Since times immemorial there has been a continuing struggle between classes ruling the states— with vested interests to reinforce and protect their incumbency— and those vying to change the system they thought was serving the interests of only the ruling classes rather than the masses and therefore needed to be changed.
Not surprisingly there has been no dearth of arguments on both sides to justify and authenticate their stances. As for arguments, even the atheists would give innumerable arguments about their belief.
However it is satisfying to note that human societies, while traversing through uncertainties and trivialities of times, have evolved norms and principles in regards to the conduct of state business and yardsticks and touchstones to judge the veracity and authenticity of the arguments and claims made by involved stakeholders in a given situation or struggle. Some of them have universal acknowledgment and acceptability.
The maxim ‘majority is authority’ undeniably has universal acceptability and arguably is the essence of democracy, practised by the majority of nations across the globe. The nations have also drawn up their own constitutions which define the contours of the state structure, correlation between the state institutions and their obligations towards the state which ensure peaceful progression in regards to accomplishing national goals and the changing economic situation of their people.
The constitutions of most nations do recognize the sovereign and democratic right of the masses to elect governments of their choice. The party which wins the franchise of the majority of the masses forms the government while the others sit in the opposition. Periodic elections as prescribed in the constitution are supposed to ensure peaceful transfer of power.
But it is a regrettable reality of our political history that all the elections that were held in the intervening periods between dictatorial regimes have invariably led to political instability and upheaval. The political parties losing the elections have never accepted the results and their priority has been to destabilize the incumbent government. The unscrupulous politicians who ruled the country during intervening periods between military governments never made a serious and honest effort to reform the exploitative system of governance having inbuilt avenues of corruption which helped them to inflate their own fortunes as well as of those who supported them in the game of power politics.
The lessons drawn from our own history require the politicians to change their ways, reform the system of governance and elections through their collective efforts and wisdom and ensure strict adherence to the Constitution, law, and internationally recognized norms of democratic behaviour. Holding elections under the existing system which promotes power politics is not the solution to lift the country from the quagmire that it is stuck in.
Constitution, law and morality have been the major casualties. Consequently the masses have suffered enormously due to their shenanigans. These demagogues have been exploiting the masses in the name of Islam and by propagating false narratives to win their franchise.
Imran Khan has surpassed all of them in the game of power politics. Since 2013 he has been relying on false narratives to dupe the people and foment a political crisis in the country. Who in the country is not aware of his mantra of 35 punctures in the general elections of 2018, on the basis of which he created a political turmoil in the country. When the judicial commission in its findings nullified the claims of rigging, in an interview with a private TV channel, he confessed that 35 punctures were only a political talk and somebody had told him about it. It was indeed a strong rebuke to his false narrative. Any dignified individual would have changed his ways after that. But like an obstinate child, Imran Khan persisted with his brand of politics.
He relished taking u-turns on his stated positions on national issues and unabashedly claimed that it was the forte of all great political leaders. He introduced an element of violence in the politics of the country and traversed the course of political vendetta when he came into power allegedly with the help of the praetorian powers.
When the conglomeration of the opposition parties known as PDM resorted to a constitutional move to remove him from power, he adopted an unconstitutional way to thwart it, but without success as the SC, taking suo motu notice, declared the action of rejection of the no-confidence motion by the deputy speaker, the advice by Imran Khan as Prime Minister for the dissolution of the assemblies endorsed and approved by the President calling for new elections, all unconstitutional.
After his exit from power through constitutional means, he devised a narrative of conspiracy hatched by the USA in connivance with the PDM and supported by the establishment, and kept rubbing in this notion in almost 70 public rallies that he held around the country, notwithstanding the fact that our intelligence agencies had rejected his contention of conspiracy.
He was particularly harsh on the establishment and castigated its leadership for orchestrating his removal from power, rejecting the claims of the latter that it had decided to remain neutral.
Imran Khan mocked the stance of neutrality by the establishment, contending that only animals were neutral as there was no concept of neutrality in Islam and one had to stand on the side of the right. Surprisingly this false narrative helped him to resurrect his political career. However, staying true to his reputation, he retracted from that narrative recently by exonerating the USA and the Army from the allegations of conspiracy.
The PTI has also sprung a surprise by advocating through ex-minister Fawad Chaudhry that in the present circumstances the establishment should remain neutral. What a farce? The party is also making reconciliatory overtures to the USA and Chaudhry Fawad has met the US ambassador the other day in this regard. How can a leader like Imran Khan be trusted?
Nevertheless, riding on the wave of regained popularity he has been demanding immediate elections, claiming that it was the only way to winch the country out of political stability and the unprecedented economic crisis. And to put pressure on the government, he has of late announced dissolution of the provincial assemblies of Punjab and KPK in a few days after consultation with the party leaders and both chief ministers.
History is witness to the fact that the popularity of a leader is not the touchstone for claiming righteousness of the cause or philosophy that he is trying to preach and sell. It is replete with instances when whims and fancies of certain individuals assumed the shape of ‘larger national interest’ and mass hysteria was at times marketed as ‘national pride and honour’ which plunged the nations head on into catastrophes.
Hitler’s popularity premised on supremacist ideas is a vivid example of this historic fact. The end result was that he not only initiated World War II which claimed millions of lives, brought death and destruction of his own nation and left a legacy which is a perennial shame for the country.
The lessons drawn from our own history require the politicians to change their ways, reform the system of governance and elections through their collective efforts and wisdom and ensure strict adherence to the Constitution, law, and internationally recognized norms of democratic behaviour. Holding elections under the existing system which promotes power politics is not the solution to lift the country from the quagmire that it is stuck in.
