Human beings are the embodiment of the virtue, evil and prejudices that they exhibit in given situations. It is probably because of the prejudices that they are infested with, that we come across ethnic, racial, social and political slurs that people hurl at each other. While all other slurs are offensive and demeaning, political slurs, which are playful insults against political opponents with reference to the nature of politics that they pursue, are accepted as a normal part of politics. These slurs, apart from their deriding aspects, sometimes are the true reflection of the conduct of the politicians in general and sometimes a particular politician.
This discourse pertains to some of the political slurs that have been commonly used in the USA and Britain and have become part of the political dictionary. They can conveniently be applied to politicians all over the world and hence the rationale for sharing them with the readers.
A word that has been frequently used in the USA as a political slur is ‘squish’. It is a term used by Republican conservatives to denigrate the perceived lack of backbone possessed by the Republican moderates. This word surfaced during the time of Ronald Reagan. Squish has also been used more broadly, to describe any liberal or conservative who avoids taking firm stands or doesn’t stand for anything— a politician who will sell out, who lacks conviction, who cares more about popularity than principles. Another definition of a squish is someone who has difficulty in making up his mind, who is too anxious to please, too eager to compromise and who can be easily rolled.
‘Flapdoodler’ is also a commonly used slur for a politician, for a speaker of portentous but empty words best described as a demagogue. The term ‘flip-flopper’ is used for a politician who is habitual in changing his or her opinion or taking a position on a particular issue. ‘Pollywog’ denotes a politician who is considered untrustworthy because of his ever-shifting position on the issues at hand and whose track record corroborates the epithet. Another political slur that is often used to denigrate a politician is ‘Rent-a-Quote’. It is someone who might be relied upon by the media to provide a comment, especially one expressing a strong or contentious opinion either in any circumstances or when a particular issue is being discussed.
A cursory glance at our political history would reveal that the foregoing political slurs can safely be bestowed upon our politicians who have recklessly indulged in politics of self-aggrandizement; lacked the heft and spine to stand up to the anti-democratic forces; have been even conniving with anti-democratic forces to destabilize democracy and democratic institutions for their personal gains; have been changing their political loyalties to swell their fortunes, and have been selling their souls to remain in the corridors of power.
The end result is that the country has suffered enormously due to their shenanigans and most of the challenges confronting the country in one way or the other are linked to the misdeeds of the politicians. They have failed to learn from the setbacks that the country has suffered. They never tire of proclaiming their political credentials but continue to rally forces to destabilize the elected government of an opposing party and strengthen the hands of the forces inimical to democracy.
The end result of building an anti-establishment mindset amply manifested itself on May 9 when the followers of Imran Khan attacked the military installations and monuments of the martyrs which by any definition was an anti-state act. Things did not stop at that. In the wake of those dastardly acts when some arrests were made by the law enforcing agencies and it was decided to try the accused under the Pakistan Army Act, the social media warriors of the party started to stoke the issue of arrests into a human rights issue.
The media as a representative of society is supposed to defend and promote democracy which is also imperative for its own freedom, but regrettably it is also highly partisan. A section of it is feverishly engaged in strengthening the anti-democratic forces instead of criticizing and discouraging state institutions from interfering in the domain of others and standing up to anti-democratic forces. It is acting as their flag-bearer. It has no sense of proportion.
The political slurs mentioned above though can conveniently be applied to almost all the politicians of Pakistan barring a few exceptions, but in the current scenario, they can be safely applied to Imran Khan, Chairman of PTI, who is solely responsible for the political and economic crisis the country is wading through at the moment. The self-claimed revolutionary arrived in the corridors of power riding on the shoulders of the establishment which is now a proven reality and amply unravels the credentials of the man. He was also part of the conspiracy to destabilize the PML(N) government of Nawaz Sharif and finally to manage his exit from power. He introduced a culture of violence in politics.
While in power he resorted to politics of political vendetta and failed to build working relations with the opposition parties, which is vital in a democratic polity. He ruled through the promulgation of ordinances, thus lowering the prestige of Parliament. He propagated false narratives and took pride in taking U-turns on everything that he said, taking it as a sign of a great leader. He had no clue about governance and managing an economy like Pakistan’s, and consequently proved to be a failure in both the domains. Disillusioned by his performance the forces that brought him into power distanced themselves from him which eventually helped the PDM to end his rule through a vote of no-confidence.
He was so baffled and shocked by his exit from power, which he had started taking as his birthright, that he, like a ‘frankenstein’s monster’, started hitting back at his creators. He built a false narrative about the involvement of USA in orchestrating his downfall in connivance with the establishment and the PDM parties. After some time he backtracked on his narrative of US involvement and started solely targeting the establishment, particularly previous COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and some officials of ISI, and even named some of them.
The end result of building an anti-establishment mindset amply manifested itself on May 9 when the followers of Imran Khan attacked the military installations and monuments of the martyrs which by any definition was an anti-state act. Things did not stop at that. In the wake of those dastardly acts when some arrests were made by the law enforcing agencies and it was decided to try the accused under the Pakistan Army Act, the social media warriors of the party started to stoke the issue of arrests into a human rights issue. The party even alleged rape and torture of PTI women in jails. This propaganda was exposed by none other than the incarcerated women who during their appearance in the court dismissed the notion of rape and torture.
All this was done under instructions from Imran Khan as is now being revealed by the party leaders who have dissociated themselves from him after the May 9 episode. Can a person like him be a politician and leader of a country? I would leave it to the judgment of the readers.
