We owe it to our next generation

Yield, submit, surrender or give in. Why is this the political approach in Pakistani politics? Why do the politicians see only the extreme ends and not the huge middle ground that separates these ends? If the politicians were left to themselves to think, plan and execute their political strategies without any interference from non-political forces would we still have this bizarre and incomprehensive set of political events taking place in our country? If politics is allowed to contest fairly in the political field, someone will lose and someone will win — not necessarily give in but reconsider, revision and improve upon the type of politics that contributed to the downfall and make amends and try and make a comeback next time with greater political vigour and strength.

Best politicians are those who make the right political assumptions. The problem with assumptions is that the mind assuming must be a literate mind and wisdom filed, one that has read and learnt from history. Assumptions are hardly ever based on evidence, they are literally a great leap in the dark and are the pillars on which the roof of planning stands. Imagine the Prime Minister of Pakistan being fed with the assumption that it will be difficult to secure financing from IMF in future. There cannot be any concrete evidence to prove this but only hearsay. Only IMF knows what it wants to do with Pakistan and so assumptions and assurances are not necessarily confirmations and it is for this reason that politics needs minds that are flexible — minds that are ready to adjust and adapt.

I am not a politician but seeing what is going on in Pakistani politics I am ready to make few assumptions just to generate a political debate.

Assumption 1: The political system in Pakistan is anarchic. This doesn’t mean that the system creates political conflicts; it actually means that the system is not conflictual but an ordering principle. Example from the democracies that have matured and no democracy has matured more than the USA’s. Would Presidents Bush, Obama or Trump go out on the porch of the White House to receive the Chief of Staff of the Army? When we call a political system anarchic that means there is no just central authority above the politicians to give the political respite, reprieve and relief. In the US, we have the Senate and we have the Congress and we also have the Supreme Court that acts in the best interest of the people and the state.

Assumption 2: Politicians and political parties consider each other as a great danger and are never certain about each other’s intentions. PDM-1 was Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman-led but the very leader of PDM-1 has become the greatest critic of the current government considered as PDM-2. Mahmood Khan Achakzai who was the greatest critic of PTI is now the presidential candidate of the party. Is this uncertainty a bad thing? What leads to political uncertainty is the misunderstanding of the political concept of such matters as innocence, loyalty, decency and concern. In politics, innocence is a relative term but corrupt politicians who consider themselves innocent are living on planet Mars. In the information age on planet earth technology has enabled people and specially the youth to overturn every rock and see what lies beneath it. It’s difficult to describe what loyalty means. I think it will suffice my case if I recommend the decade-old season of ‘Game of Thrones’ to every politician to watch and see what taking oath and standing by it and dying for it means.

My Assumption 3 is interesting. It states that survival is the primary goal of any politics. It is interesting because in the political theatre when the public gets sick of watching a particular set of actors and their drama, they show it by their disapproval — sometimes by chanting loud slogans and sometimes literally in shape of huge electoral defeat. So, after such a debacle what do you do? Accept what is divinely ordained or turn a blind eye to the political reality and still push yourself to conduct the show? Failed shows should never be repeated or in other words failure should never be reinforced.

My fourth political assumption is that good politicians are great strategic actors. One word that comes to mind the moment the word strategy is used is future. Political parties don’t have their Nostradamuses to make political prophesies but they can vouch to sidestep from relying only on their political dynasties — the mothers, sons, brothers and sisters taking preference over the many qualified to do better job than them.

My fifth political assumption is based on security dilemma concept which means that the measures that a political party takes to increase its own relevance, importance and acceptance decrease the relevance, importance and acceptance of other parties. If such measures have the backing, assistance and approval of non-political forces then the other political parties will feel even more threatened and they will start thinking about resorting to any means to ensure their survival — this is dangerous as a political party is deprived of the natural playing field in which it can compete and contest and instead it is pushed hard with its back to the walls.

My last political assumption, I know, is very controversial. But the whole idea is to trigger the minds and generate a political debate. My last political assumption is that: is defence more important than opulence? This political assumption is seeded in the contents of Adim Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations. What is the wealth of my nation — its economy, its demography, its politics or its military? If I am asked to answer this question, I would say it is a combination of all of them but I also know that it is not all of them that contribute to the making of our national grand strategy.

Grand strategies that are premised on the wrong assumptions always lead the nations astray. Pakistan needs a grand strategy that has the approval of all its stakeholders and most importantly its people — and not a grand strategy discussed and framed in the closed rooms of the power corridors and has no public approval.

What is our national grand national strategy today? If there is a grand national strategy who is the author of this national grand strategy — politicians or the military? I am not sure, what I am sure about is that as a professor in the university I have no answers to the questions of the students. No professor of university should ever call foul as fair; and if he doesn’t what is there to answer?

We failed this nation but should we teach our next generation to fail it as well?

Published in The Express Tribune, March 10^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.