Yasser Latif
\nAre politicians\u2019 personal lives really personal? Julius Caesar the greatest politician from antiquity was not exempt from public attacks on his personal life. His love life was a subject of many a conversation in Rome. His divorce with Pompeia gave rise to the oft-used expression \u201cCaesar\u2019s wife must be above suspicion\u201d. This was in Rome where the idea of sexuality was certainly not as rigid as it was to become later in Western civilization, and indeed Muslim civilization. The modern day Rome i.e. the US saw a liberal President like Bill Clinton vociferously deny charges of adultery, even when there is no law against it. This was because he feared that these charges would undermine his clout. Ultimately, it was for his lie that he was almost impeached. Even today, President Trump, never one to back down, is facing the Stormy Daniels crisis with the indefatigable litigator Michael Avenatti Esq. in hot pursuit. Earlier scandals in American history included the brief but torrid affair between Alexander Hamilton and Mary Reynolds, which ended the chances of this most promising of founding fathers to become the President of the US. Thomas Jefferson\u2019s affair with his slave Sally is also a well known subject in American history.
\nIn the subcontinent, Gandhi \u2014 who was anointed Mahatma or the Great Soul \u2014 was not spared for his experiments sleeping naked with young female prot\u00e9g\u00e9s to control his sexual urges. Pandit Nehru\u2019s sexual escapades were the stuff of legend, though he was lucky to have as his main rival a gentleman in Mr Jinnah, who refused to capitalise on Nehru\u2019s alleged relationship with Lady Mountbatten. Indira\u2019s marriage to Feroze Gandhi was another major scandal which Nehru had to grapple with. Mr Jinnah himself, the Quaid-e-Azam, was called Kafir-e-Azam because he had married Ruttie Petit, a Parsi socialite known for wearing clothes scandalous even by modern standards. This was despite the fact that Ruttie had nominally converted to Islam as a legal formality to maintain Mr Jinnah\u2019s eligibility to run on a Muslim seat in the separate electorate system. Throughout his political career, Jinnah\u2019s dietary habits would continue to be questioned by orthodox Muslims as well as his supposedly secular opponents in the Congress. Later the Quaid-e-Azam would be taunted for his daughter\u2019s decision to marry outside the faith, even though he had himself disapproved of the union. Both Bacha Khan and his brother Dr Khan Sahib faced similar taunts from the more conservative Pakhtuns for the marriage of Dr Khan Sahib\u2019s daughter to a Christian pilot. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto\u2019s personal life was also subject of much gossip, including his famous affair with Husna Shaikh. Bhutto was not the kind to back down. He did what Kemal Ataturk, one of his heroes, had done 40 years earlier. As the President of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk had begun drinking and partying openly, declaring that unlike the Sultans he was not a hypocrite and that Ottomans drank in private, which they did. Bhutto declared \u201cyes I drink, but at least I don\u2019t drink the blood of the poor\u201d, taking aim at the rich capitalists who he was trying to destroy through his disastrous nationalisation policy.
\nIn short, the personal lives of politicians have never really been personal. In Pakistan however, the issue is more than just reputation vis-\u00e0-vis the voters. Pakistani voters have historically never really cared much for the personal lives of their leaders. Despite propaganda against our most popular leaders, Mr Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, people still gave them their mandate and rejected at the polls those pious men in flowing beards who railed against them.
\nThe issue in Pakistan is a constitutional and legal one, especially after the mutilations visited upon the 1973 Constitution by General Ziaul Haq. Parliamentarians or candidates who would be parliamentarians and are also Muslims would be subject to Article 62(1)d and 62(1)e.
\nThese clauses are a minefield as Justice Qazi Faez Isa so rightly pointed in his dissenting judgment in the Shaikh Rasheed case. This door should never have been opened. MQM tried to do this when it brought the issue up against Imran Khan about a decade ago but failed. Article 62 was brought to the fore again through Imran Khan\u2019s petition against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Ultimately the court disqualified Nawaz Sharif under 62(1)f which speaks of the requirement of a legislator to be sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and \u2018Ameen\u2019. The door was left wide open though.
\nNow PTI activists and Imran Khan cry foul that their leader\u2019s personal life is being made an issue. It is certainly not an election issue but a purely legal one. As much as one dislikes these spurious clauses \u2014 which have no business as qualification clauses especially given that there should be no discrimination between Muslim and Non-Muslim legislators \u2014 the fact is that these clauses are part of the Constitution and despite the attendant risks, it was Imran Khan who insisted on bringing them into play.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yasser Latif Are politicians\u2019 personal lives really personal? Julius Caesar the greatest politician from antiquity was not exempt from public attacks on his personal life. His love life was a subject of many a conversation in Rome. His divorce with Pompeia gave rise to the oft-used expression \u201cCaesar\u2019s wife must be above suspicion\u201d. This was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-27384","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article"},"yoast_head":"\n