US media sees Nawaz Sharif’s ouster not helpful to democracy, Pakistan

1121
Profile Picture

WASHINGTON, July 30 (APP):The American media has described ouster of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as not a good omen for democracy and Pakistan, highlighting the fact that no prime minister has ever completed its public mandate in the country’s 70 years of history.
One of the US leading newspapers The Washington Post in a report titled why Sharif’s ouster is dangerous for Pakistan, said the verdict weakens the country’s democracy.
The report stated that Nawaz Sharif was not given the “benefit of a legal trial”, and was punished on the findings of an investigative panel.
It was observed by the report that Nawaz Sharif was found guilty on a “technicality unrelated to the Panama Papers”, a reference to the issue on the basis of which the case had been filed against him.
The report said that no elected prime minister ever completed a full term and that when Nawaz Sharif won the 2013 general election, it was the first peaceful transition of power from one elected government to another.
Nawaz Sharif has been sent home not because of Panama case, but because. “he failed to be sadiq and ameen, or truthful and trustworthy,”the Washington Post report said.
In an opinion piece by US-based Bloomberg news service said that Nawaz Sharif’s ouster is a bad news. It said again a democratic mandate “appears to have been shown to be of now account”. The Bloomberg also stated that the former prime minister was not found guilty of corruption per se, but for violating Articles 62 and 63 of country’s Constitution, which demand that members of parliament be sadiq and ameen.
The Bloomberg report said that Nawaz Sharif’s defeat was a bad news for Pakistan, where democracy seems constantly to struggle to take root. Nawaz Sharif’s “departure is very bad news for anyone who had bet on a brighter future for Pakistan”.
A report by another US news daily, The New York Times, said “Even though Mr. Sharif was not named in the Panama leaks, and there is no evidence that he abused public office for private gain” he was disqualified for not being “honest”.
In another report, the New York Times, said that Imran Khan was the main petitioner before the court and fomented widespread street protests against Nawaz Sharif, emerging as the strongest challenger to the former prime minister and his political legacy.
“But Mr. Khan’s path to victory in the next general election, set for mid-2018, is far from assured,” the report said quoting analysts, including Moeed Yusuf, Associate vice President of the Asia Center at the United States Institute of Peace, whose research and work centers on Pakistan.
“In some ways, this is a clear victory; there is no question about that,” the report said quoting Moeed Yusuf. “Sans Panama Papers scandal, PML-N, the ruling party, was sitting pretty for the next elections.” Still, Moeed said, he did not believe Mr. Khan was closer to a victory in the elections than he had been before the ouster.
“Despite his huge urban base, Mr. Khan has found it hard to prevail over Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Party, especially in Punjab, the former prime ministers power base, and two other provinces”, the report said.
According to Moeed Yusuf, as quoted by the report, “If Nawaz manages a smooth transition to the next prime minister, I think he still has a clear edge going into the next elections”.
Imran) Khan has no experience with governing and has shown an aptitude more for street agitation than working with Parliament to bring about change. Many diplomats expressed shock at what they see as his disregard for the parliamentary process,” the report said.
“Mr. Khan too faces cases against him in the Supreme Court and the election commission, stemming from accusations of hiding assets and of foreign funding of his political party. There has been speculation that the courts could bar him from Parliament over these accusations, speculation that Mr. Khan laughs off,” the report said.