Starry-eyed idealism no more
It was a crisp morning in Lahore, on the day before Halloween, last year. Political pundits had made their predictions, and partisan hacks had made their speculations. Everyone, with their gaze towards the Minar-e-Pakistan and abated breath, waited to find out if the day would mark the end of Imran Khan’s promise, or witness the birth of a new political force.
And then it happened: they came in groups of tens and twenties and hundreds – on donkey-carts and Land-Cruisers, from affluent living-rooms as well as dusty fields, some bare-footed and others in Prada shoes – till the swell of humanity became the PTI ‘tsunami’. They waited patiently and danced for hours in anticipation of one person alone: imran Khan. There was no Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Javed Hashmi, Khurshid Kasuri or Shafqat Mehmood on the stage. in fact, this ‘tsunami’ had gathered to celebrate the antithesis of what these individuals stood for. The moment was a fracture in the fabric of our political history, and marked the inception of a new hope.
But somewhere along the past six months, we have witnessed a tempering of this hope and a dilution of the idealism that enveloped Minar-e-Pakistan that October night. And it is only pertinent to ask why?
Let’s start with the basics: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf is defined more by what it is not, rather than what it is. if one were to stop a person in the street (whether or not such person supports Imran Khan) and ask what PTI stands for, the answer would most likely not entail a discourse on PTI’s education policy, or justice sector reform, or economic expansion plan. The answer, in all likelihood would be some version of ‘everyone else is a ‘chor’ (thief) while Imran Khan is not!’ And in this way, PTI is defined by what it is not: it is not PML(N) or PPP; other party leaders are corrupt whereas Imran Khan is not; members of other political parties hide their assets and evade taxes whereas PTI members do not; other parties frequently settle on their principles (‘mukmuka’) whereas PTI does not. This forms PTI’s identity and appeal among the disillusioned voters, disappointed by decades of bad governance, who can now turn to a party that is all the things that others are not.
But this definition receives a fatal blow when in every jalsa (after Lahore), we find Imran Khan flanked by faces that he promised he was ‘not’! To cushion the blow, PTI members would explain that these individuals have been ‘reformed’ and that politics necessitates certain manoeuvring for survival. Don’t look now, but these are all the arguments
that have previously been presented by parties that PTI says it is not.
Imran Khan’s defence for including certain (less than ideal) individuals in his party is that regardless of who joins the party, at the time of awarding of tickets, PTI will only pick the best and the brightest. Well, let’s for a second assume that Imran Khan will be able to withstand the insurmountable pressure of awarding tickets to certain (compromised) heavyweights in PTI, does this mean that such individuals (some belonging to Lahore’s land mafia, some who have faithfully served dictators, others who have a record of financial irregularities) will have no influence – none – in any government that PTI forms? Even without tickets, will they not find a place as members of task-forces and inspection committees? Will certain individuals, who have donated crores of rupees to the party or have been dancing to its tune, be miraculously ignored one fine day? Khan Sb, we really want to believe you on this, but let’s be realistic!
Furthermore, coming into the home-stretch before national elections, Imran Khan faces the immediate problems of gelling together the old and new guard of PTI. Despite smiling faces on the camera, there are hushed murmurs of discontentment among the old party loyalists who suddenly find that a new breed of (expedient) politicians have been inducted into the party over their heads. Imran Khan’s defence, in this regard, is that the party will hold internal elections and choose its leadership. This is virtuous and democratic (another aspect where PTI is not what others are – a dynastic party). But, with due respect, the holding of party-elections does not correct the wrong. The truth remains that in order to ‘attract’ political bigwigs, the party has ‘wronged’ its loyalists and sacrificed idealism at the altar of expediency. While this is a consistent practice in other political parties, it was hoped that PTI would be different and shall prefer principles over personalities. And to deepen the issue, if (in all likelihood) the new political heavyweights bulldoze through the party elections, the legacy of Imran’s party and its stance on scruples will be at the mercy of the very individuals against whom PTI’s workers have struggled for fifteen years.
Khan saab – the enduring image, etched in our national memory, is your last bowl to Illingworth in 1992, after which you raised your arms in victory as a teary-eyed Pakistan fixed its gaze on you in pride. My generation – today’s youth, which is your political base – was raised on the legend of the uncompromising and principled Imran Khan. And that ideal led us all to Minar-e-Pakistan in October. Politics, they say, has no relation to morals so this is perhaps bad political advice: but the idealist in me would rather see an honest and uncompromising Imran Khan in the opposition, than an expedient and unscrupulous Imran in power.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School. He can be reached at: saad@post.harvard.edu