News desk :
Pakistan’s prime minister, weakened by weeks of opposition protests calling for him to resign, distanced himself from an army move to intervene in the crisis on Friday, saying he did not turn to the military for help to defuse the stand-off.
Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to end the conflict have repeatedly failed in recent days, leaving Pakistan locked in a dangerous deadlock with thousands of protesters massing outside parliament for weeks in a country that has seen a string of military coups.
Opposition leaders Imran Khan and Tahir ul-Qadri announced late on Thursday they would directly negotiate with army chief General Raheel Sharif. Both men later had talks with the general. Qadri has not commented on the discussions while Khan said the army would act as a guarantor on one of his key
for an investigation into his accusations of fraud in an election last year.
Prime Minister Sharif, who is not related to the army chief, emerged significantly weakened from the crisis. Turning to the army for help could be embarrassing for a prime minister who himself was toppled in a military coup in 1999 during his previous term in office.
Addressing parliament on Friday, Sharif said he had nothing to do with the army’s decision to step into the conflict.
“The army did not ask to play the role of mediator, neither have we requested them to play such a role,” he told the assembly where he enjoys a strong majority.
But Sharif said he had not objected to both Khan and Qadri meeting the army chief.
“If … they want to meet the army chief then they should certainly meet,” he said.
Although the army’s role is key to how the crisis unfolds, few believe the army is bent on seizing power again.
However, its public intervention has demonstrated just how fragile Pakistan’s democracy still is more than a year since Sharif swept to office in the country’s first democratic transition of power.
“This is the end of democracy, the constitution and supremacy of the parliament in the country,” retired Justice Tariq Mehmood was quoted as saying by the Dawn daily.
Sharif has displeased the army by trying to strengthen civilian rule and improve relations with India and Afghanistan, and the latest conflict has given the military an opportunity to sideline him on security and foreign policy issues.
Sharif also angered the military by putting the former army chief, Pervez Musharraf, on trial for treason. Musharraf ousted Sharif in the 1999 coup.
The army’s involvement is likely to unnerve some Pakistanis but it also offers Khan and Qadri a face-saving solution to end their deadlocked protest as both are seen as close to the military.
Sharif is expected to survive in the political battle but he will become weak and unable to challenge army’s grip on foreign and security policy of the country.
The army, which has so far been passive in the confrontation between the government and protesters, has a history of capturing power from democratically elected governments.
Sharif himself was removed from office during a previous stint as prime minister in a military coup by the then army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf in 1999.
When politician differed in 1977 over the outcome of polls, then army chief Gen Zia-ul Haq imposed martial law.
Meanwhile, leaders from across the political spectrum regretted the political tug of war that led to a crisis where the army got involved to settle dispute.
“After this, we will not be able to hold our heads high,” Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Javed Hashmi, who is known for his outspoken opposition to military’s involvement in politics, was quoted as saying by the Dawn.
“It is shameful time for all politicians who, despite having the time, could not resolve the crisis on their own.”
Rightwing Jamaat-e-Islami chief Sirajul Haq had a more cautious response. He told a TV channel that if the army could intercede and end this crisis, well and good, but the military had no role in politics.
Jamiat Ulem-e-Islam-Fazal spokesperson Jan Achakzai had a similar response. “It is a failure of the politicians who could not resolve the crisis. But I welcome any deal that remains within the spirit of democracy and the Constitution.”
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Syed Khursheed Shah, who is also leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, said he would ask the prime minister why the army chief had to be asked to mediate when nearly all political parties were present in the house and had offered their support to him.
Former Punjab governor and PPP leader Latif Khosa put the onus of the military’s involvement squarely on the ruling PML-N’s shoulders.
“After killing 14 innocent PAT workers, the Sharif brothers were unwilling even to register their FIR,” he said, adding that the government’s delaying tactics in dealing with PAT and PTI further complicated the situation.
Talking to DawnNews, prominent lawyer and rights activist Asma Jahangir criticised both Qadri and Khan, saying “Those who had wasted 15 days must be discouraged.”
Nearly all parliamentary parties and politicians pleaded with them, but they did not heed anyone’s advice, she said.
“Now, on a single phone call, they rush to Army House.” She criticised army’s blatant involvement in political affairs and said instead of using their proxies to destabilise the system, why don’t they impose direct military rule.
Secular Awami National Party Haji Adeel said it is wrong to make the military a political guarantor; parliament is the supreme guarantor.
“This is a major failure for all politicians,” he said.
Pakistan’s prime minister, weakened by weeks of opposition protests calling for him to resign, distanced himself from an army move to intervene in the crisis on Friday, saying he did not turn to the military for help to defuse the stand-off.
Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to end the conflict have repeatedly failed in recent days, leaving Pakistan locked in a dangerous deadlock with thousands of protesters massing outside parliament for weeks in a country that has seen a string of military coups.
Opposition leaders Imran Khan and Tahir ul-Qadri announced late on Thursday they would directly negotiate with army chief General Raheel Sharif. Both men later had talks with the general. Qadri has not commented on the discussions while Khan said the army would act as a guarantor on one of his key
for an investigation into his accusations of fraud in an election last year.
Prime Minister Sharif, who is not related to the army chief, emerged significantly weakened from the crisis. Turning to the army for help could be embarrassing for a prime minister who himself was toppled in a military coup in 1999 during his previous term in office.
Addressing parliament on Friday, Sharif said he had nothing to do with the army’s decision to step into the conflict.
“The army did not ask to play the role of mediator, neither have we requested them to play such a role,” he told the assembly where he enjoys a strong majority.
But Sharif said he had not objected to both Khan and Qadri meeting the army chief.
“If … they want to meet the army chief then they should certainly meet,” he said.
Although the army’s role is key to how the crisis unfolds, few believe the army is bent on seizing power again.
However, its public intervention has demonstrated just how fragile Pakistan’s democracy still is more than a year since Sharif swept to office in the country’s first democratic transition of power.
“This is the end of democracy, the constitution and supremacy of the parliament in the country,” retired Justice Tariq Mehmood was quoted as saying by the Dawn daily.
Sharif has displeased the army by trying to strengthen civilian rule and improve relations with India and Afghanistan, and the latest conflict has given the military an opportunity to sideline him on security and foreign policy issues.
Sharif also angered the military by putting the former army chief, Pervez Musharraf, on trial for treason. Musharraf ousted Sharif in the 1999 coup.
The army’s involvement is likely to unnerve some Pakistanis but it also offers Khan and Qadri a face-saving solution to end their deadlocked protest as both are seen as close to the military.
Sharif is expected to survive in the political battle but he will become weak and unable to challenge army’s grip on foreign and security policy of the country.
The army, which has so far been passive in the confrontation between the government and protesters, has a history of capturing power from democratically elected governments.
Sharif himself was removed from office during a previous stint as prime minister in a military coup by the then army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf in 1999.
When politician differed in 1977 over the outcome of polls, then army chief Gen Zia-ul Haq imposed martial law.
Meanwhile, leaders from across the political spectrum regretted the political tug of war that led to a crisis where the army got involved to settle dispute.
“After this, we will not be able to hold our heads high,” Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Javed Hashmi, who is known for his outspoken opposition to military’s involvement in politics, was quoted as saying by the Dawn.
“It is shameful time for all politicians who, despite having the time, could not resolve the crisis on their own.”
Rightwing Jamaat-e-Islami chief Sirajul Haq had a more cautious response. He told a TV channel that if the army could intercede and end this crisis, well and good, but the military had no role in politics.
Jamiat Ulem-e-Islam-Fazal spokesperson Jan Achakzai had a similar response. “It is a failure of the politicians who could not resolve the crisis. But I welcome any deal that remains within the spirit of democracy and the Constitution.”
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Syed Khursheed Shah, who is also leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, said he would ask the prime minister why the army chief had to be asked to mediate when nearly all political parties were present in the house and had offered their support to him.
Former Punjab governor and PPP leader Latif Khosa put the onus of the military’s involvement squarely on the ruling PML-N’s shoulders.
“After killing 14 innocent PAT workers, the Sharif brothers were unwilling even to register their FIR,” he said, adding that the government’s delaying tactics in dealing with PAT and PTI further complicated the situation.
Talking to DawnNews, prominent lawyer and rights activist Asma Jahangir criticised both Qadri and Khan, saying “Those who had wasted 15 days must be discouraged.”
Nearly all parliamentary parties and politicians pleaded with them, but they did not heed anyone’s advice, she said.
“Now, on a single phone call, they rush to Army House.” She criticised army’s blatant involvement in political affairs and said instead of using their proxies to destabilise the system, why don’t they impose direct military rule.
Secular Awami National Party Haji Adeel said it is wrong to make the military a political guarantor; parliament is the supreme guarantor.
“This is a major failure for all politicians,” he said.
