Growing differences among Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) lawmakers are the reason why their resignation letters are taking so long to process, insiders say.
Background interviews with several first-time Members of the National Assembly from the PTI revealed they did not want to give up what they had achieved after extreme hard work – in some cases without any remarkable support from the party.
PTI Chairman Imran Khan has already directed his MNAs to ignore the summons from National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq to confirm whether they resigned out of free will. The chairman feared several of the new MNAs might not resign or state before the speaker that they were coerced.
Asad Umar, elected from Islamabad, has publicly expressed their apprehension saying the MNAs might be lured to switch loyalties. The PTI wanted the speaker to summon all the party’s MNAs at the same time.
“I have asked (Imran) Khan time and again to conclude the Dharna, but he doesn’t listen,” one disgruntled MNA said. “Some of us want to go back and work in our constituencies.”
Some days ago, ANP chief Asfandyar Wali revealed that Mr Khan never submitted his own resignation. No one denied his claim.
Keeping electorates and electables simultaneously happy is an art that Mr Khan has not yet mastered. He kicked off his pre-election campaign with a pledge of giving young and dynamic leadership a chance to build the so-called New Pakistan.
[quote]What if rain hadn't disrupted the cricket match between England and Pakistan on March 1, 1992?[/quote]
Later, he deviated from his promise and relied heavily on “electables” – conventional politicians that are more likely to win elections. Now the electables have their own agendas to fulfill, and may not share the same revolutionary zeal and spirit.
What the PTI chairman needs to understand is that a popularity wave doesn’t last too long. What lasts is the legacy of something solid, innovative, productive or revolutionary. Sporadic rallies, no matter how big they are, cannot bring down the government. The sit-in at D-Chowk has already lost its vitality. The stubbornness on the prime minister’s resignation has halted the process of investigation and reforms that should have been started long ago.
Mr Khan is a classic case of fame and misfortune. He has almost brought the system down to its knees without ensuring he would get anything substantial out of it.
Napoleon III committed the same mistakes a hundred and fifty years ago. He provoked one crisis after another only to lose permanently the French claim of supremacy in central Europe. And throughout his reckless maneuvers he believed he was playing the trump card to outsmart his rivals.
The so-called revolution Mr Khan has waged over the country strayed somewhere so as the revolutionaries. What is a revolutionary? Henry Kissinger explained in Diplomacy: “If the answer to that question were without ambiguity, few revolutionaries would ever succeed. For revolutionaries almost always start from a position of inferior strength. They prevail because the established order is unable to grasp its own vulnerability. This is especially true when the revolutionary challenge emerges not with a march on the Bastille but in conservative garb. Few institutions have defenses against those who evoke the expectation that they will preserve them.”
Running a comparison between Napoleon III and Bismarck, the former US National Security Advisor wrote: “The responsibility of statesmen, however, is to resolve complexity rather than to contemplate it. For leaders unable to choose among their alternatives, circumspection becomes an alibi for inaction.”
This fits Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The inaction from day one has plagued his government so much that now he seems to have lost the power to make decisions. When a leader loses this power, someone else takes charge. He can only witness his own downfall and pray things turn out otherwise.
Now Mr Khan wants to win and PM Sharif wants to survive. In the beginning, Mr Khan’s chances looked brighter. After a month PM Sharif appeared stronger. If procrastination persists the pendulum may swing either way.
One thing both Mr Khan and PM Sharif can start with is to fire their advisors. The 48-hour prophesies from both sides never came true. After exhausting all possible trajectories, the people are now cracking jokes about the butterfly effect.
What if Cleopatra’s nose was slightly shorter? The whole face of the earth would have changed. What if Petrarch never saw Laura? the state of renaissance would have been quite different. What if rain did not disrupt the cricket match between England and Pakistan on March 1, 1992, at Adelaide? the revolutionary captain would have lost somewhere in the black hole of history. And what if general Jilani never pampered a scion of steel-tycoon: Junejos, Jatois or Wynes might still be controlling the reigns of Muslim League?
Shahzad Raza is an Islamabad-based journalist.
Twitter: @shahzadrez
Background interviews with several first-time Members of the National Assembly from the PTI revealed they did not want to give up what they had achieved after extreme hard work – in some cases without any remarkable support from the party.
PTI Chairman Imran Khan has already directed his MNAs to ignore the summons from National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq to confirm whether they resigned out of free will. The chairman feared several of the new MNAs might not resign or state before the speaker that they were coerced.
Asad Umar, elected from Islamabad, has publicly expressed their apprehension saying the MNAs might be lured to switch loyalties. The PTI wanted the speaker to summon all the party’s MNAs at the same time.
“I have asked (Imran) Khan time and again to conclude the Dharna, but he doesn’t listen,” one disgruntled MNA said. “Some of us want to go back and work in our constituencies.”
Some days ago, ANP chief Asfandyar Wali revealed that Mr Khan never submitted his own resignation. No one denied his claim.
Keeping electorates and electables simultaneously happy is an art that Mr Khan has not yet mastered. He kicked off his pre-election campaign with a pledge of giving young and dynamic leadership a chance to build the so-called New Pakistan.
[quote]What if rain hadn't disrupted the cricket match between England and Pakistan on March 1, 1992?[/quote]
Later, he deviated from his promise and relied heavily on “electables” – conventional politicians that are more likely to win elections. Now the electables have their own agendas to fulfill, and may not share the same revolutionary zeal and spirit.
What the PTI chairman needs to understand is that a popularity wave doesn’t last too long. What lasts is the legacy of something solid, innovative, productive or revolutionary. Sporadic rallies, no matter how big they are, cannot bring down the government. The sit-in at D-Chowk has already lost its vitality. The stubbornness on the prime minister’s resignation has halted the process of investigation and reforms that should have been started long ago.
Mr Khan is a classic case of fame and misfortune. He has almost brought the system down to its knees without ensuring he would get anything substantial out of it.
Napoleon III committed the same mistakes a hundred and fifty years ago. He provoked one crisis after another only to lose permanently the French claim of supremacy in central Europe. And throughout his reckless maneuvers he believed he was playing the trump card to outsmart his rivals.
The so-called revolution Mr Khan has waged over the country strayed somewhere so as the revolutionaries. What is a revolutionary? Henry Kissinger explained in Diplomacy: “If the answer to that question were without ambiguity, few revolutionaries would ever succeed. For revolutionaries almost always start from a position of inferior strength. They prevail because the established order is unable to grasp its own vulnerability. This is especially true when the revolutionary challenge emerges not with a march on the Bastille but in conservative garb. Few institutions have defenses against those who evoke the expectation that they will preserve them.”
Running a comparison between Napoleon III and Bismarck, the former US National Security Advisor wrote: “The responsibility of statesmen, however, is to resolve complexity rather than to contemplate it. For leaders unable to choose among their alternatives, circumspection becomes an alibi for inaction.”
This fits Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The inaction from day one has plagued his government so much that now he seems to have lost the power to make decisions. When a leader loses this power, someone else takes charge. He can only witness his own downfall and pray things turn out otherwise.
Now Mr Khan wants to win and PM Sharif wants to survive. In the beginning, Mr Khan’s chances looked brighter. After a month PM Sharif appeared stronger. If procrastination persists the pendulum may swing either way.
One thing both Mr Khan and PM Sharif can start with is to fire their advisors. The 48-hour prophesies from both sides never came true. After exhausting all possible trajectories, the people are now cracking jokes about the butterfly effect.
What if Cleopatra’s nose was slightly shorter? The whole face of the earth would have changed. What if Petrarch never saw Laura? the state of renaissance would have been quite different. What if rain did not disrupt the cricket match between England and Pakistan on March 1, 1992, at Adelaide? the revolutionary captain would have lost somewhere in the black hole of history. And what if general Jilani never pampered a scion of steel-tycoon: Junejos, Jatois or Wynes might still be controlling the reigns of Muslim League?
Shahzad Raza is an Islamabad-based journalist.
Twitter: @shahzadrez