Five Centuries Ago Tomorrow

Zakk/Ahmadzai: Education is not the only criteria for leadership. However, it is definitely an important criteria for leadership. This has been recognized by voters in advanced countries. In any mature political system (US, UK etc.) nearly all the political leaders are educated. They may not all be Ph.Ds, but an extremely high percentage are at least Bachelor degree holders. This is not a coincidence.

Even more importantly, when it comes to cabinet positions related to technocratic posts (finance ministry, science and technology etc.), and political appointments/nominations to important technical positions (State Bank governor, candidates for Supreme Court, etc.), the appointees are almost always, if not always, experienced people in those areas, usually with a good education. Allan Greenspan, Janet Reno, Robert Rubin, Ashcroft, Paul O`Neil etc.) have all distinguished themselves academically and/or professionally in their respective fields, before they were appointed. Infact they were appointed due to their previous successes.

For example, Rubin is a Harvard/Yale graduate and more importantly was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. He was not the son of a feudal, who just graduated from college - and that too with a degree that has nothing to do with his field.

The people who are appointed ministers to, ``technical`` ministries have to first be able to run their ministries technically. Being a politician is a secondary issue. Their main job is to advise the Prime Minister of the issues and solutions related to their speciality. It is the PM`s job, alongwith the key party leaders, to then take the political situation and votebanks etc. into account.

If a minister basis his decisions on political opportunism, then I am afraid his/her ministry has had it. Which is exactly what happens in Pakistan. Unqualified individuals become ministers. They cannot even understand the issues, much less give solutions. And they stuff their ministries, and its related govt. departments, with their own political cronies.

The minister of S&T needs, ``S&T vision,`` not, ``political vision.`` If he wants to concentrate on political vision, he should aspire for the seat of the Prime Minister, or work in his/her constituency to solidify his/her position. Or he should try for a non-technical position like Information or Religious Ministry, where all he has to do is talk. Not force his lack of knowledge upon the fledgling IT industry of Pakistan.

Ahmadzai and Omair: Interesting points by both of you. My post may also be long!

First off to Omair: I agree with Ahmadzai`s comments; education is no criterion for ``leadership`` (if it was the World would be ld by PH.D`s, in fact some of Pakistan`s biggest criminals are white collar criminals). Politics means a person from a non IT background CAN become a Minister of S&T, the pre requisite is either politcal opportunism appointment or the fact that the man appointed has some ``political vision`` technocrats may be able to administer things well, but they lack an understanding of complex political issues and very little compassion for the people they govern. Many of the decisions made by Shaukat Aziz would be very difficult for an elected government.

It is my understanding of the PTI, that it has no provincial leaders who are as you say Middle class (I maybe wrong on this point). I also see no sign of the PTI sweeping Lahore, unless Imran went the ZAB or Nawaz way (when in power give one dramatic speech against your leader and then quit). His vote bank seems to have stabilised at something over 300,000 votes (per the 60 National seats he contested). With reference to Umer Asghar Khan and Ayaz Amir, Umer Asghar Khan`s death was most unfortunate and tragic, but his performance as a Minister left much to be desired, and considering the sympathy factor his brother should have polled much more votes if he had any chance of winning( i think he only managed 6-7 thousand votes from the NA seat in Abboatabad), with regard to Ayaz Amir, he is a good man, he rightfully should have won his seat in Chakwal (by the way he polled as many votes Imran did in Mianwali) .

Ahmadzai: The PML(Q)`s policy towards the Iraq war and towards the MMA is ambivalent at best. Sheikh rashid Ahmad and the PMl(Q) government is playing a carrot and stick game with the MMA, to pressurise the Jamaat Islami(because of Qazi hussain`s anti govt policy), they suddenly spread the story of the JI being a terrorist organisation with links to Al Qaeda. There has been some debate about the number of Federal Ministries they are willing to offer the parties (specifically excluding the JI and Noorani, and targetting the Deobandi parties) and also warning them if they didn`t play ball the Frontier government would be sacked. Mind you the MMA has gotten used to power pretty fast in the Frontier, their rhetoric about turning the governors house into a Womens University has vanished. In the Iraq case, many of the PML leaders, were those who sat in the famous cabinet meeting with Nawaz Sharif when he decided to test Nuclear Weapons despite the offer of a huge aid package (far more then what is being given to Pakistan now). In any case the pro Iraq sentiment is asically an opposition tactic to build popular support. Lastly, to your first prediction, the polarisation you speak off between the secularists and Islamists in Pakistan is almost disappearing, even among former leftists parties like the PPP, there is a strong feeling of support for Iraq and pan Islamism. The MMA has regained the centre right vote stolen from them in the mid 1990`s by nawaz Sharif and with the Iraq war won support from across the field effectively dominating public discourse, and the once huge divide between secularists and Islamists has collapsed with that. It seems when you look at the mood, that the Islamists have won.

Romair & Zakk:

Red Alert: Long Post.

Few observations:

1. Politicians all over the world are not the best technicians, architects, doctors, agriculturalists, etc. One may be 100 times better than them in his or her field of work, yet politicians have their own competencies that make them just that.

2. I am predicting that nearer the next elections Islamists, if they are able to keep united, will become a formidable force. This would be less because of their own credentials and much more because of what emotional Pakistanis would see happening all over the world to ``Ummah``. When I hear Pakistani TV channels, I get sick to my stomach when our people and leaders (except PML Q ones) talk about such unrealities like Pakistan should ask the Muslim countries to get united and declare Jihad against the USA, Pakistan should call the emergency session of the UN, OIC, NAM to get this or that done, Ummah is being persecuted and Pakistani Government should take a stand, etc. Taking the people calling in from Pakistan and also from UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Middle East and the responses being given to them by our ``experts`` as a representative sample, I am sure that Pakistanis will vote heavily for MMA in the next elections.

3. If you agree with me to the points that (1) Pakistan is not anywhere near of being even accepted as a leader to speak on behalf of Ummah (2) We are incapable of defending ourselves adequately if attacked by the might of the US much less defending any other nation, (3) We do not have any tactical or strategic interests in talking about attacking ``Ummah`s Dushmans`` at this time (4) Ghaiby imdads in the form of Ababeels do not come to help weak nations anymore, then you must agree that the stance being taken by MMA, PML N, PPP and Imran Khan are all wrong. Imran Khan on ARY Digital speaking against the Government states that, ``I don`t know why this Government is so scared of challenging the USA, why does not our Government frankly tells USA that they are wrong in Iraq, etc.?`` I only wanted to advise him what does he think the Government is not doing in the above respect and that he should travel to the middle eastern countries and tell their leaders too to do the same. Obviously, Imran wants to win popular support at this critical juncture.

4. The voices of sanity come only from PML Q (although I am not eligible to vote in Pakistan, if given a choice I would definitely use it for them). Dr. Hameeda Khoro, the light-hearted politician from Sindh, always gets entangled with MMA reps on channels. She tells them planely, ``you are people living in history and in the books, you have no knowledge of the reality.`` Or its Shaikh Rasheed who tells his audience that as people and as opposition you can slander any foreign Government as Kafirs, Islam Dushmans, etc. and burn their flags and effigies, but in the Government we have to use diplomatic language. Or the Baloch PM himself says that it would be difficult for Pakistan to support the USA on its war on Iraq. Or consider the FM Kasoori, who goes at legal lengths to prove his points to the Americans.

Which approach is better? MMA`s or PML Q`s? Let PML Q be the King` s party, but what do our faculties of reasoning and logic tell us?

5. Most importantly, going back to my first prediction, if MMA gains in popularity, a united front will have to develop by itself or artificially to defend their onslaught. I am further predicting that it would be very very difficult for PPP, PML N, TI, MQM, and other parties to find a niche in the divide. It will be Islamists versus Government backed liberals. Whoever misses one of these two boats misses out altogether.

For example, it would be a straight contest between issues like Islami Nizam to bring equality in the world, free dom to Afghanistan, Chechniya, Iraq, etc. versus who gave you Gwadar port, new roads, expansion in steel mill therefore, more jobs, etc. People like Imran Khan would not be able to find their niche between these two agendas.

Your views please?

what sheer nonsense. what was so good about ottomans rule which is relevant to modern times. it was just another medieval emipe. on one hand you people complain about the emerging u.s. imperialistic designs but on the other hand imperialism by muslims was/is just fine. forget about the greeks and the other europeans, even the arabs hate their former rulers (the ottoman turks) - no one likes to be ruled by others. in the olden days that`s how things were - but in the post-WWII era its now considered unacceptable and hence the opposition of many to the u.s. invasion of iraq - and you want to revert back to it - an empire?

Ahmadzai/Zakk: Interesting points.

Politics and votes are a very fluid phenomenon - at least in the urban areas in Pakistan. As I stated earlier, people come in with a bang, after lying in the shadows for a long time. Like the MMA just did.

Imran Khan has matured greatly as a politician. He is no longer the naive man who started out a few years ago. He understands the game. But he is not in it for personal benefits. He is married to one of the wealthiest women in England. He himself is perhaps the best known international figure of South Asia. Politics can only ruin his image, it cannot help it. And it has ruined his image. Yet he is in it. One must admire that.

PTI could have formed an alliance with PML(N) a few years ago, and won around 25 seats, when PML swept. PTI would then have been a major political force now. Also, I am quite sure Musharraf was ready to somehow or the other, make Imran Khan the head of the coalition he was putting together. Musharraf is quite fond of him, though Imran is no longer fond of Musharraf.

These were not stupid mistakes, they were deliberate actions. PTI is a young party, and its leader`s goal is to go into power solo, as a leading party and not a following one. That is the only way to bring change. Otherwise if the aim was to just get into power, there have been plenty of opportunities.

In my opinion, PTI can only win the urban vote, and that too in NWFP and Punjab. Lahore is the key. It needs to win Lahore like MQM used to win Karachi. That will give it the foothold it needs.

PTI candidates are non-electable, because they are educated upper-middle class professionals in many cases. The leaders are dentitsts, doctors, lawyers, retired military and beaurecrats, etc. They are not feudals, pirs, baridari leaders, etc. Pakistan`s real politics is in the rural areas, even though all the commentary on politics comes from writers who live in Lahore and Karachi.

At the expense of sounding biased, my father would have been far better for his constituency than the people who have been running it. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If for no other reason, then the PML and PPP winners, over the past thirty years, have done nothing. Zilch. But what chance does he have of winning. Very little. He, himself knows he has no chance of winning in the short term. Yet he wants to improve the area where he grew up (60% of my family is in Kashmir, 40% moved to Punjab). What else can he do, but join some party like PTI, since PML and PPP are proven looters. The other option is to join MMA, but he (and I) have ideological differences with MMA. I like my MTV and so does he, while MMA does not. (Having said that, after seeing the looting of PML and PPP, 2 times out of 3, I would prefer MMA over PPP and PML. The MMA may kill the patient (probably will kill), but the other two have proven that they will definitely kill the patient. )

Most of the IT professionals participating on Chowk (including me) are far more qualified than the 31 year politics graduate who is currently the Minister of S&T in Pakistan. He could barely get an entry level jobs in a companies that we work for or run. Yet he is Leghari`s son, so he becomes an MNA (after completing his BA from a mediocre US university) and then becomes a minister. Such is Pakistani politics. How does one fight that?

The first step is for the leader to get elected. This has happened. Then people start taking the party seriously. They realize that it can maybe protect them against the police and opposition badmashes. Pakistani political parties are nothing more than the leader`s name. Everyone has to cling to a strong leader to win. Bhutto, Nawaz, Wali Khan, Imran, Asghar Khan, Altaf Hussain (to a smaller extent), etc.

What happens from there, is anyone`s guess. What I do know is that I follow two politicians in Pakistan. One is Imran Khan and the other is Omar Asghar Khan. The later would have succeeded where his father didin`t and was definitely very good Prime Minister material - better than even Imran Khan.

One has to be a bit idealistic in such situations, and at least be thankful that there are decent Pakistanis, who are big time philanthrapists, highly educated, with progressive views, who are at least willing to enter politics and fight it out against all odds (unlike the rest of us, who just talk). Politics is extremely frustrating and financially damaging, if one does not at least win one out of every two elections. It requires a lot of conviction. One has to make deals with the devil to succeed. And if one doesn`t, then one may not succeed. But if one does succeed, without making deals, one comes to power with his/her integrity intact.

Ayaz Amir is another politician that I respect. He was an MPA from Nawaz`s party in Chakwal. He voluntarily resigned, while NS was in power, since he got sick of the PML, and the influence of the PML MNAs in his area. This time he competed again, but from the same party (PML-N), while the previous PML MNA(s) from Chakwal, jumped ship and joined PML(Q). I hate Nawaz Sharif, but I would have voted for Ayaz Amir.

Ahmadzai and Omair: Interetsig points both of you have put across. I would not be averse to see Tehrik-e-iNsaf grow into a political third force in Pakistan, or in fact any group which represents a more positive, representative class of Pakistani society(many would argue the MMA is in fact that third force having combined the pashtun vote and made inroads into urban Punjab and Sindh).

Some of my own personal coments though about PTI: In NWFP, Imran Khan polled 3rd in Swat and Karak National Assembly seats with a decent number of votes in each constituency. Not a bad performance considering both opponents were contesting from alliance platforms. In some provincial constituencies they polled enough votes to have swung the seat to another party if they had been in alliance. It is important to remember few parties would consider an alliance with Imran Khan because they did not think he had any electoral potential.

In Punjab, the party came across the full power of the PML(Q) and the ``establishment`` Punjab tends to vote pro establishment in any case, and in Lahore the PML(N) protest vote swept the city. There is a book about electoral politics in Punjab between 1988-1997 which is an interesting read about the dynamics of electoral politics in Punjab.
Omair is most definitely right when he says the Urban voters vote for the winners, but if that was totally true, Tahirul Qadri would not have won from Lahore. On the flip side I found it very encouraging that an outsider could win from Mianwali, considering the force of his opponent and the fact that Imran had little connection with his families home town.

In Baluchistan, the PTI didn`t stand a chance. Generally the PML doesnt win any seats but the independant sardars tend to join it after the election.

Sind was interesting again, if I remember right in dadu and in Karachi Tehrik e insaf provincial candidates on 2 seats were leading at one point.
So the theory of ethnic or feudal voting doesn`t always hold true. In the end it`s a question of professionalsim. Imran Khan doesn`t seem to be able to manage the party professionally, whether that`s because of his own ego centric style of running the party or otherwise. But as long as he doesn`t run it better it will end up becoming a person centred, party like the PML(Q)

Ona final note, Ahmadzai, I would imagine Imran would ally himself with the MMA, while Omair is right Imrans been offered quite a bit and refused, whether that was because of ambition or principle remains to be seen. I personally think Imran would have more in common with the PML(N)...in his focus appealin to the centre right vote.

Haroon Mughal--brother I agree with you 100%. Pan-Islamic unity based on some model is the only hope left for the Muslim nations of the world whether it is based on the Ottoman Model which was ruled by a mixture of Hanafi fiqh and Qanun-i-Sultani or another Islamic model.

Bring back the great Ottomans indeed! Interestingly I think that the next real Islamic power will actually be in Turkey...

dost-mittar: The whole idea of falling back to the fantasized history in order to corrct the problems of the present is rubbish. Why stop at Muslim Empires and not going all the way back to hunter gatherer societies solving most of the modern world problems - no alcoholism, no DWI, no WMD, no environmental problems, no urban problems, no banking and therefore no interest on savings etc etc.

Time and again in modern world and in the current war also have we seen the superiority of science and technology and modern organizations over theoretical philosophical concepts based on assumptions. Anybody who thinks to solve world problems using old religious manuscripts is a stupid, the least.

The religious toleration was seldom practiced in the history of the world. Both Muslims and Christians have a history of demolishing or scavenging the local cultural and religious places. It is forgotton once majority accepts the new religion. There were religions in Europe and America before Christianity too and many Christian churches were built over the previous worship places and Muslims did the same to wherever they went.

We are entitled to our fantasies, howsoever delusionary they might be. In the meantime, it would be a good idea for the Arab League, if not the OIC, to show some spine.
I think the tolerant nature of the Ottomans/Turks is overrated. I recently visited both Vienna and Budapest. Both cities have strong and unpleasant memories of the Turkish rule. In Budapest, the holiest church (St. Stephen`s Bassilica) was converted into a mosque when the Turks captured the city. The place has been reconverted into a church but a part of the inside wall still has an Islamic architecture.

Romair & Zakk:

I had couple of opportunities to listen to Imran Khan while canvassing in the NWFP. Last elections were bad for Imran for the following developments:

1. The Pushtoon belt had decided to vote for MMA because of their anti-American stance.

2. In Punjab, PML Q had open and not so open support of Military Government. PML Q had simple agenda - ground reality. They would like to have democracy again, yet not confront the Military Government head-on.

3. In the rural Punjab and Sindh and in Balochistan, feudals are too strong to be challenged by parties like TI.

4. I agree with you that people saw Imran as an honest man, but they also recognized that with TI, his agenda (Change and Insaaf) was undeliverable.

IMHO, Imran does not stand a chance in future. MMA/Islamists would be so strong that a combined front of progressive liberal parties will have to be put up so that the USA does not have any misgivings about our political set-up. If the liberal parties do not unite then MMA will be a sure winner. My guess is that if Imran would like his TI to participate in any future elections, he too will have to join a front. My further guess is that he will rather unite behind MMA than PML.

I also see that in case MMA/Islamists win the next elections due to rifts in our liberal parties (i.e. all factions of PML, NA and PPP) then for the elections after that all the liberal parties will have to unite or there will be only one liberal party left to challenge Islamists.

What I am suggesting is that nearer next elections, we will be witnessing a closer 2 party or rather 2 united front elections system - Islamists versus liberals. All parties will have to decide which of these two ways to go.

Zakk #33: The article you have quoted is, one the whole, quite accurate. Also, you are correct about the Lahore result. I had confused Imran Khan`s seat with Mian Azhar`s. I thought Imran was standing against Hafiz Salman, where the result was 25,000 to 21,000. However, Imran was from a different Lahore seat.

I had stated in pre-election replies that if PTI got 5-8 seats, it would be a good start. And Imran Khan had himself stated, for the previous elections, that 3 seats was the most PTI could get (it ended up getting zero).

The article does miss out one point, i.e. the background under which elections in Pakistan are fought. Uptil this election, and the success of the MMA, 2/3rd of the seats go to feudals. PTI only has an odd feudal. Hence it only competes for the 1/3rd urban seats.

Even on those seats, with an educated electorate, and limited baradari votes, people only vote for people whom they think can win. This was a surprising revelation to me, i.e. people do not vote for the person whom they know to be the most honest and most capable. They will admit the person is the best, but will not vote for him/her. They try to get on the bandwagon of the successful candidate. The logic being that Pakistan is a society where badmashes rule. And one must protect one`s self against the other person`s badmash. And it is better to vote for an electable badmash, who will at least protect you from the other badmash, even if he destroys, your city, then to vote for a good person, who may not get elected.

Any party would love to have Imran Khan as a member. They would offer him the Presidentship, Senate Chairmanship type position. Zia wanted him to be a Senator. Nawaz offered PTI thirty or more seats when PML swept. And I think Musharraf wanted him to become the leader of a joint coalition in the govt. He refused all three. This would be considered political suicide by anyone.

I think his aim is for his party to come into power as a main party, and not on the coattails of others, who it is very critical of. Pakistani political parties are nothing but their main leaders, If you go to any of their websites, they just promote their leader. PPP is Bhutto, PML is Nawaz Sharif, and PTI is Imran. MMA is one of the only ones, which is somewhat above its leaders.

So the first step is for the leader to get elected. If he cannot get elected, by hook or by crook, then people will continue to vote for their normal badmashes, and no other candidate in his party has a chance. If he gets elected, then people start thinking, ``Well maybe these guys do have some staying power.`` Once the leader is in, then anything can happen. Things change in waves. PPP, MQM and now MMA came into power with a bang, with complete succcesses in one election, i.e from no seats to a huge number of seats.

This is what I am hoping for for PTI. If it doesn`t happen, then what alternatives does Pakistan have: PML/PPP feudals (who are all related to each other across parties, and thus one and the same). MQM thugs who discriminate ethnically. And MMA maulvis who want to move back to the 8th century.......

Ne Afghanem wa na Turk wa Tatreem
Chaman Zadeem wa Az Yak i Shahsarim
Tameez i Rang O boo Bar ma Haram Asat
Ke ma parwrda i Yak no baharaim

I think its undesrible and impractical to revive Ottoman style monacrchy. Something on the pattern of European Union ( Base must be Touheed and not money ) can be a practical solution.

ROmair: Just an observation; Imran Khan lost his Lahore seat by a fairly big margin, there was this interesting article posted in the Nation sometime back about Tehrik-e-insaf. The party seems sadly lacking any level of professionalism. On another note, I was surprised that PTI didn`t win at the very elast a provincial seat from Mianwali!:

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/mar-.../EDITOR/op3.asp
Imran Khan`s dilemma
Asghar Butt
Mr Imran Khan was being interviewed a few days back on a TV channel catering to a Pakistani audience. He offered a detailed explanation for the failure of his Tehrik-i-Insaf to secure more than one seat in the National Assembly. Without going into the merits of his case, another explanation of what may have happened is being offered.
Imran Khan, whose fame primarily rests on his cricketing achievements and secondarily on his untiring efforts to build a Cancer Hospital, has had a less than fortunate innings in politics. After two general elections, in the first of which the Tehrik-i-Insaf, could not win even a single seat, and in the second, he won only his own seat from Mianwali, he and his party are nowhere. Why? He has many assets. His name is a household word. He is young, energetic and goodlooking. He is very popular among the younger people. He is known to have courage and an unblemished record in money matters. That compares favourably with many in and out of power today. And yet on polling day these assets could not be encashed. Ironically, reward came not for his services to the country but from the Niazi biradri of his ancestral district of Mianwali.
Imran, during his political campaigns past and present, had urged voters not to elect those whose appeal lay in their money, biradari or glib talk of doing everything for everybody, but for the honest and the upright. That appeal did not work in Lahore, from where he contested a city seat. Would it have worked even in Mianwali had he not been a Niazi? It did not work for any of his party`s candidates anywhere. So was his appeal for electing the honest and the upright wrong? Not necessarily. The problem with that appeal is that not just the Tehrik is making it, it comes from many other platforms, including those of all the religious parties. The advantage that other parties had over the Tehrik was that depending on the audience, additional popular slogans were added . In NWFP and Balochistan, religion and anti-American slogans were added to the claim of honesty by the religious parties.
Apart from that, the real challenge before Imran was to break into the strongholds of the two mainstream parties, the PPP and the PML which had by turn been in power before the military takeover. Had either been in power at election time, its record could be attacked and its mis-steps exploited by a newcomer to attract the voters` attention. With both having been out of power, their challenger had nothing to nail them down. Indeed, their political adversity gave them both an aura of martyrdom. As for the PML(Q), the `King`s party` label foisted on it by its detractors did not inflict too much damage because of a strange anomaly. The anomaly being that while most voters were against the military rule the PML(Q) seemingly condoned, they were not averse to the political, economic and social reforms the military had introduced. By owning them as part of their agenda, some PML(Q) candidates actually managed to sail on the military`s coattails. And, of course, many PML(Q) politicians had personal constituencies where they had worked for long. All these factors combined to hinder a newcomer from encroaching on rival turf. That was aggravated by an untested candidate`s not readily earning the voters` confidence.
That is part of the problem for a newcomer, though not really an insurmountable one. The real problem lies with the message of a new party. Most Pakistani parties, including the Tehrik, have similar programmes. So there is not much of a choice for a voter, except for the capability and resolve of the party leaderships to deliver on the promises made to the electorate. In the Tehrik`s case, a voter may well have asked whether the party had anything different or special to offer. The answer probably was that the party would ensure Insaf in society. Injustices between haves and have-nots, and rich and poor, are common enough. Therefore Imran`s slogan ought to have gone home. It did not. Probably because the common man associates the system of justice with the police and the courts, about both of which he is deeply sceptical. But even if he has no scepticism and believes in the ability of a party like the Tehrik to reform the police and the courts, he may have asked himself whether the foremost need of his life is justice. The majority of our people have very little contact with the police and the courts. Their needs and priorities are likely to be different.
Bhutto swept the polls some decades back on the slogan of Roti Kapra aur Makan. Similarly, Indira Gandhi revived her political fortunes in India on the slogan of Gharibi Hatao. These slogans seemed to have touched a chord in the people`s hearts and pointedly answered their needs, which neither the slogan of Air Marshal Asghar Khan`s Tehrik-i-Istiqlal, nor Imran`s Tehrik-i-Insaf did in October. Yet no candidate can afford to go overboard promising things. To tell the electorate there would be jobs for everyone and no one will sleep hungry at night, is nice but hardly deliverable. Keeping within the realm of the possible and yet addressing the masses` basic needs, a suitable party slogan can be very helpful, provided the party has an infrastructure, including a well-organised network of offices. That has to be followed up by door-to-door canvassing by the party workers and candidates. Ideally there should be a membership recruitment drive and when a sufficient number of members have been recruited, election to party offices should be held. All these are elementary things known to politicians but one wonders if Imran paid them any attention.
In my constituency in Lahore, there was a cloth banner of the Tehrik-i-Insaf candidate during the elections but nothing else. No one called seeking votes. No pamphlet, letter or any other material was mailed to us. Others I spoke to had the same story to tell. I was even told of Imran once deliberately avoiding meeting a group of workers. He may be shy personally, and mixing with the commoners may not be one of his strong points, but such traits detract from a leader`s mass appeal.
With a relatively weak slogan and a programme that does not inspire, to start with, with less than vigorous candidates, with an organisation weak in manpower and finances, how far could Imran or his party go? His sincerity and resolve to set things right, added to his other assets can move matters a little, but can hardly create the momentum needed for a new party to make its mark.
E-mail queries and comments to: asgharbutt@nation.com.pk

Pankaj

Sir, will you keep your advice to yourself. We are dealing with laton ke bhoot.

The future looks kind of bleak at the moment.....

Ras

Haroon

You have really vetted my appitite for history. Our history books are not worth the paper they are written on. Please correct me on the following:

(a) The Ottoman Empire was a liberal secular empire.

(b) After its break up, it were the Saudi`s who propagated the radical Wahabism and fuelled it by the oil money and spread its theme to other countries such as Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt etc. Saudi tribal culture came to be associated with Islam.

(c) Iraq remained liberal secular state because of its origins. Ghaus-e-Azam and Sufism with its base in Baghdad.

(d) In Iraq, the Shias and Sunnis have no problem with each other. But Saudi Arabia continues to have problems with Iran.

(e) Is Iraq, therefore, a true descendant of the Ottoman Empire.

Perhaps, we need another article by you on this theme.