By Asha’ar Rehman

JUST how should political leaders behave when they are faced with humiliating attacks on their person in public?

Much has been written on the subject in the wake of reports that an old man had thrown his footwear in the direction of President Asif Zardari at a public meeting in Birmingham earlier this month. Let`s quote two not too old incidents that took place in Punjab to illustrate how it is possible for those who claim to lead the people to efficiently deal with these potentially embarrassing moments.

The first and relatively more recent occurrence is reflective of how activists around a big politician can also prevent a rally from being `hijacked`. The main focus was on the person of Nawaz Sharif, the year was 1990 and the locale The Mall. Mr Sharif was addressing a pre-election rally.

“They say that I cannot draw crowds,” the PML leader said as he indicated the expanse of people in front of him with his right hand and then went on to reconfirm his observation by asking the participants of the rally directly. “Now kya yeh sab People`s Party kay log hain ? Oh bhai kya tum main koyee People`s Party wallah bhi hai ? (Are these all People`s Party supporters? Is there a People`s Party supporter among you?) As Mian Sahib paused for effect, a hand rose in the air and a bearded man shouted aloud, “I am. I am a PPP supporter.

“OK, you are a PPP supporter,” Mian Sahib said, a bit taken aback apparently. “ Aik aadmi se koyee farq nahin parta ” (One man doesn`t make a difference).

Can you imagine what followed? Where there could have been aggression and violence, a collective giggle rang through the crowd. Everyone was so amused that it took the speaker some time to bring them round to listening to his message. Mr Sharif and his party went on to win the election.

The second incident relates to Mr Zardari`s political guru, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The story has reached us through those who had followed ZAB`s political career. Two different sources ascribe it to two different venues — Okara and Lahore — and as is often the case with folklore, there is some difference in detail as well. Anyway, the moral is something worth sharing in these times.

The account goes that Prime Minister Bhutto was addressing a public rally soon after the prices of several essential household items had registered an unusual hike. He began in his usual emotional manner, spicing his lines with his customary attacks on political opponents. This was just the build-up he required before he could tackle some of the real issues.

Then he mentioned some of the items whose price had recently shot up and as he mentioned how expensive sugar had become, there were a couple of men in the crowd who waved their slippers at the prime minister. “Yes I know, the price of slippers has also soared,” was how he responded, and continued as if nothing had happened.

The PPP may not be far off the mark when it complains of a concerted campaign against it spearheaded by a section of an influential and hostile media. It can come up with many examples to drive home the point; the similarity in approach by the purported shoe-thrower and the media group in question, where both acted as if they were out to save Ms Benazir Bhutto`s party from Mr Zardari`s evil clutches; the court appearance on behalf of the media group of a lawyer whose political priorities are all well too known.

The point is that these people and groups are fully within their rights to form groups and oppose whoever they want to oppose.

There would be people who would say that both Mr Sharif and Mr Bhutto were able to take these incidents in their stride since these came when the two of them were at the height of their popularity. Precisely why the supporters of Mr Zardari needed to show restraint in their reaction to the (real or concocted) shoe-throwing episode. They needn`t indulge in a display that lent strength to the calls that Mr Zardari`s popularity was on the decline.

The PPP should have brushed off the shoe-throwing, and moved on with a smile. Instead it chose to betray on its part a weakness that is usually associated with the weak.