A bad idea, usually
Patience was never a national virtue. Our countrymen want everything and they want it now. Hence, the demands of snap polls from the political system and demands of snap judgments from the judicial system. In an age of instant gratification, there is no fun in waiting. That the wheels of governance and development grind at a pace slower than is desired anywhere in the world is too inconvenient a fact for those in the mood for some sense of movement, some sense of electioneering excitement.
Going to a constituency and seeking out votes is the most humbling of experiences. It is perhaps one of the noblest endeavours we as a species have developed. An election, that marvellous exercise, is a manifestation of this noble endeavour. But it is, at the end of the day, merely a long bout of political rhetoric and hyperbolic promises. The term that follows is as much a part of the exercise as were the polls. It is during this time that real respect towards the electorate and polity can be shown.
Demands of “mid-term” polls in Pakistan lack intellectual depth. The term itself is used in the US to denote those inductions in the house of representatives that happen to be timed at the middle of a presidential term. The Pakistani constitution makes no such mention; polls can only take place upon the dissolution of the parliament. The closest case to be made for polls ahead of time is when the treasury benches lose their majority.
PML(N) supremo Nawaz Sharif’s current avatar as a principled politician well-attuned to a Westminster-style democracy certainly is welcome. But what to make of his demand for immediate polling? Does it prove he still has a lot to learn about the democratic process? His drawing upon his own example regarding his resignation in ’93 is flawed. First of all, the then army chief had forced both President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and him to resign; not much of a choice there. Secondly, and this is far more important, the analogy itself is misplaced: there is no power struggle between the president and premier at the moment, nor has a constitutional crisis ensued the way it had after the courts overruled the presidential order for dissolution.
The present government, despite its many flaws, has a mandate of five years from the people of the country. It should be respected. Democracy requires a commitment; everybody has to be in it for the long haul.
Well thouht out editorial,proveded we have an ideal palimentary democratic set up. .But please do not forget that our parlimentry democracy is not functioning exactly in accordance with the westminister style.In that system the head of the state is a purely a titular and cermonial head who is totally A political with only the powers to disolve the parliment on the adldvice of the PM.Here the head of state(PRESIDENT) is all powerfull and Cochairperson of the ruling party.He calls All the shots and has complete controlThe coaltion Government is only surviving through political and unscrouplus manapulation.Peaple have aleady given their verdict in favour of a new Government which can deliver and give them relief.There is no use waiting and allowing this total and utter misrule and chaos to continue.After two years it may be too late to salvage the situation.
Let us wait till we are left with the cinders then bravely extract whatever is left without being scorched by inviolable character of our politicians.
Comments are closed.