Cheerleaders, not critics

“Anyone who is not our cheerleader is corrupt to the bone.” This seems to be the dominant mode of thinking within the PTI leadership. Be it anchors, authors, lawyers or members of civil society, the PTI would like them all to sing their praises or, at the very least, toe the party’s line. Anyone who is slightly suspected of trying to pick a hole in its stance is accused of being a mercenary who has been set up by the political opponents.

On the other hand, any journalist who writes or speaks of the top PTI leadership in a laudatory fashion is hailed as a crusader against the corrupt, rotten system. By the same token, any politician who has the good sense of switching over to the party is praised as ‘Mr or Ms Clean’ regardless of his or her political past. The recent inductions in the PTI are a case in point.

Most of the new high-profile entrants into the PTI are from the PPP – which is, itself, a sinking Titanic. Some of them held ministerial slots in the previous PPP government between 2008 and 2013 or otherwise occupied senior positions in the party’s packing order. The PTI leadership has never minced its words in charging the PPP government with gross incompetence and massive corruption. Assuming that the allegations hold water, the principle of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet stipulates that those ministers were equally responsible for their government’s acts of omission and commission as others who have not been fortunate enough to join the party that is committed to building a new Pakistan.

For five years, did it ever occur to them that their government was not going in the right direction? Never. Instead, day in and day out they would play up to Asif Zardari and the Bhutto family for their political sagacity and sacrifices for democracy. Having now jumped on the bandwagon of the PTI, they are making similar flattering remarks about their new leader. From the PTI, the message is unambiguously clear: anyone who enters the party – irrespective of his or her past affiliations – and has been baptised by the supreme leader has all his or her sins washed away at one go. This reminds us of the Pardoner in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales who goes about selling church forgiveness to sinners.

Of course, the PTI is not the only party which has an open-door policy. Other political parties have also opened up their arms to the ‘electables’ as the elections draw closer. Realpolitik is all about grabbing whatever you can lay your hands on. But this makes the PTI’s claim that it is as different from other players on the political horizon as chalk and cheese appear hollow. This gives credence to the view that the party which styles itself as a champion of change is a chip off the old block.

Having remained in political wilderness for more than one-and-a-half decade, Imran Khan finally made his mark before the 2013 elections. Although the electoral outcome – which he has vociferously contested to date – was well below his lofty expectations, his political profile has continued to rake up. By all accounts, he is Pakistan’s most popular and highly respected political leader today. He alone is capable of bringing thousands to the streets on short notice. One just needs to recall his four-month-long dharna in 2014 in the heart of Islamabad and his subsequent shows of strength all over the country.

The way Khan raised his voice against the alleged corruption of the ruling family – particularly in the matter of the Panama leaks – which has brought the entire House of Sharif in the dock and given a cold sweat to the party in power, has raised his stature in the eyes of the people. Today, if any politician is a bee in the PML-N’s bonnet, it is Khan. In case Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is given the push by the apex court in the mega-corruption scam, the principal beneficiary among the politicians is likely to be Khan. The latter himself is absolutely confident of getting the prized scalp and has already congratulated the people on the ‘imminent’ change in the government.

But no leader is an angel and no politician is a saint. No other political leader in Pakistan can claim to match the popularity and charisma which late prime minister Z A Bhutto had in his heyday. But he wasn’t without his faults – which, in the end, contributed in no small way to his downfall. By the same token, notwithstanding his lofty stature and sky-high popularity, Khan has the same kind of flaws which other leaders – past or present – have had. Self-righteousness itself is a big flaw, which eats up all the virtues of a person. Therefore, if critics point out those faults, there’s no reason to question their intentions.

At any rate, a democratic leader must be magnanimous enough to accept criticism and difference of opinion. If one were asked to point out what constituted the essence of democracy, the answer would be the right to dissent. It is the right to disagree that, more than anything else, sets democracy apart from despotism. A despotic government may be more efficient than a democratic one.

In Pakistan, the economy on the whole grew at a faster pace when the country was placed under military rule. Likewise, a dictatorial regime may be neater and cleaner and even more alive to the people’s problems than a popularly-elected government.

However, a dictatorial regime seldom has the heart to accept criticism, disagreement or dissent, which is looked down upon as anti-state behaviour. On the contrary, democracies not only tolerate but also encourage discrepant viewpoints and put their faith in dialogue and discussion by believing that the truth would emerge from the clash of opposite views. A leader or a party which rounds on its critics is anything but democratic.

In Pakistan, most of the mainstream political parties are charged with promoting dynastic politics and having become a platform to prop up sons, daughters, siblings and spouses. Khan himself has been a scorching critic of dynastic politics. The main reason why the dynastic politics is criticised is that it is reminiscent of absolute monarchy, which has governed this region for centuries. Under absolute monarchies, the word of the ruler – emperor, sultan, maharaja or raja – was the law and any criticism of the established political authority was treated as a taboo.

Our present-day political system – though it has come a long way from the despotism of the past – still shares some of the latter’s attributes in being dominated by families and characterised by the cult of the personality. It doesn’t leave much room for divergent views within political parties. Everyone should either agree with the big boss or look outside. Needless to say, such an intra-party dictatorial approach runs counter to democratic norms and must be altered.

The PTI has positioned itself as a party of change and is arguably the strongest critic of dynastic and family politics – being itself avowedly free of the ‘malaise’. But it is unfortunate that the party itself is bereft of democracy within its ranks. Does this not suggest that the PTI, with or without dynastic politics, is as open to the vices offered by such politics as the parties that it is highly critical of on the same score?

The writer is a freelance countributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com