Proud to be a Pakistani. This T-shirt quote is quite debatable. Is this implying that you can only be proud of the country if you are born and bred in Pakistan? Does it imply that even if you are bred elsewhere you can still be a patriotic Pakistani? This debate has become more debatable as the political perspective of dual nationality has taken centre-stage for the last few weeks. The fact that people holding dual passports are considered eligible to vote is a fact that recognises that even if you live elsewhere and have now a new nationality, the country of your birth still gives you the right to voice your opinion on its government through voting. Overseas Pakistanis are a huge asset for the country. They represent all the qualities that a good citizen living in foreign lands should have. They are hardworking and law abiding. They represent the true Pakistani spirit. They are more patriotic and concerned about Pakistan than many living in Pakistan. The 3.7 million overseas Pakistanis are also contributors to the economy through foreign remittances that actually help in reducing the current account deficit. However, for them to be allowed to contest elections, a constitutional amendment is needed. The question is, is it fair to ask for a constitutional amendment if the logic behind disallowing this right is valid or is this amendment just another exception to please a few elite politicians who are not ready to have exclusive allegiance to the country? The dual nationality rule may not mean dual or divided patriotism but a statement that those who rule the country to be role models for putting their stakes — legal, financial or political — in the country they swear to be loyal to while taking the responsibility of running it. As far as the people living in Pakistan who are still holding two passports is concerned, that also implies many tendencies. There are a number of people who went to study, married foreign nationals and then decided to return to Pakistan after receiving a foreign nationality. Another category is those who are settled in Pakistan but have become uncertain about the country’s future and decided to have an additional nationality for their children to have access to another country in case living becomes more hazardous at home. As Pakistan’s conditions become difficult, the line of people queuing for immigration becomes longer. For some, the extra scrutiny the green passport has to go through in foreign visa offices is too cumbersome and embarrassing and the desire to show off another passport is too strong to resist. While these reasons may all be valid for ordinary citizens to make a choice of living in two countries, for a person leading the country it is a choice that does not signal complete faith in and loyalty to the future of the nation they are trying to brighten. Our history is full of leaders whose stakes — financial and legal — are more overseas than in the country and thus for them failure to rule the country effectively and go through the accountability process means little as they have invested in businesses and assets abroad that ensure a lavish lifestyle even when they are out of government. Both the PPP and PML-N’s exit when Musharraf’s government took over is evidence of this fact. Similarly, Shaukat Aziz and Musharraf had easy exits as when the heat became unbearable; they shifted overseas to lifestyles that are chilled and cool. Thus, history shows that dual nationality is just a safe exit strategy for leaders who want to stow their wealth in lands other than their country of birth. The strange thing is that the very parties who were supporting dual nationality by saying that overseas Pakistanis have a right to lead the country have now started opposing their voting rights. In a recent meeting held with the Election Commission of Pakistan, these parties opposed these voting rights, saying that the mechanism would encourage bogus voting and thus they should not be participating in elections. It is exactly like saying that since in Pakistan for the last 64 years votes have been rigged, Pakistanis should not be allowed to vote. If the mechanism over here was so rigged that even in the 2008 elections, 45 percent votes were bogus, then the need was to improve the mechanism and not to say that there should be no voting. Similarly, for overseas Pakistanis, the mechanism needs to be improved with the purpose of giving them a share in electing the leadership of the country. More dangerous than dual nationality is dual personality. While laws exist to handle the first, very little can be done about people who seem to find it difficult to be who they are and then show who and what they really are. The ability of many of our politicians to pretend to be men of integrity and simplicity and then to live in overwhelming splendour has made media live on parody programmes of these leaders who despite their undying allegiance to the country have turned this nation into a banana republic. Genuine people and items are unfashionable. Fake personalities, degrees, products and statements are the norm and anybody not conforming to these norms is an outcast. History shows that in times of dire straits nations have to make clear and tough choices — the choice to keep on cribbing about the ills in society and yet not take responsibility for doing anything about them or the choice to decide that no matter what it takes, they will stand against those who are responsible for the rot in the country. Even this very decision requires them to examine their own behaviour as being genuine or fake. If they are just pretending to want a change they will merely crib and shrug their shoulders, and if they are genuine in their desire to make a contribution to rid the country of chronic ills, they will take action to ensure that whatever needs to be done is done. That then is the test that each member of society has to go through to align whom they appear to be to whom they really are. The writer is a leadership coach, columnist and a former information secretary of the PTI Punjab. She can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com