THE PML(N)'s decision to show the National Assembly's door to a parliamentarian of theirs over the controversy surrounding his FA exams is admirable. It sets a good precedent for political parties to follow. Even the mere semblance of the idea that the ruling class is subject to the law of the land is admirable. But the utility of mere semblances emerges only when standards are lowered by the ruling class itself. Excesses far worse have been committed by the ruling elite than having a nephew take a Pakistan Studies paper on your behalf. And that includes the League itself. It would sound petulant, difficult and uppity not to bring oneself to praise the good actions of political parties; indeed they should be, as this paper believes. But the actual business of politics is much more difficult than the easy spots that Pervez "wrong place, wrong time" Khan's case provides. Here was a man who had won a bye-election to a seat that had been vacated by Javed Hashmi. The certainty of Khan's getting the seat was akin to a Senatorial election: all the party had to do was give him the ticket. It was, in other words, easier to show him the door. What does a party do when it is a local political heavyweight who will necessarily get his NA seat and wields heavy influence over the provincial seats that fall in his constituency and beyond? Even if the case against him were not as slight (though undeniably wrong) as Pervez Khan's but that involving heavy corruption or gross misuse of official power? In our electoral history, "activists' parties" like the PPP, ANP, JUI, JI etc had been giving tickets to party workers, albeit not as much as they should have. In the post-'99 shift of the N League, they started, to a smaller extent, to do the same. But all these parties can only show an acharacteristic measure of character if it were these pawns that are implicated in a scandal, not the rooks and knights across the polity's different chessboards.