Nawaz Sharif’s act of frustration

In his speeches during his GT road rally, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif said that none of the prime ministers could complete his term due to establishment and judiciary’s alliance. In fact, Nawaz Sharif was picked up by late general Zia-ul-Haq, who had ditched prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo of PML-J, which was rechristened PML-N when Nawaz Sharif sided with the military dictatorship during row between Ziaul Haq and Junejo. Whether it was former president Ghulam Ishaq Khan or establishment, Nawaz Sharif had played an active role in removal of prime minister Benazir Bhutto twice, who was elected by the people of Pakistan. It is fresh in the minds of people that he appeared in the court wearing black coat to get Yousuf Raza Gilani disqualified. For over three decades, Nawaz Sharif has been a part of this exploitative system and did nothing to ameliorate the lot of the downtrodden.
Now, he is asking the people, whether they would do whatever he would ask them to do? He may succeed in mobilizing a million people to march towards the Supreme Court, but he cannot get the Supreme Court verdict overturned. The question is what is the objective of Nawaz Sharif in enticing the people to rebel against the system? In fact, Nawaz Sharif on advice of the hawks had decided to go by GT road instead of motorway. Ch. Nisar, Raja Zafarul Haq and Shahbaz Sharif had opposed his travel by GT road. Anyhow, there appears to be struggle within in the party as well within the Sharif family, whereby senior leaders are not willing to accept Maryam Nawaz as their leader. To stay relevant, Nawaz Sharif is trying to pressurize not only the judiciary but also his party so that Maryam or whomsoever he wants is accepted as a party leader.
In 2010, Shahbaz Sharif also used to talk about revolution. Speaking at the award ceremony for position holders in various examinations, he had presaged a bloody revolution if national resources were not spent on the poor to improve their living. Anyhow, the question is who is going to lead the revolution? Perhaps he means anarchy because revolution has different connotation and it needs a revolutionary party to bring about a fundamental change in the system. Since he was neither a revolutionary nor his party had any ideological base, there was not a speck of chance that masses and progressive elements would rally the PML-N leadership. True enough that spiraling inflation, widespread unemployment, rising poverty, deteriorating law and order situation are ‘ingredients’ to create a stir, but revolutionary changes can take place only with conscious efforts of a party that has credible and visionary leadership, which unfortunately is not here at the present.
The term revolution generally refers to a fundamental change in the character of a country’s system of economy and governance, which may or may not be violent. The expulsion of James II from British throne was considered as a revolutionary step, as it had great bearing in future course of action in England. The French Revolution indeed had some ideological content, and the spadework was done by philosophers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others who had prepared the ground for Enlightenment, and created consciousness against the tyranny of the system. Nevertheless, the French Revolution broke the chains of feudalism and despotism; but since there wasn’t an organized party that could have led the revolution, the country faced anarchy and civil war. However in 1789, the French Revolution overthrew the monarchy and absolutism. In 1917, the world witnessed October Revolution, which replaced the monarchy and the economic system in Russia.
Mere existence of contradictions, discrepancies, inequities do not cause a stir in the society leading to revolution unless these are fed into the feelings and consciousness of the people. All flaws and hurdles in the development of a nation that exist in objectivity must enter subjectivity in order to cause movement among the people. In Pakistan, jagirdars, vederas and sardars still wield enormous powers. They enjoy political clout and in cahoots with noveau riche industrial class and bureaucracy control the power. They are master political strategists who ride the tide and turn the surge to their advantage. It has to be said that the beneficiaries of the system will never wish to see people’s revolution, as they will be deprived of the ill-gotten wealth accumulated taking advantage of their position in the government. In other words, oligarchs would never like to see the revolution, as it is they who stand to lose.