NS never had the power to make the necessary changes. As soon as he started making changes, IK started his street protests leading to a weakening of NS's political position and he being forced to agree to the Army's demand that foreign policy was off limits to him.
The military was certainly a problem for Nawaz Sharif, but this depiction of Sharif as a hapless victim represents an inept understanding of Pakistani politics and seriously underestimates the damaging leadership style of Sharif.
The calling card of PML-N is ‘service delivery’ - the ability to get things done locally (for example the provision of reliable supply of water and electricity or laying of a sewage lines) as well as flashy infrastructure development programmes. Where Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif excelled was in their control of the bureaucracy. They handpicked their favourites, adopted a micromanagement style, and made tough demands of officials. (In this respect, we might speculate that the family’s business background helped sensitise them to the importance of the bureaucracy and having it on its side.)
On the other side is Sharif’s dictatorial leadership style. There is excessive self-belief and an arrogance of power. There is a reliance on centralised decision making by the so-called ‘kitchen cabinet’ and an obsession with bolstering personal power. These were on display in his previous terms as Prime Minster and re-appeared in his third term. In the words of Sartaj Aziz:
“He has a strong belief … in the importance of his personal power. He therefore ran the government on his terms through a system of personalised decision-making, without adequate consultations or participation of his cabinet colleagues, the parliament or other relevant bodies … This desire to strengthen his personal power base rather than strengthen the institutions that are the main pillars of a viable democratic process, eventually led to his dramatic downfall.”
Damaging too his is inability to build a consensus across political parties and his attitude, in the words of Pakistani academic, Saeed Shafqat, of wanting to “go it alone.” He lacks the wily skills required to build a parliamentary consensus. His tendency to shun the National Assembly was indicative of his distant and undemocratic manner as leader.
The comparison with the Zardari years (2008-13) is instructive. When it comes to service delivery, the PML-N were streets ahead. The Zardari years were also marked by poor governance, widespread corruption, frequent ‘load-shedding’ and high unemployment. But what Zardari was able to do was to build a parliamentary consensus and he was at least able to secure the passage of around 100 bills, including most importantly the 18th constitutional amendment, which circumscribed the power of the President and bolstered that of the provinces.
The military may be a thorn in the side of the PML-N, but that should not blind us to Sharif’s ruinous character traits.
