In his masterpiece, And the Mountains Echoed, Khalid Hosseini writes that quite often the rope that is supposed to pull you out from the flood ends up becoming the very noose around your neck.
When on October 27, 1958, General Muhammad Ayub Khan decided to rid the country of Iskander Mirza’s uninspiring leadership, trumpets were heard throughout the nation. The country had been finally rescued from drowning in the crises caused by the “unscrupulous, greedy and corrupt politicians”, Ayub Khan assured his countrymen. The news was generally well received. Apart from the usual suspects, the commies, poets and idealists, no-one bothered to protest. After years of self-defeating power struggles, the country had at last attained resolute leadership, we were told. That it came at the cost of democracy was the least of our concerns.
But even in the early days men like Z.A. Bhutto saw right through the move, describing it a tactic to be “head and shoulders above the others”. Had Bhutto no self-interest vested in Ayub Khan’s regime, he might’ve called it what it really was: a debauchery against the nation and its principles.
But we are told that things have changed for better in the last few years. The giants who once orchestrated every move of the political amphitheatre are now happy to be mere observers. Thus, when the ECP’s Secretary, Omer Hamid Khan, announced that boots would no longer be in the booths, for many it stood as a testament to the good times ahead.
Hearing this remarkable development at a political gathering, I was surprised to see the sentiments that it evoked. From being hailed as the beginning of the Enlightened Age of Neutrality to being chastised for a fig-leaf move, it’d left the audience with a lot to say.
In all fairness though, the news of polling stations without men in uniforms comes as a breath of fresh air during these tumultuous times. With rupee plummeting, fuel prices skyrocketing and stagflation becoming a living nightmare, the last thing we want is another tainted election.
Yet it still remains unclear if staying away from polling booths also translates into staying away from politics.
It was after all only a year ago that the missing persons bill went missing from our parliament. And despite the newly founded neutrality, the Senate committee still cannot account for its unenforced, or enforced, disappearance.
It’s an age-old lore that democracy alone cannot resolve the issues of this country. The people, and their elected representatives, are simply not far-sighted enough to be trusted with important decisions, we’re constantly reminded by our superior compatriots.
What tends to escape them though is their own lack of leadership. If you need to bloody journalists simply for raising questions about the legitimacy of the COAS extension, then it’s your own myopia which needs to be remedied first.
So, we go back to square one: a country enveloped in the maelstrom of defining its democratic values amidst a tumbling economy, encroaching institutions, and unfavourable global market.
It’d serve us well to pay heed to Edward Kennedy’s advice at this time -- “Integrity is the lifeblood of a democracy. Deceit is a poison to its veins”. It’s time that we ask ourselves this question, does our democracy posit integrity? Or with each day are we just deceived into accepting a system that is poisoning the very cornerstone of our country?
Well, the answer requires patience, just like democracy itself.
What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to build institutions which are self-sufficient. Because democracy only thrives with self-sufficiency. If too many ropes are used to pull it together, it won’t be long before they act as the very cause of its death.
When on October 27, 1958, General Muhammad Ayub Khan decided to rid the country of Iskander Mirza’s uninspiring leadership, trumpets were heard throughout the nation. The country had been finally rescued from drowning in the crises caused by the “unscrupulous, greedy and corrupt politicians”, Ayub Khan assured his countrymen. The news was generally well received. Apart from the usual suspects, the commies, poets and idealists, no-one bothered to protest. After years of self-defeating power struggles, the country had at last attained resolute leadership, we were told. That it came at the cost of democracy was the least of our concerns.
But even in the early days men like Z.A. Bhutto saw right through the move, describing it a tactic to be “head and shoulders above the others”. Had Bhutto no self-interest vested in Ayub Khan’s regime, he might’ve called it what it really was: a debauchery against the nation and its principles.
But we are told that things have changed for better in the last few years. The giants who once orchestrated every move of the political amphitheatre are now happy to be mere observers. Thus, when the ECP’s Secretary, Omer Hamid Khan, announced that boots would no longer be in the booths, for many it stood as a testament to the good times ahead.
Hearing this remarkable development at a political gathering, I was surprised to see the sentiments that it evoked. From being hailed as the beginning of the Enlightened Age of Neutrality to being chastised for a fig-leaf move, it’d left the audience with a lot to say.
In all fairness though, the news of polling stations without men in uniforms comes as a breath of fresh air during these tumultuous times. With rupee plummeting, fuel prices skyrocketing and stagflation becoming a living nightmare, the last thing we want is another tainted election.
In all fairness though, the news of polling stations without men in uniforms comes as a breath of fresh air during these tumultuous times. With rupee plummeting, fuel prices skyrocketing and stagflation becoming a living nightmare, the last thing we want is another tainted election.
Yet it still remains unclear if staying away from polling booths also translates into staying away from politics.
It was after all only a year ago that the missing persons bill went missing from our parliament. And despite the newly founded neutrality, the Senate committee still cannot account for its unenforced, or enforced, disappearance.
It’s an age-old lore that democracy alone cannot resolve the issues of this country. The people, and their elected representatives, are simply not far-sighted enough to be trusted with important decisions, we’re constantly reminded by our superior compatriots.
What tends to escape them though is their own lack of leadership. If you need to bloody journalists simply for raising questions about the legitimacy of the COAS extension, then it’s your own myopia which needs to be remedied first.
What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to build institutions which are self-sufficient. Because democracy only thrives with self-sufficiency. If too many ropes are used to pull it together, it won’t be long before they act as the very cause of its death.
So, we go back to square one: a country enveloped in the maelstrom of defining its democratic values amidst a tumbling economy, encroaching institutions, and unfavourable global market.
It’d serve us well to pay heed to Edward Kennedy’s advice at this time -- “Integrity is the lifeblood of a democracy. Deceit is a poison to its veins”. It’s time that we ask ourselves this question, does our democracy posit integrity? Or with each day are we just deceived into accepting a system that is poisoning the very cornerstone of our country?
Well, the answer requires patience, just like democracy itself.
What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to build institutions which are self-sufficient. Because democracy only thrives with self-sufficiency. If too many ropes are used to pull it together, it won’t be long before they act as the very cause of its death.