The not-so-deeply buried VIP Culture debate hops out and about into the national discourse every few months. In this quarter, it has acquired a legislative dimension, initiating when a political resolution was tabled to be passed in the upper house of the Parliament.
This cacophony picked the beat when a few lawmakers lobbied to get a resolution passed to permit their immediate family members to board airplanes without going through security checks at airports. Although they were forced to withdraw from the resolution amid bitter criticism from varied factions, this matter leads one to debate on the necessity of protocols.
The public holds a very strong opinion against VIP culture. One often comes across posts shared on social media promoting how heads of states in the global north or west travel in subway trains like normal citizens instead of commuting through luxury cars and how we lack in maintaining similar standards of equality in our own country. This is partly thanks to the VIP culture itself for longer and unanticipated hours of waiting on roads. And then the politics against VIP culture that have confused the public even more, so much so that they are seldom able to make a distinction between these two: VIP protocol and Security protocol.
Security protocols are a need of the time. It is the repercussion of a protracted conflict and consequence of the ongoing instability in Afghanistan-Pakistan region. One can take a pause and rewind back to the events of a few decades ago. As of now, security protocols are viewed as a lavish facility provided to the bigwigs of our country – a wastage of the taxpayers’ money. The claim can be partially valid, to the point of taxpayers’ money. It is also true that personalities provided with the protocols are elected by the people and come into the system to ‘serve’ Pakistan and its people. But just as such VIPs have crucial responsibilities, their protection and safety is also very critical for us, our future. Since they are soft targets during their time in office, the terrorists intend to create a momentum and bigger impact of damage by targeting high profile figures. When the leaders are targeted, the morale of the work force under them also suffers inevitably. The most recent reference can be taken from the terror incident in Attock, and the unfortunate demise of Punjab’s gallant Home Minister Shuja Khanzada. After Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Minister Bashir Ahmad Bilour, and the tragedy of losing Ms. Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The attacks on all these personalities have been huge blows and are widely perceived as a demoralizing tactic. All these leaders were assassinated in the aftermath of thin security measures at the time of the attack.
Political leaders and other high profile figures shy away from identifying lapses in their security protocols because this issue has been getting a constant hype. Public opinion on security protocols has become evident quite rapidly. After the attack on Shuja Khanzada and eighteen others with him, a young member of the Parliament commended the former’s valour on social media: Mr Khanzada had commuted without an armoured car, he praised.
It is needless to narrate the indisputable role the slain Home Minister has played in going after militant groups throughout Punjab, while leading the Counter Terrorism Department of the police from the front. Punjab, in fact, the whole of Pakistan still needed his leadership. Mr Khanzada’s title and office deserved the security that was missing at that particular time, and there is no wisdom in taking pride on that pretext. It was a huge security lapse and must be treated as such. At another occasion, when the Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja swore oath to the office in August ’15, he refused to accept the security protocols that came with it.
Can we risk losing the incumbent public figures at the expense of protocol politics and creating a bigger vacuum in our national leadership? As a matter of fact, those who use the protection of notable persons or their security protocols as a political card deepen the confusion among their supporters and the public at large because VIP protocols and security protocols are two different things. Critics of security protocols should reconsider their priorities in politics. Henceforth, it should be made a requisite for the office bearers to be cautious about their security matters and comply with the protocols being regulators of our state machinery. In the meantime, others should refrain from encouraging the practice of VIP culture/protocols.