close
Thursday March 28, 2024

The possibility of change

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.With the PTI having vividly demonstrated it has no intention – and possibly no ability – of ushering in the ‘Naya Pakistan’ it had based its campaign on, and instead continuing its obsession with the unproven electoral rigging it has unproductively

By Kamila Hyat
November 12, 2015
The writer is a freelance columnist
and former newspaper editor.
With the PTI having vividly demonstrated it has no intention – and possibly no ability – of ushering in the ‘Naya Pakistan’ it had based its campaign on, and instead continuing its obsession with the unproven electoral rigging it has unproductively focussed on for over two years, many, perhaps most, in the country have begun to wonder from where change is to come. There is no doubt we need this change, and need it urgently, but right now there appears to be no sign that it is on the way. Not even distant footsteps can be heard.
But even so, it is important not to give up hope. Change can sometimes come quickly, in some ways unexpectedly, and from within the established system. Canada has seen this; Justin Trudeau, within two days of taking charge as the new prime minister, has demonstrated how this can be done. The youthful 44-year-old has nominated an equal gender cabinet, with 15 women and 15 men. This is the first cabinet in Canada’s history, and indeed the cabinet of almost any country, to reflect an even ratio.
Trudeau, who mingles happily with the media, has said simply he made his choice because “this was 2015.” The cabinet goes beyond this. It also includes members of the Canadian First Nations – or the native populations of the territory colonised by Europeans – minorities and a former refugee.
The minister of transport is former astronaut Marc Garneau. Other ministers include a physician, a UN peacekeeper, a para-Olympian, a geoscientist and a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian forces.
The diversity is in so many ways important, especially when we compare it to our own, homogeneous cabinet. Men of course dominate it, and at both the federal and provincial levels, we often see the ‘softer’ posts – social welfare, health, etc – allocated to women. Trudeau has largely avoided this. Revenue is to be handled by a woman, defence by a non-white minority community member. And the new prime minister has also brought in other changes as he takes his country by storm.
Regulations put in place by the previous conservative government have been lifted, notably those barring scientists, heads of departments and others from speaking to the media. Trudeau has encouraged all to do so freely, just as he does himself. Again the contrast to the situation at home is there, and glaring.
Of course we don’t know if the Canadian political honeymoon will last. Barack Obama too changed in so many ways during the course of his often troubled presidency. Will Justin Trudeau’s open approach to politics, his support for liberal causes, his stance for women and minorities and his soft stance on immigration last? It is far too early to say.
The point, however, is that Trudeau has shown that change can happen even in a regular political system; it can take place through the democratic process – even one which for years has thrown up mediocre leaders. This is what had happened in Canada.
The liberal party that Trudeau represents, a party that his father Pierre Trudeau led as prime minister of Canada during the late 1960s and 1970s and again, more briefly in the mid-1980s, is not a radical entity by any means. It stands almost bang at the centre of Canadian politics – a little to the left of the Conservative Party which held power during the last term, and somewhat to the right of the National Democrat, the third major party in Canada. Yet despite this, even such parties seem able to throw up leaders who appear determined to usher in some kind of new order and alter the shape of their nation.
This has also happened of course in other places where change has, however, come through more drastic means. The Venezuelan Revolution held by the late Hugo Chavez created a wave of altered thinking which swept across Latin America, turning it today almost entirely into patches of red, orange or pink – signifying the political thinking of their leaders who generally lean further to the left than ever before.
Evo Morales, the first president of Bolivia from an indigenous background, has brought in pro-poor policies and fiercely opposed American intervention in his country. Raphael Correa, from a similar background, the president of Ecuador has defied the US in even stronger terms, giving shelter to the hunted head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, at his embassy in London, infuriating Washington by doing so and following an entirely new brand of economic policies aimed at bettering the conditions of his own people. Latin America has changed as a result of these men and other men and women like them.
The message then is that change can occur. It can come suddenly and unannounced, even through the ballot. This has been the case in each of these countries. The leaders we see directing their future seemed to come from almost nowhere. Yes, there was a huge campaign by ordinary Canadians to ensure Justin Trudeau was elected in and that the liberal vote came out for him.
The question is whether we can produce a leader as dedicated and as daring, at least at first glance, willing to change the way the status quo has stood for years. In the case of Canada, simply the number of women in the cabinet, the number of minorities, the decision to allow in tens of thousands of Syrians escaping war all signify a country that has indeed changed. We must hope this is not just an illusion.
Imran Khan had attempted to create just this mirage but then failed to do anything to prove it went beyond an intangible image. Even today, there are no policies of note in education, health or other areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that can mark the tenure of the PTI government in the province. The memories we have are of sometimes violent protests and endless calls for the unconstitutional exit of leaders the people have voted in.
From where will a new leader emerge in our country? That is the real question. One major problem is that we have killed off all nurseries from where leaders rise. The political parties themselves are increasingly static, unwilling to allow in anything new – and in so many ways dynastic in order.
The PML-N has gone the way of the PPP by promoting Maryam Nawaz Sharif and Hamza Shahbaz as the leaders of the future. Many anticipate a fierce tussle between the cousins. Other parties too have little momentum within them. People line up to join them because they wish to share a slice of the political pie and earn a place in power. This has happened in the case of the PTI. It has done nothing to show it is a different entity, welcoming in leaders with dubious reputations because it hopes they can win it seats.
Student unions were effectively suffocated to death during the Zia era. Labour unions also suffered at the same time, and the same policies continued even as other regimes took charge. This leaves us less and less space from where new leaderships could emerge.
The hold of the military establishment over the political system of course stifles it further – and it is these challenges that somehow have to be broken through if a brand new leadership is to emerge. One that goes beyond slogans and brings true substance.
Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com