There is an under-lying assumption in Pakistan that personal rectitude will translate into good governance. What Pakistan has lacked over the past 71 years is sincere leadership and, if that missing ingredient is found, the problems will disappear. Almost all the supporters of Imran Khan argue that he is untested — besides the little stint in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — and that because of his personal financial incorruptibility, he could ensure good governance. Change will be ushered on the back of good intentions, financial rectitude and virtuous actions. Emphasis on personal virtue as an arbiter of good governance is not unusual, especially among intellectually conservative people. I use the term intellectually conservative to add the whiskey drinking, western educated and superficially secular contingent in that category. The problem with the definition in that conservative register is of course personal behaviour and actions. Society is understood as a collection of individuals where personal virtue from the top coupled with righteous behaviour on part of the majority translates into positive social change. Of course, the reasoning goes, a virtuous ruler rules wisely and justly and ensures justice for all. The other point of view, which many on the left subscribe to is, that the problem is rooted in social structure rather than simply virtue. Good people do bad things because they are locked into regressive social practices. People may espouse simplicity and austerity but yet engage in consumerism like it’s no one’s business. The so-called moralists may drive the bulldozer that runs over the shacks of poor people, who may not have paid their protection money in time to some civic authority. So-called ‘family men’ in the police may extort an equally virtuous truck driver to pay for the policeman’s children’s school uniforms. If one were to concede, even for the sake of argument, that it is the structure of the state and the polity that leads to perverse outcomes of poverty, injustice, and violence, then the question of the ruler’s personal virtue becomes somewhat superfluous. The most upstanding person thrust in a position of power, will be eviscerated by the system into behaving exactly like the scoundrels that he or she purports to replace. From the election campaigns of PTI it appears that its commitment to neo-liberal capitalism is complete. Its indifference to the plight of the religious minorities and their rights is obvious, any commitment to redistributive justice, such as land reforms is absent, the question of gender is a non-starter, their ability to take on the security state is laughable and hence hostilities with India is going to be its continued priority. Or do I misspeak? My view is that Pakistan’s problems are more structural than a virtue deficit in leaders or for that matter in society. Focus on virtue is simplistic and it is terribly seductive, precisely because it is so simple. Pakistan is a poor post-colonial country with a desperately lopsided civil-military balance. Some of the key structural problems it faces include; extreme concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few and back breaking poverty for the many. Secondly a security state that uses its power to promote anti-women, anti-labour and anti-minority forces and national narratives. Thirdly there is a colonial educational system that produces technocrats and technicians but not critical thinkers. This is in addition to a capitalist system where the state protects the wealth and privilege of the powerful at the expense of the weak. Moreover there is a profound culture of gendered injustice and violence. Alongside the domination of Punjab over other provinces. And finally a foreign policy fixated upon implacable and eternal hostilities with India, and hegemonic ambitions with regard to Afghanistan. In the presence of the above mentioned non-exhaustive constraints, for a very poor country, there is a need for a profoundly different set of institutional priorities and international behaviour for Pakistan. Confronting the above constraints will involve taking on extremely powerful interests, within the remit of the laws and the constitution. What reason has the present government given us to believe that it has the political will or the intellectual capacity to confront Pakistan’s structural problems? From the election campaigns of PTI it appears that its commitment to neo-liberal capitalism is complete. Its indifference to the plight of the religious minorities and their rights is obvious, any commitment to redistributive justice, such as land reforms is absent, the question of gender is a non-starter, their ability to take on the security state is laughable and hence hostilities with India is going to be its continued priority. Or do I misspeak? I really wish that the world were so simple that personal rectitude in a leader was a guarantor of the leader’s efficacy in ensuring a just society. In terms of‘ personal incorruptibility’ Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, the two monsters of the twentieth century were paragons of virtue. Their hand in immense suffering of course is also undeniable. Politicians in many parts of the world, such as Italy, Japan or South Korea have not exactly been known for their personal virtue, but nevertheless preside over immensely successful and productive economies. So should one hold out any hope for Prime Minister Imran Khan? Sure — he’s the only prime minister we have. Holding out hope never cost anyone anything, besides a little disappointment at the end, but then again we are used to that. I for one don’t like to hope, I like to go on the evidence, and I don’t see it. The writer is a researcher in Politics and Environment at the Department of Geography, King’s College, London. His research includes water resources, hazards and development geography Published in Daily Times, August 26th 2018.