Many years ago, Mr Wali Khan, who was
then president of the Awami National Party, proposed that
there should be a retiring age for politicians too. Having
said this, he promptly called it a day and went home to
rest, leaving Ajmal Khattak in charge. surprisingly, his
act was entirely voluntary, and no provocation, overt
or covert, was involved.
No one from the other political parties
dared to follow in his footsteps. That is one thing we
Pakistanis never do, that is, following in the footsteps
of good leaders, even if the footsteps are those of the
Quaid-i-Azam.
We only exhort students and the masses
to do so who sometimes spend their whole lives looking
for suitable footprints to step on. They are unable to
decide which political leader's footsteps to follow -
those that lead to respectability or to notoriety.
By a strange coincidence, a proposal similar
to that of Wali Khan was also made some years ago by Chaudhry
Shujaat Husain, now known as the Grand Old Man of the
Pakistan Muslim League. While Wali Khan chose to follow
his own judgment, Chaudhry Sahib had no such intention
when he voiced the thought before some journalists.
In fact, when he was reminded of it after
some time, he laughed and said, "Have a heart. Have
you ever heard of anyone retiring from politics just because
of old age? Look at Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan." The
latter was then alive.
Do you think if Wali Khan's idea to have
politicians to retire at a certain age was given effect
to, the so-called retired politicians would also give
up issuing statements? They would think it was their national
and moral duty to guide the nation so that it doesn't
go astray. They might even threaten to stage a comeback
like "Tarzan ki waapsi," if they felt that things
were getting out of hand.
All kinds of arguments would be put forward.
Can issuing of statements be called indulging in politics?
What exactly is a political statement? If the president
and the prime minister can exhort the various Muslim sects
in their holy day messages to unite, why couldn't a retired
politician call upon various parties to join hands and
throw the ruling regime out? What is the difference between
the two calls?
And suppose some authority were to give
the verdict that a certain statement by someone was political
and a violation of the retirement rule, what would be
his punishment? Would he be asked to take it back and
sent to jail under some new law if he refused? Or would
newspapers be advised to be careful in future or otherwise
their advertisements would be stopped? Or would the old
culprit be simply ostracized by serving politicians? A
sort of "hookah paani band," as they say in
Urdu.
At this point I can't resist the temptation
of conjecturing what would have happened to a man like
Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan who had own hookah and carried
it everywhere.
What a great loss to politics that man's
passing away has been! Had he been alive, the phenomenon
that he was would itself have presented a unique dilemma
for those in charge of enforcing the retirement rule.
If he had chosen to be stubborn on the
plea that he would have nothing left to do if kept out
of politics, he could have made things difficult for whoever
wanted him to retire. Moreover, he could have sought a
court injunction that since he was the cobbler of the
Grand Democratic Alliance only he could do away with it,
and until it was uncobbled he would stay its chief. It
would be a stay order in the real sense of the word.
As an example and incentive the voluntary
retirement of Wali Khan would be of no help. Being a man
of principle makes him an exception. Besides he has Begum
Wali Khan to speak on his behalf whenever he feels like
speaking.
Otherwise we have seen too many politicians
announcing their retirement and re-entering politics at
the first available opportunity, usually "in response
to great and persistent demand from followers and admirers."
Apart from suggesting that a retirement
committee representing the major political parties be
set up to thrash out the issue in all its details, I personally
can't think of anything more to say on its logistics.
In order to ensure that the committee
is not unjust to the elderly politicians earmarked for
retirement, it should have powers to coopt from the oldest
of those who are functus officio, even if they are senile.
These could be Mian Tufail Muhammad, retired amir of the
Jamaat-i- Islami, and Mr Aslam Khattak who has made more
returns to active politics than even he can remember.
But that may mean that the committee would
never be able to decide on its most important recommendation
- the age of retirement. Whatever age it fixes, short
of a hundred years, Mr Aslam Khattak would come within
its mischief. Naturally it would be too much to expect
him to commit political suicide. He told a Peshawar newspaper
some time ago that he was hale and hearty, though he refused
to tell when he had crossed 90. "I don't remember,"
he said.
Another big problem might arise if former
president Ghulam Ishaq Khan decides that a retired life
is too boring and that he must get back into the arena.
Those who know him well say he is more shrewd than an
income tax lawyer and more conversant with intricate rules
and regulations than the wiliest section officer in the
government.
He might come up with the astounding theory
that while he is no longer the president he is still empowered
to wield the Eighth Amendment and dismiss a regime or
two!
Since no one in the establishment nowadays
really understands the Constitution, by the time Syed
Sharifuddin Pirzada comes up with a way to keep him out,
he will have entrenched himself in the Aiwan-a-Sadar once
again, which would not be difficult as President Pervez
Musharraf does not live there. This would truly be Tarzan
ki waapsi, for just recall how doggedly he fought Mian
Nawaz Sharif for power some years ago.
Keeping all this in mind, and before the
suggested retirement committee comes into being, I think
Wali Khan would be well advised, in the national interest,
to give a second thought to the business of fixing a retirement
age for politicians.
