Sindh polices
Counter-Terrorism Department has called for countering the narrative of militants aggressively.
The CTD officials made this observation after it emerged that terrorists, suspected of targeting
police officers in Karachi, were trying to reach out to the public: in recent communications
intercepted by security agencies, militants were heard regretting the loss of civilian lives in the
crossfire as they targeted law enforcers. The extremists were also willing to pay compensation to
the families of victims.

This is just one example of how the militants are trying to control the narrative. Clearly, various
militant groups are developing new tactics to reach out to a wider audience. For example, many
of them are moving beyond the traditional target audience of seminarians. As the Sindh CTD
recently pointed out, the next generation of militants would not emerge from madressahs, but
from universities and colleges. Some of the most lethal militants of the recent past have been
graduates of top foreign and Pakistani higher education institutes. This indicates that the militant
demographic is changing. Terrorist outfits are interested in recruiting professionals engineers,
accountants, tech wizards etc to forward their aims. Has the state caught on to this trend? Does
the government have enough qualified people to identify the triggers of extremism and militancy
in educational institutes, as well as online? While terrorist groups are busy recruiting in
universities and cyberspace, it is highly doubtful if our law-enforcement agencies have drawn up
counter-measures.

Another major threat comes from militants returning from the war zones of the Middle East,
especially Syria. As security agencies have highlighted, Syria-returned militants are believed to
have formed a lethal new outfit called Ansarul Sharia Pakistan. It was always feared that the
conflicts of the Middle East, especially its sectarian wars, would one day spill over into Pakistan.
With the formation of such groups and the return of fighters, those fears may now be coming
true. While the repeated calls for the state to wake up to these threats are beginning to sound
trite, unless the government evolves a multifaceted counterterrorism policy, the number, and
complexity, of militant threats will only grow. Amidst the din of politics, have we forgotten that
much of the National Action Plan has not been implemented, or that agencies formed to counter
the threat, such as Nacta, remain inactive?

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017

Democracy after the verdict

IN a brief, emphatic and unanimous judgement, the Supreme Court has stripped Nawaz Sharif of
the prime ministership, struck a blow for accountability and radically altered the political
landscape. The full legal effects of the judgement will become clear in the days ahead and the
specific reason given by the court for Mr Sharifs disqualification from parliament will be
intensely debated. But this much is clear: Mr Sharif left himself open to judicial sanction by
submitting an incomplete statement of assets with his 2013 nomination papers. Perhaps the now
former prime minister was trying to hide his chairmanship of the Dubai-based Capital FZE from
electoral officers or perhaps it was in keeping with the usual lax attitude of candidates towards
such filings, but a stern message has been sent across the country: declare everything fully and
transparently or risk the ultimate sanction. Such a harsh interpretation could be a boon if it is
applied evenly and transparently. The Supreme Court has a heavy burden on its shoulders and an
expectant country will await the fair and even-handed implementation of the new standard.

Politically, Mr Sharif and the PML-N have taken the honourable path and immediately accepted
the courts verdict, even if party leaders have expressed strong reservations about the judgement.
Whatever the judicial fate of Mr Sharif, it has always been clear that the overall democratic stakes
are greater than any individuals political future the focus needing to remain on keeping the
democratic project moving forward. It is important, therefore, for the PML-N to quickly
nominate a new prime minister and have the next prime minister elected by the National
Assembly. Delay would not be in the PML-Ns interest and certainly not in the countrys. For a
party that has a majority in parliament, an assembly of 342 representatives, finding a
replacement prime minister should be a quick matter, giving the country an opportunity to move
on from this damaging political episode. The PML-N ought to continue to act honourably and
protect the overall democratic process.

For the PTI, a significant victory has been notched up. Whatever the disagreement with the
tactics of the PTI, a political truth must be acknowledged: if it were not for the relentless
campaign of Imran Khan and his party, the accountability of elected officials would not likely
have been at the centre of the national political discourse. The Panama Papers case itself was
almost single-handedly kept alive in legal and political circles by Mr Khan and while at times the
PTI supremo has practised a destabilising kind of politics, his relentlessness has helped deliver
an accountability blow that few would have imagined possible even months ago. From here, the
aim of the PTI must be to widen the accountability project to expand it to not just all elected
officials but all institutions of the state, elected and unelected. Against the odds, Mr Khan and
PTI have helped strike a blow for the cause of a cleaner and more transparent political process.
The PTI and Mr Khan should demonstrate their commitment to that welcome goal by submitting
themselves to the same rigorous standards of accountability that Mr Sharif has been held to.

Finally, in these hours after another major convulsion has ripped through the political landscape,
thoughts must turn to political stability in a country where yet another elected prime minister has
been ousted before the end of his term. It is possible to search for conspiracies or blame
scapegoats for why the country is once again at a delicate moment in its political history.
However, as the custodians of the democratic project, the current PML-N government ought to
accept principal responsibility. Nawaz Sharif could have resigned and saved the country from
another tumultuous political episode or he could have provided the money trail that the Supreme
Court virtually beseeched the prime minister and his children to provide. Mr Sharif chose to do
neither. Now, the PML-N and the Sharifs ought to recognise a new burden on their shoulders:
help steer the country forward in a democratic path or risk an implosion of the democratic
project. But if Mr Sharif continues to acquiesce in his judicially mandated political fate, other
power centres should give the PML-N and all other mainstream political parties the space to
determine a democratic way forward. Outside the strict confines of the law within which the
Supreme Court delivered its judgement, there is political and institutional reality of power in the
country. The democratic project must not be derailed under any circumstances.

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2017