Daily Times

Each ruler in the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ brought his/her own agenda and aspirations — the ne plus ultra of various philosophies from bygone to mingle with their own set of visions, yet, each left their apparitions to linger on. They came and conquered, and ruled without ever addressing to rebuild the society in crisis. Since the inception, no leadership sincerely aimed at governing in a way to address the real problems faced by the masses or to prevent and resolve conflicts and divide in the society.

The ‘demographic dogma’ has not only evened out the masses as potential voters, but has also striped us off true leadership. Still our fixations for lofty agendas and heroism, abides. We are perpetually vying for out of the ordinary and always encountering mediocracy. Though a multitude of doubts surround what is done in the name of ‘Democracy’, still it is the sweetest of terms in the gospel of history of politics. Hypothetically it is the only man-made system that promises the common man, verbose ideals like ‘Liberty, Equality and Justice’…

But as they say: There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip, democracy in Pakistan has witnessed hard times. Ominously enough the elected leadership has almost always been under the shadow of lurking failure, striving to create a state of stability amidst chaos. We have witnessed several toppling of governments, failure of mandates, crashing of groovy slogans and economic havocs. Pakistan being the only theological ideology experiment of recent times, seems to faced more conflicts than any of its’s ‘republican’ counterparts, balancing religion versus state.

Henri de Saint-Simon the father of French socialism mentioned two stages as the essence in the evolution of a nation, namely, “organic stage” and “critical stage”. The organic stage includes adaption and balancing of theological/religious identity, politics, and economy. The ‘critical’ epoch being the turbulent state of accentuated tension, doubt, dividualism, protest, unrest and even indifference. This is the very phase in the history of a nation when people are busy ‘destroying’ what has been built over the course of time. A state thus has to have a well-defined and clearly spelled out agenda to tackle these stages.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the only firebrand of leader seemed to be the first one with a real agenda. Contradiction-personified: Bhutto was a rabble-rouser and a manipulating chameleon, had a lure that out-lived him yet was full of autocratic disdain and utter lack of tolerance for his opponents. He was perhaps, the victim of his own tragic hamartia

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the only firebrand of leader seemed to be the first one with a real agenda. Contradiction-personified: Bhutto was a rabble-rouser and a manipulating chameleon, had a lure that out-lived him yet was full of autocratic disdain and utter lack of tolerance for his opponents. He was perhaps, the victim of his own tragic hamartia.

Bhutto like his utopian-socialism agenda of ‘rotti, kapra aur makan’ (food, clothing and shelter) could not last long. He left us with a lurking remorse of a Greek tragedy. And though the critics may remember him as an opportunist, who played a murky role in the ‘Fall of Dhaka’, for his notorious Jallozai and Dalai concentration camps and his unopposed victory in the elections, still his mystique and charisma goes beyond his infamy.

General Zia, Bhutto’s knave turned a contriving backstabber. Who could tell that Bhutto’s political blunders would take such an ugly form? A seemingly meek Zia with a hideously diffident smile had metamorphosed into a monstrous dictator. Once in power this miserable rouge needed an agenda to survive; hence the use of cards like ‘Shariah’, Afghan War and a perpetual promise for the election within 90 days.

Benazir Bhutto, though a shadow of her assassinated father, still had all it takes to make people hope once more; a vibrant young woman who seemed to believe that ‘democracy is the best revenge’. BB drove the crowds crazy as a deity who would salivate them from all that was dark and dingy. Truly she was the only ray of hope after a long and obdurate political inertia.

There is no doubt that BB got this land in a sullied state and a lot had to be picked up from shambles. She professed to have the political agenda of her father, yet she failed us, left us at cross-roads, desolated and inconsolable. Her interspersed joy-rides to government with Nawaz had just become the theatre of the absurd, just as her shrill rhetoric would only resonate the hollowness of her broken promises.

General Parvez Musharraf the next man in power is best described as ‘an artilleryman who became a general and from a general to coup-maker’, a coup-maker who played an inessential in role Pakistan’s political history like his predecessors in uniform. The general is now on a run from accountability, is on perpetual sick-leave. Antithetical to what he avouched when in power: “I never feel scared”.

The leaders who came after general Musharraf were also men with personal agendas: of amassing the looted wealth in their coffers. Leading the state from darkness to more darkness. There seems to be a perpetual disarray in civic society — notwithstanding provision of law, no security hence no stability, lack of assistance from military and paramilitary operations, no efficient policies to inspire from — there have only been lucid visions of each leader and no constructive engagement.

PM Imran Khan is here now, a man who has made history by creating a new political force with a singular vision and passion for ‘change’. An epitome of persistence reviving people’s faith in the dictum: ‘All is fair in love and war’, in letter and in spirit. Initially chaffed by his opponents, for his political naivety, the Khan proved them all wrong. His claims to reform economy, law and order, national security, judiciary and health all in stride may look a bit farcical but the man has an agenda for sure.

Like all revolutions some from the corrupt have to be guillotined, extremist clergy has to be dealt with firmly and the masses to be herded to safety. Khan is giving it all his best shot, still the left-winged ‘liberals’ call him a shape shifting opportunist while the right winged religious hardliner say that he a product of Zionism.

Apparently too much has been said too soon by both Khan and his critics. And Pakistan seems to be caught up in an ‘organic state’ and ‘critical state’ simultaneously.

Khan has to master the art of ‘balancing’ on a tightrope and only time will tell if he will be able to steer the nation through the challenges or not. Also, he has to realise that accountability for ‘words’ and ‘actions’ is two way process: what goes around comes around.

“In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and eternity… The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew”. Abraham Lincoln

The writer is freelance columnist

Published in Daily Times, November 21^st 2018.