Politics, albeit fuelled with cynicism, will have always a link with romance. And in that way all participants in a political process are, at some level, hopeless romantics. Politics is the art of the possible but it is also an arena for dreamers. There has been and always will be something uplifting about it. But this romance, like all others, has ramifications and risks.
Since the stakes are high, rhetoric and opportunism bring advantages. By fuelling your listener’s disillusionment with another you obviate the need to say anything substantive because, in theory, any change is better than the status quo. Scream populist slogans loud enough and people will stop asking you questions about how you actually propose to change things.
This strategy certainly seems to be working for Imran Khan. His supporters are clearly not in the mood for tackling any criticism of Khan, for questioning Khan (somehow apparently) translates into support for corruption and crooked politicians. Is Khan ‘the rebound guy’ for many of his fans who act like spurned lovers? Or is he someone with real substance? Many forming part of his vote bank have never voted before. At least they are becoming part of the political process and that is always a good thing. But where does Khan stand? The worst case scenario is that we will never know since Khan (and now his supporters) will never let it come down to a debate on his actual policies.
Here is how the classic PTI argument begins: ‘we are utilizing only X percentage of our resources’ or ‘justice is an issue. Speedy justice must be made available’. It goes on: ‘if we achieve that then great things will happen and we can do it. We will do it!’. There is a leap of imagination and logic there that gets lost in rhetoric. The obvious question: of course if all things wonderful were to happen then we would grow at X percent but what is your policy to ensure we get there? There is no answer. A month ago I posed a similar question to a senior PTI official (who had come to speak to Pakistani students at Harvard). His response? Umm, for our policy please visit our website.
Apparently there is some great plan that the PTI has which it cannot reveal—lest PPP or PML (N) steal it I suppose. While I wait for Khan’s great plan to be revealed, I felt like hearing from some revolutionaries who feel he is out to change Pakistan. But I honestly cannot agree with your revolutionary credentials if you think overthrowing PPP, PML (N), ANP et al is a solution for this country. I may not take you seriously but I will respect your point of view (something few PTI supporters have the stomach for). A leader who talks about speedy justice without specifying, even once, how he plans on fixing the over-stretched judicial system makes me not hopeful but worried. You see the slogan of justice is powerful, whether it is raised by the US, Taliban or the Khan brigade. But this concept has nuances which need to be engaged with. You cannot propose or justify any/all actions in the name of justice.
Khan has repeatedly called on the army to implement the Supreme Court’s orders (in various cases)—that is not justice. That is extra-judicial foolhardiness. And yes if any party breaks the law then they should be held accountable too (but not by the army). Since when did it become okay to break the law just because you thought someone else was doing it too? If you think it is kosher for the army to aid the Supreme Court then please stop pretending you are actually seeking a democracy. And no, Article 190 of the Constitution does not say what you think it says.
Khan speaks of enduring democracy and yet his rhetoric never mentions the institutionalized corruption of the Pakistan Army — by far the single most powerful political actor that has never allowed politicians the room they deserve. He will spend hours screaming, ‘look Zardari is corrupt’ but how many times has he said the same about Hafiz Saeed or Maulana Azhar (militant leaders who have walked free from the courts but who openly admit supporting the so-called jihad in Kashmir)? These are questions that are seen by most PTI supporters as legitimising one thing or the other. But before you dismiss the established political parties as citadels of corruption do not forget that they field, engage with and answer tough questions. I may not agree with all they say but at least they say something besides a mention of a secret plan giving us ‘literacy in 100 days’.
As thousands march towards Minar-e-Pakistan, I am sure the rhetoric of the fight against corruption will raise goose-bumps. But what good is fighting corruption if the political culture you believe in leaves no room for criticism? What good is your talk of democracy and change if the ‘electable’ candidates you want to include in your party strengthened the hands of a dictator? What good is justice if the Supreme Court and the Army are given carte blanche as long as they target people you see as corrupt? Bring on the hate mail o young revolutionaries but maybe, just maybe, there is something corrupt about the romance you are cultivated with.
Questioning it is my right. It always helps to ask questions. Is he an alternative? Is his lack of criticism for the army not a form of corruption? And will that sort of corruption hurt us any less than the sums of money you can think of? Ask Khan difficult questions now because tomorrow you, and not him, will look really stupid if he gets it wrong or worse has nothing to offer. Now that will be real heartbreak. Just saying.
The writer is a Barrister and an Advocate of the High Courts. He has a special interest in Antitrust law and is currently pursuing an LLM at a law school in Cambridge, Massachusetts.