Not an era of principles

Perhaps many people are born into an era that they can never belong to. It serves as no surprise to have idiomatic expressions that, ‘he/she was ahead of times’ or ‘he/she would have served well a few centuries back’ are often used, to indicate if one is ahead of times or is lagging behind in the past, which could be glorious or otherwise too.

Human history is replete with the best of ideals and the worst of human behaviour. Nobility and Evil coexist as either close cousins or as distant relatives, but they are never without each other.

Humans have to continually choose who to befriend; if the selection is made on a situational basis, such individuals would most likely be time- servers, lacking stability of character or of values and personality traits.

These diverse elements of nobility and evil, within some, remain at war constantly; and in such longest of the long duels between good and evil, there is no clear or clean victor. Evil spans over the longest period of human behaviour, while good sparsely populates its pages, and is thinly spread over the canvas of time.

A society that has developed for almost seven decades plus upon the foundations and edifice of corruption and corruptive practices, in all of its ugly formats and manifestations, will easily swallow anyone, who has any noble moral, ethical or spiritual values, after chewing it to bits, not one, but a million of the likes of Imran Khan.

This is not to suggest that he is completely above board, nor to indicate that he is the only one that can be chewed for sticking to principles. There are many who have reaped the bitter harvest that prevalence of ‘truth’ produces in a society.

Gone are the days when traits like integrity and character made for being cornerstones to lay and lodge any claims to ‘Leadership ‘. In the present day environment, more so in our context, but generally globally too, the bereft of character is a trait desired for achieving any success in any field of endeavour or activity.

The concepts of flexibility and malleability are generously applied in the arena of politics to serve chameleon characteristics of moving from one political stance to another. From religion to societal practices from sports to culture and from social services to politics, there is a common thread that runs through, and that is the unbreakable and unsnapable rope of corruptive practices and it’s willing acceptance by all segments of society as a norm of everyday behaviour.

Selling an asset acquired through a proper and legally accepted process is not a dubious act; but selling an asset acquired as a gift is a matter of personal choice, however bad it may sound for optics, particularly to the ‘ giver of the gift’ , yet it is not wrong.

This argument holds water for ordinary citizens, but not for public office holders; if the latter does so for whatever reasons , economic or otherwise, it must be done in the full glare of disclosure and not surreptitiously.

Being of steel character, there is every likelihood that Imran Khan may not have thought through completely of how it could be perceived. Admittedly, the decision to do so by him is a case of gross indiscretion.

It is possible that its political fallout wasn’t even considered. While it is correct to say that no two wrongs make anything right, but in comparison to BMWs, Mercs and other luxurious vehicles, the watch is dwarfed million times over.

I am certain that on hindsight he must be full of remorse and regret. An avalanche that he brought upon himself, however innocent, it may be. While the judgment is awaited, Imran Khan must learn a lesson too that once a public office is held, the lines dividing political life and personal life get completely smudged — there are no demarcations.

Actually, the naivety of us populace gives the artful dodger, called the politician, great advantage — the simple-minded and mostly ignorant population gets immersed into controversies relating to the ‘piddly toshakhana’ cases of corruption, while the wily ones remain busy in seeking newer avenues of corruption or in making arrangements for hiding, masking, their past evil deeds of massive corruption.

The diabolical intrigues and machinations that are liberally manufactured are meant to keep giving deathly blows to idiotic concepts such as Truth, Freedom of Speech, Conflict of Interest, Living Beyond Means, etc. Corruption is Jack’s towering beanstalk that overshadows our society, it needs no watering, it blossoms by repeated indulgence.

Democracy is the best amongst the worst forms of government is the argument of the upholders (?) of democratic ideals. One can argue a case against it. But that for some other piece. For now, the pooling of individual ignorance is misinterpreted as collective wisdom.

It reminds me of what I had read in Second Standard at the school, the story of ‘Wise Men of Gotham’, where they demonstrate collective foolishness. In some locations the assembly of such individuals is referred to as parliament.

Democracy exacts a price too. Voltaire had remarked, “The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination”. We made poor Benazir Bhutto pay the price of democracy. Imran Khan has largely unblemished 26 years of political/public life under his belt. He however defaulted himself by not training himself for the local political environment. His imagination of a virtuous state and equally noble citizenry was obviously wild and light years away from the reality on ground; he must have known he wasn’t targeting to be prime minister of Sweden or any other Nordic country or even the tiny islands of New Zealand that has noble residents; he knew well, what and where his target was?

In the modest assessment of this scribe, he came into office as a novice, just as Benazir Bhutto had in 1988: largely innocent of the way bureaucracy operates and even more significantly unaware that as PM he would be “led” as a leader than be allowed to lead in the discharge of the onerous responsibility. Reality is stark, but also fully naked, so no claims of ignorance can apply.

Charged with religiosity and its highest standards of governance, he collected an even more fresher than himself a team of the untrained (the temptation to use incompetence has been cast aside).

They were/are mostly honest and upright, whose operative slogan was in absolute contrast to how the Opposition viewed politics as “the art of possibles”.

This one phrase is an overarching concept that licences and allows for breaching of all norms of decency and rules of governance. The pretext being that in politics there is never a point of no return. Everything is reversible and possible.

Richard Nixon had no sense of prophecy when he said, “I am glad I am not a Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin, you never know if someone is tape-recording what you say”. Poor soul had no idea of how a few decades later Pakistani politicians would stand to have mastered the art of tape-recording, surreptitiously of course, but would also be possessed of a wicked intellect that guides on the timing of realising such audio tapes. If Imran Khan had read his memoirs he would not have said the many things that he did (does!).

Street language and behaviour is certainly off the streets, but that it has found home in the parliament, in the unending press conferences, in the umpteen speeches made day in and day out, and regrettably in lower courts; it is a woeful aspect and sordid tale of declining social order.

Name-calling has become rampant. Most distasteful and degrading appellations are made to the names of politicians, judges, parliamentarians and many other people from various walks of life. A couple of days back, a minister, during a press conference, referred to the former prime minister, as not being the ‘son of a man’ — translation of what was said in Urdu loses impact, but in Urdu it sounds so much more vulgar than in English.

This minister must be at least be a decade plus five years younger to the former PM. The sense of respecting elders lies in the oblivion. The more terse one is in expression, the more is the applause from the party members.

This sort of jubilation while insulting others is not restricted to any single party; they are all fully and equally guilty of its use and promotion. The claimant to the throne of Raiwind takes the cake in using derogatory language. Someone must whisper that it doesn’t suit her at all. Nobility requires no crutches of expression. It shows. And it shows, otherwise too.

Decency in all segments of life is a minimum condition for establishing a righteous and just society. Our behaviour in contradiction and adversity is the truest reflection of who we are. The press conferences held to target and maim the opposition, actually unbeknownst to the conductor, end up being an expose on the life and character of his/ her own self. The words chosen indicate the training. Regrettably, all sense of honour and decency has been in the last fifteen years taken to the launderers.

The speech is soiled. Dissent is expressed in vulgar choice of words. The moral character is repulsive — a slur on the concept of good governance. It is hence no wonder that the cries of distress of the common man do not reach or even touch the auditory nerves of the leadership (!).

They are deaf to the pains of the people but extremely willing to lend ears to all that is not good socially, morally or financially. How is it that today nobody sheds even the proverbial crocodile tears or shivers at the thought of the millions of unemployed youth, the many hundreds of families that live on a single meal a day? It is a true state of human horror of errors.

This is an era where the innocent citizen is duped by the pious gestures, by the ability to weep and cry hoarse in public, while simultaneously celebrating poverty of the masses, while conducting their private lives; just see on the television screens the sumptuous meals they serve to each other — the political elite; repulsive and nauseating. Politicians give speeches to make themselves appear as devout; and at the first available opportunity they unfrock the dirtiness of their thoughts and intentions.

The political culture and its dynamics have changed radically; if given these set of circumstances, even Jinnah, Liaqat, Gandhi or Nehru or Zhou Enlai will most likely fail miserably as leaders — unless of course they too would be willing to give up and forgo their respect and unflinching adherence to principles of ethics and morality.

Benazir Bhutto, having lived in political wilderness for very long period, had enriched herself with political acumen and sagacity. If the assassin’s bullet had not taken her out, she would have certainly emerged as a very strong third-time prime minister.

She had learnt the ropes of living in peace with political dissent in Islamabad and with the uniformed Rawalpindi. By citing this as an example the hope is that Imran Khan as a possible strong contender to become a second-time prime minister if fair and free elections are held at any time in the near future.

He is expected to have gained enough political wisdom and astuteness, to deal with issues of running the government and not paralysing it by threats of accountability. The accountability standards must move in tandem with economic growth. Economic growth cannot be stalled; it must keep moving.

Imran Khan would do good to himself if he could replace the knee- jerk reactions with appropriately-worded responses.

He must transition from the impromptu expletives made on the cricket field at the catches dropped by his teammates to a more Nelson Mandela-type responses of restraint, caution and guard. IK, you still represent hope.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023