By Ihsaan Afzal Khan
Life is uncertain and so are events that unfold in future. Similarly, politics involves most vicious cycles of unpredictable events; it is during such times that the character and ideology of a politician is tested. Politicians with firm ideological roots make decisions, amidst such changes, based on some principles. Principles which help them maintain an uncompromising attitude against what stood against their ideology. Moreover, others have no such compact ideological basis to maintain a principled position in ever-changing events. Such politicians have competing loyalties; they side with whosoever is fulfilling their self-interest. These are self-obsessed public figures who continuously undermine the national interest by siding with forces inimical to democracy. These forces are made of cynical figures under a cynical mind.
Political parties work on particular ideologies. They encapsulate the politicians who have like-minded ideologies. A leftist would never join a right-wing party; a socialist would abstain from working on the agenda of a capitalist party. Insightful individuals, having a few standards, always find proficient approaches to keep up themselves to a particular group for the sake of the collective interest. They work beyond vested interest. The preservationism of John Muir became the part of a mass movement after the 1970s even though the movement was subjected to criticism for being involved in vested interests; yet Muir’s adherence and faithfulness to his thoughts had ended up being a triumph, as environmental protection plans are being incorporated in policies. Loyalty acts like an adhesive; it holds thoughts and connections together both in harmony times and troublesome occasions. It is like the loyalty of Liaquat Ali Khan, the man Jinnah called his right hand.
Today Pakistan is suffering a governance crisis. The captain of the PTI government has given the main positions of the field to those who have been thrown out of the other teams because of their ill performance or to the individuals who had been backstabbing their skippers. At the point when Imran Khan is accusing the previous governments, he is accusing his own group, as PTI embodies the bigger number of turncoats
Where there is morality, there is immorality. Around the globe, a portion of the lawmakers have no such moralities or firm belief systems. They are in politics for promoting vested interests or are working on some agenda. These politicians have weak loyalty to the parties and they often switch parties to pursue the incentives being offered. The claim is not that the politicians and the parties have no ideology; it is changing parties and henceforth belief systems, based on cynicism.
In Pakistan, the turncoats manoeuvre the voters roughly around the same vows; local development and spoiling other candidates. They have no firm ideologies and have been found changing parties frequently. They are in politics for the sake of electoral incentives; maintaining office, that is the lone inspiration they have. In the established and progressed democracies, a conservative politician would not switch to any other party regardless of whether the other party appears likely to win the upcoming elections because he or she opposes the other party’s stance and ideology. Also, the likely triumphant party is probably not going to invite him or her, considering his or her position and ideology. Pakistan, being a hybrid regime, does not follow such standards.
The turncoats create discord in the whole democratic process. For instance, numerous turncoats left the PML(N) in 1999 in the repercussions of the deposition of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, and it was the experienced hands of followers like Khawaja Asif and other who kept the flow of the party going against the abuses and oppressions.
The turncoats were named as “lotas” and this practice became the filthy culture in the political discourse of Pakistan since then. Stunningly, the same people who left Nawaz Sharif returned to the party after Sharif’s arrival in Pakistan in 2007. There are numerous different instances of such turncoats in Pakistan’s political discourse. Fawad Chaudhry was once Musharraf’s man, at a point PPP’s man and is now PTI’s man. Likewise, Shah Mehmood Qureshi hopped from the PML(N) to the PPP to the PTI. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed has remained a minister 15 times over the span of 35 years; his bounces from one party to the other is the main reason behind his portfolio of 15 ministries. The loss of this cynical practice can be found in the fiasco of the railway ministry as it has been noted that the net loss of Pakistan railway for the year 2018-19 stood at Rs 32.7 billion. During this year, approximately 140 accidents occurred. This is worrisome. They jump to different parties like polythene bags in the air which are threatening for the environment; so are they.
Today Pakistan is suffering a governance crisis. The captain of the PTI government has given the main positions of the field to those who have been thrown out of the other teams because of their ill performance or to the individuals who had been backstabbing their skippers. At the point when Imran Khan is accusing the previous governments, he is accusing his own group, as PTI embodies the bigger number of turncoats.
The writer is a freelance columnist
