We started with the saintly patrician do-gooder who currently occupies the post of prime minister, who always comes across as a man in a desperate hurry. Some of his bluster and bristle have been rinsed off him after the arrival of the new phenomenon on the political horizon whose popularity is being registered on the Richter scale. The consensus was that after the prime minister had established some sort of a record for indecisiveness, vacillation and dithering, he was beyond redemption. Next in line was the industrial lion of the Punjab foundries, who continues to play his role with a marvellous conviction that captures the tone of his contrary life perfectly. While he is still smarting after his mane was recently trimmed by the Niazi clippers, the resident cynic felt he will still hang on to most of his seats. And then came the icing on the cake, Rossini’s Barber of Seville himself, the man the country desperately needs, who is, after all, incorruptible and scrupulously honest.
Now, what we couldn’t understand is why, after all that verbose nonsense about doing something for the women of this country, did he have to accept a person who deliberately sabotaged the second reading of Donya Aziz’s bill on the rights of women? Not only that, he’s also opened the door to the turncoats who are queuing up for admission. And how in Hades is he going to introduce an Islamic welfare state when he is certainly not going to slash the military budget? Even the Wizard of Id would be speechless on this one. The trick, dear Horatio, is not to make too many promises or open too many fronts. First of all, he should kick out the spongers, take in professional people with unblemished records and then say, in all sincerity, that he will do his best for the country. Hallelujah! But he must shed himself of the innuendos about alleged links with banned terrorist groups.
However, the real issue is not which party will ensure that the dollar doesn’t hit Rs100 by 2014, but who stands for progress and who for obscurantism. Like it or not, in spite of the corruption, ineptitude and track record, the PPP is still a secular party, along with the ANP and the MQM. And in spite of Mr Gilani and Mr Zardari and some of the vacuous aristocrats that they have under their wing, the PPP will be jolly hard to completely dislodge. One can only hope that in the next election people vote according to their conscience and beliefs and the urban elite don’t boycott the polls. If nothing else, Imran Khan made them think.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 3rd, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
What a delicous piece of prose, enigmatically articulating some valid concerns - will the character and the principles of the PTI change with this tsunami of turncoats? Are the turncoats the right people? Does the Establishment support this party, or rather, is Imran Khan a pawn of the Establishment?
But then, is the concept of an Islamic welfare state at odds with secularism? Britain is an Anglican country, has strong Christian values associated with its judicial system, and yet is tolerant, excels in scientific research and its people are educated and sophisticated - is an Islamic country incapable of tolerance and pragmatism? Does the PTI intend to 'Islamize' Pakistan as Zia did, or is there a more enlightened, 'spiritual' transformation intended? Why cite the secular Scandinavian countries as a 'model system'? Why promise an Indian anchor that his government will pursue a more 'civilized' relationship with the Indians, to promise that the policy of militancy will end under his regime? Why write that we have adopted a 'superficial understanding of Western culture' or speak of the 'closure of the gates of Ijtihad?', a common argument among more liberal (and better-read) Muslims who feel that an enlightened transformation needs to initiate from within, rather than import mutated and mistranslated values from abroad. Most of us reading this can understand the West, most of Pakistan doesn't, sir.
Will Imran Khan continue the Establishment's foreign policy, or does he seek to change this narrative? Is the Establishment so foolish that they don't realize that changes in strategy and foreign policy are required to stop the Pakistan's isolation and implosion? Is it wise to challenge the military, or absorb it, find some common ground? The JI and their ilk are an ideological nightmare, but is it wise to challenge a crowd that doesn't understand the merits of secularism? That equates the West with evil and do not appreciate the deeper, intellectual basis of their societal success? And that constitutes the majority of the electorate?
Does the Oxford-educated Khan wish to transform Pakistan into the late-90s' Afghanistan? Or perhaps turn us into theocratic, anti-Western Iran? Or does he have a unique model that tries to heal the battered religious and cultural self-esteem of Pakistan and initiate the changes that reform Pakistan's superficial religious hypocrisy, extremism into a more enlightened, intellectual society?
Many questions sir, only time will tell.
There appears to be no clarity of thought in the paper. I expected a better presentation of views from Anwer Mooraj
@Sajida Evangelicals are not suicide bombers. Faraz is right. Ideological divide is of not much significance right now in Pakistan. Political parties need to perform irrespective of their ideologies. A few basic reforms would help.
@Faraz Extremism in Pakistan s promoted by Wahhabi theology. In the US evangelicals who are extremist are thriving with or without poverty.
PPP is secular but extremism can’t be tackled without reducing poverty and ensuring rule of law; PPP’s bad governance indirectly breeds hopelessness and intolerance rather than promoting secular humanism. Although poverty does not lead to extremism, but extremism thrives in poverty