AS the Opposition was trying to increase both the political and psychological pressure on the ruling party, Prime Minister Imran Khan, during his much quoted address to a public gathering at Mailsi tehsil of Vehari district on Sunday, conveyed a vivid impression of being in an upbeat mood and that he was ready to fight back with full force.
He was so sure to foil the planned move of the Opposition for no-confidence against him that the Prime Minister retorted “do you know what I will do to you once the move fizzles out”?
Imran Khan also spoke harshly about PML(N) leader Mian Nawaz Sharif, PPP’s Co-Chairperson Asif Ali Zardari and Chief of JUI(F) Maulana Asif Ali Zardari besides criticizing the European Union countries for asking Pakistan to vote against Russia during the recently held special session of the United Nations General Assembly, asking if they considered Islamabad their “slave”.
There is no doubt that the fate of the proposed no-confidence move hangs in balance as statements and actions of even its would-be sponsored are shaky as has been highlighted by the remarks of PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who acknowledged during a news conference in Lahore on Sunday that he could not guarantee a hundred percent success.
Different Opposition leaders also gave different deadlines for tabling of the no-confidence motion but these expired without any concrete progress towards convening of the session of the National Assembly for the purpose or submission of the motion to the Assembly Secretariat.
The Opposition was banking upon the support of the allies of the Government, especially PML(Q) but the party is so far standing firmly with the PTI on the issue and it was, perhaps, with this in view that Bilawal said the move would definitely succeed if allies of the Government are on board (with the Opposition).
As for the possibility of any internal rift in the PTI, the Government has many options to deal with the situation as it can accommodate doubtful members through different means and there are also reports that such members would form part of the delegations, which are to be despatched to different countries to ensure they are not available in Pakistan for political maneuvering.
However, neither the Opposition nor the Government can be criticized or attacked for planning a no-confidence move, which is purely a legal and constitutional course to dislodge a Government or defending it through lawful means.
In this backdrop, the threat hurled by the Prime Minister on the Opposition parties and the leaders is not appropriate as such pronouncements unduly deepen political tension and polarization in the country.
The Opposition can afford to talk in such terms but the Government cannot as it has a responsibility to ensure peace, stability and national harmony.
Legal recourse like references in corruption cases is something else but verbal threats is something quite different as it smacks of politics of vengeance.
Both the Government and the Opposition should also ensure that no derogatory remarks are passed against the national leadership as character assassination would harm the democratic process, healthy democratic traditions and the political leadership.
Criticism must remain within the bounds of decency as no one gains in acrimonious exchanges aimed at bringing the other side down.
As for remarks of the Prime Minister against European countries, the Foreign Office took timely and appropriate notice of the development and, therefore, there was hardly any need for raising the issue in a public meeting.
If there was objection to issuance of a joint statement by ambassadors of 21 countries on the plea that diplomacy should not be conducted through media then the same is true in this case as well.
In the first place, it was absolutely unfair to speak on sensitive issues so openly and even if a reference was required for political considerations then this should have been done in a subtle manner.
Pakistan has had best of relations with European countries, which should not be allowed to be harmed, in any way, because of any difference of approach on a foreign policy issue.
Divergence of views is not uncommon in international relations but these are discussed behind the scene rather than highlighted publicly for the sake of political expediencies.
