Elections 2018
I like those people who are strong die hard supporters of political parties. Firstly because it is fun to watch them get hyper every time their party is criticized with the exception of PTI, as they have a tendency to resort to violence. Secondly because they have clarity as to whom they support. It doesn’t matter if their candidate is corrupt, debaucherous or incompetent they will support them and defend them regardless.
It is different for someone who chooses their leader based on credentials and performance. It is hard to decide who to choose and for that matter to choose at all.
Take the PML-N for starters: it would be unfair if we didn’t give them credit for their achievements. Terrorism was curbed, infrastructure was upgraded, and the electricity shortfall was reduced substantially amongst numerous other achievements. However the leadership was sent packing over charges of ill-gotten wealth.
It can be argued that there was a certain, ‘political victimization’, however that argument doesn’t hold water when one considers that the allegations in the cases are primarily true.
Besides that the clash with the proverbial establishment needs to be understood. It is reiterated time and again that PML-N is anti-establishment, however the question arises what exactly is their conflict with the establishment in the first place.
Since the first time the Sharif clan enjoyed political power they were enamored by The House of Saud and they wanted to design their political dynasty on that model.
In the example of Turkey, where the political structure used to be quite similar to Pakistan, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the President of Turkey was successful in averting a military coup (which the PML-N publicly and enthusiastically celebrated) and was also successful in roping in all institutions as in media, judiciary and the armed forces, PML-N got their working paper on how to achieve their goals.
It is reiterated time and again that PML-N is anti-establishment, however the question arises what exactly is their conflict with the establishment in the first place
With the stability and strength they attained post the 2013 elections they gained the confidence to believe in the implementation of their goal. In addition to this the PML-N started focusing on their second generation of leadership. Which is not a bad thing, however the second generation for them was their own children who have an over inflated sense of entitlement and are lacking in political acumen.
In the case of PTI, Mr. Khan for the first time attained serious political power post the 2013 elections with the province of KP under his belt. However as opposed to governing that province, he started to focus on his ‘container politics’ in which the primary aim was to remove the elected government through any means possible be it sit-ins or the courts.
Mr. Khan’s narrative is that he is the only person (which he has arbitrarily decided) with the character to bring about real change. As he has never been given an opportunity to rule in his two decades plus political struggle he feels that it is right to be the Prime Minister.
What Mr. Khan fails to appreciate is that after the 18th Amendment most powers have been transferred to the provinces, and in fact he has already been given an opportunity to bring about change in the province of KP and from the looks of it, it seems that he has failed to deliver.
He has chosen tried and tested politicians which practically amounts to ‘old wine in a new bottle’ and in all fairness Mr. Khan lacks the temperament to govern a country, least of all Pakistan.
Then there is PPP, which in all honesty has no hope of forming a national government. They have a mature leadership, which has the temperament to understand the political challenges and face the political climate of this country.
Asif Zardari was successful in completing five years with numerous attempts on toppling his government. His son Bilawal has time and again shown a mature political understanding, which would be apparent if one were to focus on what he says as opposed to how he says it.
However they are seriously lacking in the aspect of good governance. Sindh suffers from a serious shortage of water, waste disposal and infrastructure issues just to name a few. Pakistan suffered with serious terrorism and electricity shortfalls in their tenure and a repeat of that is not what we are looking for.
There was a Michael Douglas movie back in the 90s in which he plays the American President, in which one of his aides comes to him and tells him that if you don’t show water to the people they will drink the sand. To which he replies any man who drinks sand thinking its water does not know the difference between the two.
So the question arises shall we all drink sand on the 25th or alternatively stay in the comfort of our homes while a nation with no water in sight chooses to drink sand?
