This week, in the world’s most powerful country, 10 people walked on a stage and presented their case to 18 million viewers by answering in less than 60 seconds why they alone should be elected the president. Next day, so did ten more. These included a former Vice President; a young mayor of a rural town; an IT entrepreneur and an obscure self-help guru who found the solution to economic strife in “spiritual healing.” Scattered issues formed together into constellations; polishing themselves under the scrutiny of opposing arguments. The juggernauts and the longshots sparred on contentious issues with equal opportunities. By the time they stepped off the stage, some had switched places. While the identities of these presidential hopefuls may not be important to an average Pakistani, the fact that they were able to earn this platform solely on the basis of public support, policy proposals, and an effectively transparent system of democracy, very much is. And so, over a year from their election day, the US democratic debates stand to raise a pressing question to the local viewer: why is this system so unrecognisable compared to our own? The Pakistani political machine is inherently tilted in favour of the demagoguery of political opportunists. Fuelled by institutional corruption, its cogs turn to the beat of established overseers and crush between them a populace, which, to this day, hasn’t gotten a clear answer as to what an MNA’s job really is. This sort of system is not uncommon in our part of the world, but neither is it a suitable means to escape the issues that plague our society. In a society where most elected officials are chosen partly by how many weddings, they congratulated and funerals they condoled, policy proposals tend to take a backseat After all, in a society where a majority of elected officials are chosen in part by how many weddings, they congratulated and funerals they condoled, policy proposals tend to take a backseat. Ask any voter in rural Punjab to name one proposal backed by their favourite candidate. Odds are you’ll hear the exact same promises from every end of the political spectrum. Odds are you’ll hear the exact same promises from every end of the political spectrum. French philosopher Michel Foucault pointed out in his 1975 book “Surveiller et Punir” that the true cruelty of the modern criminal justice system, as opposed to ancient barbarism, lies in how its intricacies remain veiled from the public, thus, quelling public outrage. This is remarkably similar to the Pakistani political system, whose present norms are upheld by a sweeping false narrative among voters, which has established itself as the normal. One that calls for just as sweeping a paradigm shift. In spite of this flawed system, however, competent lawmakers have emerged in the past to become renowned on a global scale. There is perhaps a no greater example of this than Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, who rose up from humble beginnings in rural Okara to form a political career focused on comprehensive education reform. Upon his election as Chief Minister of Punjab, he delivered, with the passing of the Compulsory Primary Education Act 1995, which led to a 20 per cent increase in Punjab’s literacy rate in just 10 years. His steadfast work ethic as Speaker and Chief Minister earned him admiration from the likes of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton; thus, cementing the image of a Pakistani legislative leader on the global stage. Why then, we must ask ourselves, are such examples an increasing rarity in the modern political landscape of Pakistan? The answer might well lie in the democratic debates. When a country’s political discourse is shaped by polarisation rather than progression, it is the ordinary citizens who suffer the consequences, and the established elite that enjoys the subsequent stability. It is for this reason that demagoguery and dynasties have prevailed for so long, and an educated young generation of leaders has failed to find its footing. Thus, regardless of one’s own opinions regarding the system of government, it should be a point of no contention that giving a platform to new ideas and debates regarding concrete ideas for bettering the country should be welcomed. Be it through public debate, increased emphasis on specific policy goals rather than rhetoric on the floor of Parliament or widened accessibility for anyone to earn their seat at the table, all such small steps go a long way in strengthening our democracy. The writer is a freelancer