The topic that generates maximum speculation theses days, may it be in top political shows or in our drawing rooms, is whether Imran Khan is really the face of hope and change in our country today or are we deceiving ourselves.
The people who do not support him seem to have only one agenda – saying that supporting Imran Khan is politically naïve and that it is deluding oneself. What is sad is that these critics fail to give any sensible reason or justification for this stance. I will talk about only a few criticisms here and ‘realistically’ assess them and not ‘idealistically’ as some people are wont to criticise.
Firstly, those speaking against IK seem to do so only for the heck of it. When IK was the single big name in PTI, the criticism put forward was that IK is too proud to shake hands with any seasoned political personality, and is instead letting his party be led by amateurs. Most importantly, that he is just a ‘one man show’ and that he’ll never be able to come to power on the shoulders of these new faces and without the vote bank of influential political faces.
Now, as we see influential political entities join forces with PTI, the criticism fired at Khan is that he is not bringing forth new fresh faces and prefers the same old ‘corrupt’ ones.
Realistically speaking, in order to come in power, Khan does need the vote bank, support and influence that these strong political personalities can provide and the ones Khan has chosen for this task are ‘clean’, at least on record, and critics should save the childish allegation of ‘lotas’.
Realistically speaking, if Khan needs to bring change, coming to power is essential. IK may be against feudalism but being realistic, he does need the support of feudal to come to power, no matter how sad this reality is. However, this does not portray ‘double standards’ on IK’s part as his critics claim, its just reality. You can change the system only when you come to power, and in order to come to power, IK needs the support of the very system prevailing in the country, no matter how faulty it is, no matter how much IK has spoken against it, no matter how much he wishes to change it.
IK cannot make angels drop from the sky who are ‘clean’, yet influential, and would help him with the elections. He needs existing political influence.
Secondly, critics claim that IK cannot bring about the change that that he promises. The most ridiculous of comments I have heard in days is, ‘ If Obama in such a sophisticated system could not bring change, then how can IK do that in Pakistan.’ It would be better not to comment on this childish criticism, but realistically speaking, change that IK talks about has been brought about by leaders previously, in countries like Malaysia and Thailand – as IK says, it is no rocket science as some believe it to be. The only essential feature in such countries was a strong patriotic leadership – the kind that IK promises to bring.
For the sake of argument, let’s say we have our doubts about IK. But where there are parties like PPP and PML(N), who have been given numerous chances in power and have failed, IK deserves a chance to prove whether he can be the one who actually lives up to what he promised. Where others have been given this chance, IK deserves it too to prove whether he’s the one who can take our nation where our founding fathers dreamed for it to reach.
MIAN SUFYAN AHMED