These days Pakistani media is rife with discussions on the search for a new leader for the country — someone who can steer the nation out of this miserable mess and bring redemption —a new Quaid. However, this periodic search for a Quaid is one of the main problems which plague our country.
Charismatic leadership has been the hallmark of every postcolonial state. From our Jinnah to India’s Gandhi and Nehru, to Tanzania’s Nyerere and Ghana’s Nkrumah, and Indonesia’s Sukarno — magnetic personalities have often led the path to independence and strongly influenced their nations. In the struggle for independence and in the initial stages of freedom, the presence of these leaders, in the words of Professor Ian Talbot on Jinnah, was critical “if the state were to function at all”. But when the state had relatively stabilised, the normative pattern of state formation should have led to a transition from a personality-based state to an institution- based state. The failure of achieving this transition has been the bane of a number of postcolonial states.
In Pakistan, we have an inordinate belief in ‘saviours’. First Jinnah was supposed to have all the answers, then Liaquat, and then Ayub, Bhutto and so on. Never have we considered the option that maybe democracy, justice and equality might be the answer. We are always looking for someone to come and ‘save’ us from whatever our current predicament is — by hook or by crook. We just want our short-term objectives served and have little concern of what long-term implications our obsessive fascination with leaders brings.
Recently, the debate over leadership has again ignited and a lot of ink has been spilled over who should be our new ‘messiah’. From a certain former cricket captain, to going over tried and tested leaders, to praying for an apparition, our politics and nation building only revolves around people. In this narrative we hardly give any importance to institution building.
A usual refrain is “system kharab hai” (the system is broken). It is this system that we need to fix rather than have a recurrent search for a new leader. Every leader of Pakistan has brought with him a new system, claiming that this new system will lead the way in solving all problems. Ayub Khan brought the Basic Democracies, ZA Bhutto revamped the bureaucracy and military structure, Zia brought a new local government system and even Musharraf had his own changes. However, all these reforms failed, and will continue to fail, unless we shift our focus from a personality-based to a system-based country.
We need to base our hopes in the success of democracy as a system, the bureaucracy as a true civil service, the military as the protector of our external borders and the judiciary as the guardian of our liberties. Human beings come and go and even the most dynamic statesman has his/her limitations. What endures is a good system of governance, justice and service.
Recently, I have been fascinated by the debate over the leadership qualities of Imran Khan. He has been a good cricketer and has done a lot of charity work, but has also been a dismal failure in parliamentary politics uptill now. In the 2002 elections, (the last one he participated in) he fought a National Assembly seat from three constituencies and only managed to win from his ancestral town with just over a 6,000 vote majority. Nationwide, the Tehreek-i-Insaf only secured 0.62 per cent of votes. With this background, the amount of airtime and importance given to this person is flabbergasting. The discussion has also not centred on the party’s policies, but mostly on the persona of Imran Khan. It is as if the party and the person of the president were synonymous. Here, again, we are not giving importance to the party, an institution which might outlive its founder and its policies, but the charismatic leader. No matter how good he is personally, I am sure that he will also disappoint — as has every cultic leader who came before.
A prerequisite to a mature and successful country is strong political, state and social institutions. Unless we move from personality cults to these less charming but more enduring concepts, we will never get out of this volatility.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2011.
COMMENTS (49)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Abbas from the US: Dear Sir, You have quoted Report by the Sachar Committee, which summarizes the current pathetic state of Indian Muslims and their economic standing in the overall Indian society. I fully agree with the report.I also strongly feel that the two nation theory of Mr. Jinnah is greatly responsible for the present plight of Muslims not only in India but in the entire Indian subcontinent.William Dalrymple in his two books "The White Mughal" and "The Last Mughal" has described in great detail the period from 1556 to 1856 when Hindus and Muslims lived as citizens of one empire. In 1857 people of all religions and regions made a last effort to regain our dignity and sovereignty under last Muhgal King.The creation of Pakistan instead of providing any strength to Muslims of this subcontinent has weakened them in every possible way. Population of Muslims in India is 162 million, Pakistan 186 million and Bangladesh 156 million. Though, in the subcontinent, the Hindu population has remained consolidated the creation of Pakistan has divided this vast population of 505 million into three. With this major population together today they would have exercised major influences in the polity and social life of this subcontinent. Today, if together, the rule in United Punjab, United Bengal, Sindh, and NWFP would have been of Muslim majority. The plight and destiny of all of us would have been tied together for good.The history of Islam in India is still the history of India please. Id Mubarak and be peace on us.
@Abbas from the US: Where are you residing sir, I need to learn about Jinnah.
@Hassan Sadiq & @encrypted:
I've followed Pakistani news closely for almost 15 years. I'm not Pakistani, but I previously lived and worked there for a number of years.
I'm all for a credible, visionary leader to emerge in Pakistan. Believe me! But I've followed news story after news story on Imran Khan and he stands for . Being "anti-West" and borderline pro-Taliban (sometimes very blatantly by his statements) does not make one a visionary leader. It makes one a populist, reactionary politician little different than many others Pakistan has produced.
It's easy enough to search for articles validating my point here, but I think it's not worth my effort. The open-minded can make their own conclusions.
I am a supporter of Imran Khan but as a supporter i equally have right to criticize him.
I dnt like that he offer Governorship of Sindh to the president of Pakistan. Bcz he is going to be the Prime Minister in a couple of year and chair like governor doesnt suite him. Other thing is that if he will be appointed as a governor of sindh it means he will work under Asif Ali Zardari so plz Sir Imran think on it
@pakpinoy: There you have it. Your source of information is Google! You're just comfortably sitting in your air conditioned rooms surfing for change in a country like Pakistan. Why don't you go out and visit a local PTI Office or just go meet Imran Khan himself. He's that accessible; unlike the Kings of Raiwind etc etc. I know it is fashionable to criticize anyone who has a certain level of intellect only for people to become 'greater intellectuals'.
@ pakpinoy, collective intelligence is over rated, Your perception does not become the truth, if you believe Imran is pro Taliban their is no amount of proof that can change your mind. I have seen his interviews, i have discussed the issue personally with him he is the only politician in pakistan who has an idea with regard to the nature of the conflict we are in, its history and how it can be won.
People like you dont want to understand because it takes effort to get to the bottom of any problem, Imran Khan and his views conflict with your so called liberal sensibilities and thus you cannot understand and thus resort to allegations and name calling.
In a country like Pakistan he is a visionary!!!!
@Abbas from the US:
You summed it up perfectly Sir!
Pakistan Zindabad!
True Democracy is local, then provincial, then regional and if it survives that far, national. All democracies need a Judicial system that protects it. A police system that takes it's direction from the Judicial Officials and not Army,Mullahs or Politicians. The Judiciary has to be even handed and not take sides but only insures everyone's right to speak and to vote. Leaders come and go but the system survives. Ideas come and go, some good, many bad but the system survives. Slowly over many years of voting local leaders become national and can honestly get things done as the public voted them in and just as quickly votes them out. The Army and religion, has to stay out of politics. Infrastructure that works 24/7 has to be the highest goal. Clean water, reliable power, good hospitals, public health, good schools for all children and adults. All that leads to a good economy and a strong democracy .
Even old established nations like the UK have centrifugal forces trying to pull out of its orbit, The forced union on Ireland ended about a hundred years ago and the Scott are about to have their say. Do you think that India is completely free of secessionist and Maoist movements? All of them trying to undo the very fabric that holds India together, long after the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh made their choice to seperate.
In the end Pakistan was all about an economic choice for a group fearful of being turned into an economically disenfranchised minority, those that made the choice of staying with the known quantity have ended up exactly as that disenfranchised minority that they collectively feared.
India may have been sucessful in establishing a constitutional democracy, but in the end even today the vast majority of Indians, as many as seven hundred million live a life of abject poverty, with the majority of the disenfranchised minority that I keep referring to happening to be at the bottom most segment of this economically deprived grouping.
As for Jinnah being claimed by both the right and the liberals, even Abraham Lincoln is claimed by both right and the left, this is the ideological need for political groups to claim history's hero's as their very own.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and my opinion was formed by long discussions about five decades ago with Liaqat Merchant, Jinnah's nephew who had just passed his Bar in Bombay and moved to Pakistan then, who eventually became the administrator of the Mohammed Ali Jinnah trust. I wonder if he is still alive? And I am convinced thru reading biographies right from Bolitho, G Allana, M A H Isphani, Sharif and off course reading and talking to Akber Ahmed, who incidently is the Director of the Ibn Khaldun chair at the American University in DC. As well as Indian writers like Dr Ajeet Jawed as well as Jaswant Singh, that Jinnah was a secular Indian nationalist who eventually in the fight for the economic rights of this minority group had to settle for Pakistan a completely new country partitioned from India with a very progressive vision. What came after his death is another story.
@encrypted:
Please don't insult our collective intellects! Google the subject for just a few minutes and find out how pro-Taliban Imran Khan is! He is an absolute apologist for terrorists! He spews populist tirades no different than Nawaz Sharif and with no more intellectual honesty -- he's just cooler and less annoying maybe. It's nothing new and the examples are in the dozens upon dozens.
Imran Khan is a fresh face, a new politician, a "radical" when it comes to rhetoric at least; but to call him a visionary leader is downright ridiculous.
@BruteForce:
Although I disclaim the need for any human created supernatural in my life. However religion in different societies also gives its members an important sense of personal as well as a group identity. Thus a Muslim within the larger context of pre-partition Indian society clearly had this sense of identity, where living together did not necessarily make the Hindus and Muslims a sense of oneness that transcends religion and bonds them with a common sense of nationalism. Post Pakistan, the Indian Muslim who now resides as a minority still retains this overwhelming sense of religious identity, on the other hand the Indian sense of nationalism also encompasses in the narrative the sense of duty towards society as defined by Arjun in the Mahabharat. If you believe, Jinnah was wrong when he defined the need for Pakistan as an economic need to avoid being subsumed within the stratas of a larger Hindu caste based society, than you clearly need to update yourself with the Report by the Sachar Committee, which summarizes the current pathetic state of Indian Muslims and their economic standing in the overall Indian society. The report identifies the economic locus within the larger Indian economic society, as having now pushed the Indian Muslim on the bottom most rung of the economic ladder, well below the Dalits the lowest and most discriminated Caste that exists in Hindu society.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfsd.org%2Fsachar%2FleafletEnglish.pdf&ei=6upUTsfeF8PZgQeS6pBH&usg=AFQjCNGAC0yL33Y83-mvmw7uYsPw10OUHg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmuslimmedianetwork.com%2Fmmn%2F%3Fp%3D496&ei=6upUTsfeF8PZgQeS6pBH&usg=AFQjCNHekyhsQhevy4c6rRr24Qz_u64XkA
Very well said. The messiah-complex is not going to pull us out of our troubles.
Mr. Bangash, first and foremost I agree with you that institutions are what sustain nations in the long run but since you’re a historian it would be appropriate for me to ask you as to who will build those institutions, will that institutional building take place through an individual, through a group of individuals, or just plain old magic!!!!
Institutions have always been built by visionary leaders and a system left in place which ensures the strength and durability of those institutions. We as a Nation have yet to experience such leadership which has an understanding of how to build institutions and consequently make sure that they sustain themselves through the different stages of nation building.
You talk about Imran Khan, Mr. Bangash he was not a ‘good’ cricketer he was one of the best, a legend of the game. His charity work includes one of the best run ‘Institutions’ in this country he led the charge to build it and now a board of trustees runs the hospital and Imran Khan is just involved in the funding drives has nothing to do with the operations, that my dear friend is how an Institution is built. Now onto another Institution built by Imran Khan NAMAL University built in the same area in which he won by 6000 votes, currently affliated with Bradford University and has its own governing body which runs the university.
Imran Khan has shown us how institutions can be built and he is the 2nd man after Air Marshal Asghar Khan who knows the value of institution building and knows how to get the job done. So PTI is not a personality cult, the fact that you view it as such is your perception not necessarily the truth. The reason Imran Khan gets airtime is a simple concept of demand and supply the people of Pakistan want to see him and hear his views. Unfortunately TV channels are not dictated by electoral performance otherwise we would be viewing Zardari& Nawaz with their little minions.
So contrary to your declaration I believe that Imran Khan will be successful because he is more than a iconic figure he is man with a vision and a plan to achieve that vision.
The article is flawed and the writer is factually wrong at places. Imran Khan won election by 39,000 votes not 6,000.In 2002,Imran's popularity was 2% according to surveys but now it has crossed 60%. A strong individual is essentially required for a good begining.
A leader is also only as strong as the peoples support and cooperation in such systems. Everyone not being realistic of human ability in relation to time demanding that the current governing body steps down can, all by themselves, cause a complete stand still that slowly drifts further into the negative. It's "of the people," therefor, if people just sit around pointing fingers and complaining, who exactly is going to help them change anything? They give the people the means for change and the people need to help carry it out. Opposing political parties are preaching to not support them yet still complain about nothing happening as a direct result of their own actions/words. In Pakistan, someone always tries to prevent all positive changes. It's their chance to make themselves look better without needing to possess any real ability or sincerity. Even if the current governing body was perfect, one of the opposing parties would still try to sabotage them and try to make the next elections look like a choice between a bag of dog crap and a bag of dog crap sprayed with cheap perfume. Opposition is needed for fairness. But, there's a difference between constructive criticism and reckless sabotage. A big difference.
Well I'm no Imran Khan fan but as far as our politics go, he's the one making most sense for now atleast. I know everyone makes promises and everyone makes a statement, but i have noticed that he is the only one sticking to his statement from day 1. unlike most of the other politicians of ours who make one statement on one TV show and then try to clear what they meant (leading to an opposite statement) on the other channel. The same political parties who stand on the door mat of the building called "GOVERNMENT" (with automatic doors) so that they can enter or exit any time they like depending on if their interests are matched. we have given many other political parties a chance... n i guess PTI should be given one too... atleast for now, most probably, this is the best choice we have. Correct me if I'm wrong
An excellent and to the point article. The message is apt and awakening. I only wish people grasp it. looking at most of the comments it does not seem to be understood.
Although I agree with some of the points in the article but the eminent historian fails to provide the details to the process of institution building. He has completely forgotten the biggest lesson of history that it is charismatic men and visionary leaders who bring real and durable changes in the system
Would the civil rights movement in the U.S be successful without the great Dr. Martin Luther King? Would South Africa survive and thrive without the inspiring Nelson Mandela? Would the Yankees be able to defeat the Confederates without the visionary Abraham Lincoln? Would China stand where it does today without the unforgettable struggle of Mao Zedong against the Imperialists?
The historian needs to understand that great Leaders are essential to change the status quo. If he really believes in the futility of charismatic leaders he should provide just one example in the whole history of mankind where shackles of status quo were broken without charismatic men leading the charge.
You want another Jinnah? You want another guy whose idea of a solution is to say 2 sets of people cannot live together at any cost, just because they belong to different Religions?
Jinnah was wrong. Hindus and Muslims are NOT different nations. They are humans. They can live together as being witnessed in India.
Why do you think while India adopted the path of Democracy and had a beautiful constitution ready within 3 years of Independence, Pakistan had to wait till '73 to get a bigoted document called the Constitution? Because it lacked leaders, moral and just. It lacked a Nehru, whom Jinnah thought Muslims will be unsafe under.
Jinnah alienated every just, moral leader the Freedom Struggle had produced. Not a single one of them came to Pakistan and they all stayed in India, most notably Maulana Azad, the greatest Muslim leader of the time. That lack of leadership in Pakistan derailed Pakistan at the start and that trend continues to this day.
Where is the Manmohan Singh or a Anna Hazare or a Nitish Kumar in Pakistan? What do all these leaders have in common? They have adopted the principles and ideas of Gandhi, not Jinnah.
a very superficial article which lacks ground realities. It is very easy to criticize the mindset of a nation but to provide a solution is the most difficult thing. If people of Pakistan are liking Imran Khan it means that they already believe in a system because Imran is in politics and we want him to come through elections and we are struggling for it, Have you ever thought why we dont dream to bring Edhi, Ansar Barni or Fakhr ud din G ibrahim as our leaders? Because we already believe in a system.. By the way how can you establish strong institutions??? just by dreaming like you? No man! we will have to elect somebody who could do this (who will have our collective force) And why we should not idealize Imran? Just compare him with available material and you will understand it if you are honest. How could you compare by the way the data of 2002 with the media coverage of 2011?? You need to check some impartial popularity polls and u will get the answer, rather it will disaappoint you that why there is no media coverage of Dharnas of most popular leader of the country... What I can guess is that when people can't find any other charge against Imran, they just start to teach us the lessons of system building... Thanks sir we don't need it... We will never call a historian at Keble College to rescue us
@ My Name is Khan: I'm guessing you are part of the 'burger babies' segment because you clearly refused to open your eyes when Imran Khan staged a dharna in Peshawar where he clearly criticized the Taliban and had invited the Maliks from all the 7 agencies and supported them. The one man who wants the same system of education, justice, health for every Pakistani (THIS INCLUDES MINORITIES AS WELL). But I guess your intellectual capacity is unable to comprehend what Imran Khan or what the PTI stands for.
@ Faraz Are you unable to understand or simply refusing to understand? Without any research, you want to give your expert advice to the PTI that it needs to come up with a party structure? It is your failure that you cannot see the party structure. Have you ever visited their local offices in Karachi, Lahore, Quetta, Hyderabad etc. Are you at fault because all you want to believe is what you see in the media? Only because you listen to Imran Khan and no one else in party that you believe that it is a one man party? Question your own knowledge first before deciding that you know more than the ordinary man.
Oh Imran Khan. His gigantic ego and personality are so bothersome. I'm not saying that he's not a good person but he is a terrorist sympathizer and populist. He'll just be a politician who says what people want to hear. Who is the true Imran Khan? No one knows. He just says what the Mullah-crowd and Burger Babies want to hear.
Please Imran Khan fans - enlighten us on why Imran Khan refuses to stand up for the people of FATA in their battle against the Taliban? Enlighten us on why Imran Khan is silent on the treatment of minorities? The only people Imran Khan has a dharna for are the terrorists ruling over FATA. Answer those questions please.
System based concept looks fascinating when you are living in a Western country. We never think that those intricate governing proverbs were once the struggle of some visionary persons. I am not against this approach but first look closely the fabrics of our society, ethos of our institutions and style of our democracy. Is is possible to translate those sort of things into a functional system? we need complete overhauling of all our democratic norms and institutional values and it can be done through visionary leadership at different levels. It is said that selective people build institutions so that institution can produce selective people. In every development process first step started with a true leader, there came system then.
I think writer's argument against Imran Khan is baseless and flawed for two reasons:
He presented his argument on the outdated data while ignoring the recent struggle of Imran Khan Imran Khan proves himself a visionary leader by establishing Shaukat Khanam Memorial Hospital. He not only established the hospital but also formulated a standard procedure which imran khan himself could not violate. Now SKMH is an example of best institution and system in which his chairman wait in line for his turn. My dear friend if Imran was not a visionary his masterpiece would not translate itself into a self-running institution. This country needs a leader who can provide them base for institutionalism because institutions never established in vacuum.Will Mr.Bangash elaborate how to create strong institutions without a visionary leadership???? This type of pseudo intellectualism is quite in vogue these days which does not really give any solutions.
We need to elect an honest leadership and PTI has that leadership. In fact this is the only party who has this sort of leadership at present. Imran always talks of independent Judiciary, independent election commission, independent accountability commission and a sovereign parliament........ What else he should say when he is not in the government???????? What is the other way of making the institutions??????
In my opinion, Pakistan Tehreek -e- Insaf is the only party which talks about building institutions. Building a strong independant Judiciary system in the country is the prime article in its manifesto. All other parties did nothing but for elites and feudals. PTI is the only party, determined to curb corruption, impose educational emergency in the country and revitalise its natural resources. Trust me, PTI is the only and only solution for a strong progressive country.
Jinnah couldn’t displace the traditional feudal class that ruled the lands. After major defeat in 1936 elections, Jinnah signed a pact with Sikandar Hayat Khan of Unionist party. The same feudals, who won in 1936 elections under Unionist party, later won in 1946 elections under Muslim league. After Jinnah’s death and Liaquat’s assassination, the same traditional ruling elite took the reins of the country. Nothing changed for the common man.
@Imran fans Imran is a human being who wont live forever. Come out of the cult; work on the party structure!
Fair and objective analysis by the author.
A historian at Keble College who doesn't know how to use google. A quick search or a quick visit to the website of PTI will show you the leadership this party boasts and at least 5 times a week their representatives are on national TV equally holding their ground against the likes of Sharmila Farooqui and Sharjeel Memon. PTI over the past 2 years has become a party that threatens the vote banks of not only PML-N but also PPP. I am no Imran Khan fan but I am a Pakistani who has been observing politics in this country for a while. Before change in this very foggy political arena was only visible as a light coming from on top of a mountain in Bani Gala. This light is now spreading all over Pakistan and people will indeed vote for the the uncorrupt politicians that are joining and will join PTI in the next few months.
@nadir el-edroos...whats with u and trolls...every time there is an article about imran khan u r the first one commenting against PTI supporters...what does that make u?.... an anti PTI troll...because u r commenting against PTI all the time the way i see it..
I agree to most of it except the last part. I am not a Imran Khan fan, but aren't u seeing the popularity difference between 2002, where hardly anyone knew him, as compared to know and your analysis suggest that there is not room for a new face in Pakistani politics. Stick with those only who have the vote banks , atleast he is trying to go against the odds.
Bangash you are right on the mark. I fully agree with you that it is not the individuals but the institutions that must be set up and made stronger. The assemblies including senate and provincial, judiciary and civil "services" to name a few. The institution of army be used under civilian govt to protect the country's boundries only and not a state withing a state. The schools, colleges and universities be modernized and free from politics and religion. We have to stop dreaming of a person coming from the top and curing all our social and economic problems. This is not a solution, it is the real probleme. Vibrant and progressive institutions must be established if Pakistan is going to make any progress. I have a lot of respect for some leaders but they are going to deal with the same people and not established institutions and cannot succeed. I have gone to prayers in mosques in several countries of the world. However, one thing is common. After each payer we be "God to help us, from doing wrong things". Never in my life did I hear that leader saying that "God we promise to do this/right thing from now on". We leave it to God because we do not want to change.
I guess the onus is on Imran Khan to prove you wrong! But in the mean time, unleash the trolls!
Exactly! Thank you @JK.
Mr. Bangash seems to ignore the fact that every election in the world is fought in some way, shape or form on the basis of cult, whether it was Nicolas Paul Sarkozy in France or Barack Obama in the US. In fact, in a true Republican system (which Pakistan claims to be but really isn't) the entire election is run based on the Presidential candidate's personality who after winning brings on in a team that he believes will carry out his vision (which he sold the people in the elections). Case in point is the greatest democracy in the world and the most institutionally powerful country in the world: the United States of America!
Powerful and popular leaders have the enomous capacity to shape a country and bring in reforms needed for its betetrment. The operative term for their successful tenure tends to be their sincerity and capacity for pushing through improvements in the existing system. Last week Mr. Bangash gave the example of Turkey (and was equally lackadaisical in his analysis as he is today). But it is very interesting to note that two very important strong-men leaders have radically changed Turkey for the better in the past 2 decades alone. The first was Turgut Ozal who brought in a series of structural changes in the economic landscape of Turkey as PM and then President. And since 2003 Recep Erdogan has been another almost cultic leader to have changed the landscape of the way Turkey functions.
2002 is not 2013 Mr. Bangash, in addition Mr. Khan seems to appreciate the importance of strengthening institutions and abolish dynastic politics, this has been a central theme of his rhetoric - a real, not a sham democracy. He is a fresh face, and his message is far more relevant now than in 2002. His manifesto is essentially liberal, and his focus is introspective. He insists that he wants the PTI to be a political party, not a fiefdom. A thoroughly superficial article, sir.
We are a brand new country. For the last 60 years we have been under Democracy/Dictatorship and have had only 3 years of continuous democracy. Democracy is only counted in continuous years, that is why I say Pakistan is a new country. Pakistan will have to go through a long struggle to achieve a decent democracy. If we start the process now, we will see the results in 20 years. India started the process of democracy 40+ years age and now they have a thriving democracy. We only have elections and not democracy. Two very different things.
We will see a decent leader in 20 years through the process of democracy only if we start the process now.
Do this and do that, we need this and we have that.....EVERYONE KNOWS it boy. But the issue is that to bring such changes you need a leader. Otherwise we would've taken Pakistan without Jinnah!!!
I partially agree with your point of view but not with everything.
Mr Bangash:
Obviously for democracy to take roots, there is a need for re-electing legislative representatives that form a practicing governement at every scheduled step. If Pakistan was not sidetracked by the Pakistan Army stepping in infrequently, this process would have been far advanced already. It is Pakistan's misfortune that the democratic process and the art of reaching concensus between those in governement and those relegated to fullfill the role of a democractic opposition, has not evolved where elections and the peacefull transfer of power has taken place even once in its recorded history.
Personalities that could not garner 1% of the earlier recorded vote do not need to be glamorized in anticipation by the urban middle class in search of leadership. The answer ultimately lies in repeated elections, where the transparency of the elections can be gauranteed by a rejuvenated judiciary. Again the judiciary also needs to restrain itself from Judicial activism, and limit itself to its constitutional role.
I see a lot of promise that ultimately corrupt leadership will be rejected by the discerning voter, so that the next stage of institutional building now in its formative phase will begin to take roots.
Mr. Bangash has written an excellent article. True to the point. If only the Pakistani people could realise the points
Another Imran-bashing article! It's easy to give commentary devoid of any solutions. Your histrionic article doesn't suggest any policy recommendations.