There is nothing extraordinary about changing party affiliations in a democratic system. However, in Pakistan, the first and the only serious question about a change in party loyalty is the perceived corruption record of the individual. Imran Khan has made it clear that he will only accept ‘clean’ politicians in his party. The same goes for most other parties. There is no denying the fact that corruption is a major issue, however it is by no means the singular challenge we face. The primary problem with allegations of corruption is that in most instances ordinary voters have no means to verify them and have to rely on media portrayal and conjecture, thereby rendering corruption absolutely unreliable as a sole criterion. The most interesting thing about this fickleness and change of affiliations is the complete absence of any questions of ideology. The only justification a deserter is obliged to give is the disagreement with one party leader and newfound respect and fondness for the other. Therein lies the foundation of our personality-cultish politics. Lord Westbury, apparently, once rebuffed a barrister’s reliance upon an earlier opinion of his lordship by quipping, “I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of giving such an opinion”.
When the PPP formed a coalition with the JUI-F earlier in the government, the real question that was strangely missed was: how was the PPP and its supposedly liberal credentials compatible with the extreme religious rightist views of the JUI-F? Similarly, members of the PML-Q forward block have not had to explain the ideology shift that compelled them to join the PML-N. The PML-N has never expressly denied links with sectarian banned outfits or even enunciated a clear position on the issue. Imran Khan has also articulated only one criteria for admitting people, that of financial honesty regardless of ideology. Politically, it is a sound move in purely Machiavellian terms, yet it is insulting to us. This model of pragmatism treats the general public as incredibly incurious schoolchildren. The media has also been guilty of being abnormally unsuspicious while not questioning the ideological basis underlying the shifting of allegiance. Not to mention that it is debasing and deadening.
In 1992, the Republican nomination for the governorship of Louisiana was won by David Duke, who had formerly been the head of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi party. When the president, Bush Sr., was asked about it, he replied, “Well I would like to be positioned where I can be perceived as having been distanced from that”. The sentence does not say anything, it is utter gibberish. It brings to light the unassailable challenge of defending the indefensible. Our politicians have to spout such meaningless, inane phrases every day since they have no foundation to fall back upon, and our public and the media have no yardstick to hold them accountable to.
The term ideology is now only meaningful in the context of the religious and political right. The PPP started off as an ideological party, but will now face some difficulty in asserting its leftist-socialist credentials with stalwarts like Babar Awan and Rehman Malik in its front ranks. All the other parties have the same rhetoric and often the exact same language. Obama is a prime example of conjuring massive public support based on ‘hope’ and ‘change’ etc, without taking strong committed positions. The results of the experiment are not confidence-inspiring. Imran Khan is replicating the same model. Yet he is not alone in the use of hollow, generalist language; the PPP has cheapened the word ‘reconciliation’ with overuse. The make-ups and break-ups with the MQM reinforce the Hobbesian survivalist mindset of our political theatre. This sort of realpolitik in alliances is a model suited for foreign policy and war and should not be imported in domestic politics.
I do not contend that all politicians be prisoners of ideologies, however it would be easier to agree or disagree with them if they did take positions on issues slightly more complex than the eradication of corruption or reconciliation. A semblance of consistency will be appreciated. GK Chesterton once remarked in his vintage style, “the mind like the mouth has to close on something”. There is tremendous condescension in this presumption of childish gullibility of the people. It is almost impossible for a rational person to disagree with the edicts against corruption and renders them banal. Whereas a position on the precise role of religion in statecraft or questions of liberalisation (or not) of the economy will compel voters to make an opinion and pick a side. Admittedly, our political discourse is medieval because our society faces challenges which are primal. Be that as it may, the use of room temperature language and intuitive absolutist principles will only perpetuate this culture of backwardness.
In the absence of a programme, people are left with no option but to make their pick on the basis of personal charisma and inclination — they might as well flip a coin. They do not have to agree with anyone, since nobody is really saying anything. The aggregate agenda of our national politics is that everyone is against corruption, for change and ambivalent and semi-coherent about the Taliban and blasphemy laws. Very well then, take your pick.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 13th, 2011.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
While reading it, I have enjoyed the center point of the article that was ensuing the same thing in every argumentation. You are right - ideologies transformations do disturb the political arena. Thanks for the article, it helped me to develop my own viewpoint about it.
Was it really about blasphemy or individuals? Well, I would perceive as my mind conceived its center point while reading it.
well most of the readers here are criticizing the author's view on blasphemy,well people we must perceive it in a wider perspective,no one is saying that we should spare anybody who express contemptuous attitude towards the believes of islam,but having said that it is imperative that we must not let anybody use blasphemy laws for petty gains ;misuse of the law must be prevented ,this is something which i guess author stresses on.
@Nadir: Judging by Saroop's article and your comment it seems as if you both do not have room in your worlds for those people or politicians who do not use their positions of power and authority to personally materially benefit or allow any family, friends or colleagues to personally materially benefit. PTI's ideology is as clear as can be on the issue of corruption. It doesn't want party members who are out to serve themselves as it plainly conflicts with their job of serving the people. Corrupt politicians don't have any ideology other than "How do I materially benefit from my position". Unfortunately, most of the current lot are corrupt in their intentions and actions. Ideology only becomes meaningful if you are honest about it, so why waste your time looking for an ideology from politicians who are morally corrupt? I have bothered to find out about PTI's ideology because I believe their leadership has moral integrity. Their ideology is appealing to me. I dearly want to see cynicism replaced by hope and for the average Pakistani to have a better quality of life and a good moral character. For this I am willing to contribute to PTI's efforts my time, money and actions in a personally significant measure.
what was Ideology? my foot was ideology. '2 qomi nazariya' ideology burried in existence ov Bangladesh, later on 'Jinapur' sazish totally dead dis ideology. There was nothing any ideology but mere Slogans/Nara ov 'Two Nation Theory' / Islam was used to get d destiny (Pakistan) very early. Pakistan made by Jinnah just for social, political, cultural, economical n a bit religious safety ov Muslims n only dis was Idelogy ov Pakistan. Mentioning 'Islam' Ideology is just self created by d Mulla'ism n migrated bodies comes from U.P/C.P areas ov India for deleting deir hunger n now dey 'holdup' whole 'Karachi'. Dont forget dat Jinnah's death was actually murder through slow poison coz he refused to accomplish 'Islamic Ideology' in d country. Being a Rationalist is 100 % good than of being a Ideologist.Thx.
Excellent as usual. The latest alliance will be between PTI and JI.
people like you used to show him(Imran) roads to realism when imran played idealistic, now that he is turning towards realistic options, you decided to switch to idealism..
Moral of the story: people will just keep on talking..
one who is to do something, will do it without giving a damn about what you have to say about it..
Great Op Ed, Saroop. Thanks for trying to make people think before they start chasing another mirage. Your last lines tell the whole story. Taliban were also not corrupt and clean ordinary people before they come to power in Afghanistan and now spreading in Pakistan. Corruption should not be limited to only the perception (not decided by courts) of impropriety, in particular in only one field. Corruption is not providing justice, keeping political and prisoners of conscience in jail, keeping masses hungry, uneducated and unhealthy in the dark. At the same time plundering most of the budget on accumulating weapons of mass destruction. While there should be a debate on ideology and governance all the eggs are put in one big basket of perceived and publicized financial corruption. There are no known political prisoners for the first time in the history of Pakistan. The mutilated constitution has been restored with unanimity. First time in the history of Muslim world an elected president has gave away his dictatorial powers to the parliament on his own that too in the first couple of years of his first term! The normalization of relationship with India is on its way after a long time. From making a safe house for OBL in the days of military dictator Mush we have been on our way to mend this policy of being in bed with the terrorists and the list goes on and on. The debate should have been focused on these points and how the other leaders would have done it better and what are their plans to “free” the Pakistani people of poverty? There is only so much money available and what would they cut from the budget to help people in the areas where they are suffering. From Taliban to every rightwing politician gives these vague answers and slogans that I am good clean religious man and would take care of all the poor, but how and with what programs and where would the money come from? Talk is cheap and as we say, if you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your BS. Good governance has nothing to do with being a pious man. If it were ten we would not have Jinnah, ZAB and Ata Turk, to name a few.
@Abdul Rehman Gilani: The blasphemy law has already killed several peoples who without any credible defence were convicted of so called blasphemy? To improve this "law" would you rather we killed people of the streets because of what you believe is "correct"? Well sadly we have already reached this point, where M Qadri is a hero for doing just that. Again returning to Saroop Ijaz's article, when the individual can create a new "normal" as the law and institutions are weak, anyone who believes certain individuals coming to power can fix things are either nieve or have fallen prey to the shortermism that only politicans have the luxury to enjoy.
Interesting insight. But as others have highlighted, ideological preference is a luxury that is built on socio-economic well being of a society. Unless the basic needs are fulfilled, it is unrealistic to expect people to understand and take sides with political parties based on ideology alone since ideological choices have long-term repercussions while basic needs are immediate requirements.
Those crying over the blasphemy law: keep crying. Pakistan won't ever let anybody talk against the Prophet or Islam or spread misinformation about Islam (case of Ahmedis). Besides that, those crying over politicians, please stop whining if you yourself can't do anything concrete for your country.
Individuals maybe meaningless but systems dont spring up like instant noodles it is the individual or a group of people that design and implement the system. As for the article well more unwanted cyncism if the writer had his way we should all commit a mass suicide and get out of this misery of electing representatives!!!!
@Abdul Rehman Gilani: You have no concept of human behavior. A law based on verbal accusation alone resulting in death means that a mere grudge and a white lie could put even you and your family in a noose.
The turnout at Imran Khan's rally was impressive. But his speech was not. In fact, his speech consisted of motherhood statements that are all too familiar to every one. "Brush your teeth"; "go to bed early"; "finish your homework" etc. But how to persuade a child to do all these things that you want him to do. How is he going to end corruption? How is he going to stop drone attacks? How is he going end the thana and kutcheri culture? How is he going to end terrorism? The people of Pakistan needs to see a blue print of his plans.
David Duke never won the Republican nomination, because Louisiana had open primaries then. Duke came in second, with 32% of the vote, in a race with 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
Nicely expressed but your opinion appears idealistic at best because we at the stage that we are at present, we tend to look at ideology as a luxury something we can not afford. The need of the hour is much more basic which is being denied to the people
I wonder, why are the liberal so charged up about the blasphemy law? As if they cant live their day without mentioning it.
Its correct, and its implementation must be improved.
Individuals are meaningless. There is no such thing as a "clean" politician as there is no such thing as an honest politician. To support your own candidate people change the goal post. While people are rallying against perceived corruption of certain individuals (whether true or not), they do not find their own individual lawlessness or corruption worthy of accountability. For example, during the CJ restoration movement, people carrying banners demanding upholding the law, would race through red lights to reach their rallies. The irony seemed lost on them. Individuals use their position and office to further themselves and their families. That’s human nature. What needs to be strengthened is the rule of law and systems that contain the behaviours of those who are in a position to allocate state resources. What needs to be established is a new "normal" which is much less rent seeking and a more thorough analysis of each and every persons own financial position to see how there choices we make may not been as pure as we might think. So for example, if you live in DHA, and DHA has occupied Pakistan Railways land and refuses to compensate PR for it, do we as individuals have a responsibility to contribute towards readdressing this obvious illegality or is it fine as we benefit from these actions?