Akhtar Khan (M.Phil Politics & IR)
The institution of leadership passing through an amazing challenge in recent because leaders always tried to attract masses by popular slogans without realizing the fact that rhetoric made by them are far away from the ground realities. They claim to achieve high political goals and moral values to work out before coming into power. And once they come in power, they feel themselves in dilemma because of their inability to deal with the challenges.
This approach results into political frustration at both ends; political leaders and the masses as well. It doesn’t mean that rhetoric is not practicable and shouldn’t be exercise in political arena. It is a common phenomenon in all democratic societies to address the wish list of general public and putting those demands on the agenda. It is made for the convenience of the people to learn them about their end political product.
Rhetoric based politics is not only being experienced in developing countries but it is a strong political weapon in developed countries also. For example, in 2008 presidential election campaign, the slogan used by Barak Obama was “Change”. But after assuming the charge in white house, he continued most of his policies which were tailored by Bush administration. War on terror, withdrawal strategy from Iraq and economic model approaches are the main examples to refer here.
Likewise in India, Modi also continued Dr. Manmohan policies by having a side to be America’s strategic partner in Asia and moreover, he continued predecessor’s attempt to intervene in the Afghan matters as “soft power”. So it can be rightly said that jingle and rhetoric are only used for popularity and political mobility. It has a very limited impact on changing the policies working on the ground.
Imran Khan also faced the same upshot in terms of rhetorical approach. He made such political and economic commitments which were never easy to accomplish. Either he overestimated his ability to deal with the challenges or under estimate the magnitude of the challenges came in his political cross road. During power he never found himself in comfort zone against his political promises which he made before coming into power. Performance based slogans made him popular among the masses but he was not so prepare to deal with them. Moreover after stepping back from the power, he made his position even more complex.
In countries like Pakistan, it is very easy to shift political failure to other stakeholders. To be anti-establishment has become a fashion and all political leaders did this in the history of Pakistan to justify their failure and short sighted political goals. In doing so, Imran Khan blamed the state apparatus and system by claiming that the same never allowed him to stretch his political mussels.
So the cost of this phenomenon is obvious in both ways. Firstly, the chances of growing ability and emergence of political leaders become limited and society remained leaderless. Secondly, mistrust of the people on political process became inevitable. People do not perceive this situation as failure of Imran Khan though it is, but they observe that the system is not capable to deliver.
In both of the situation, state is at the losing end. The institution of leadership which is the main pillar of a democratic system becomes weaker and weaker and it amounts to a leaderless society. Leading masses now has become an art in a modern state otherwise it would have been very easy to leave state matters on behalf of technocrats and some other highly professional managers. At the same time, people lose confidence on the system and chaos may take place very easily. Countries like Pakistan where this situation is likely to happen are at high risk to be intervened by some those forces who can lead society to a wrong direction.
On the other hand, there are two ways to handle this situation. One is to made rhetoric on the basis of rationality and the other one which is more suitable is to convert rhetoric into performance. In 2003 when Recep Tayyip Erdogan came into power, his main promises were to handle the economic crisis from which Turkey was passing through since 2001 and to reinstate the position of Turkey in regional politics. Addressing to first promise, he tripled the size of Turkish economy and attract massive investment from in and out sources by winning the confidence of investors. Secondly, he affianced with Europe to renegotiate the membership in EU. He also engaged with Muslim world to restore its political position. By working realistically on his approach, Erdogan won the next consecutive general elections and constitutional referendums and still he is unbeaten.
The righteous way to tackle this confront is to keep balance between the rhetoric and rationale approach. Rhetoric only made for public consumption; it is rationality which can convert political dreams into reality. Leaders who rely only on making statements and don’t occupy the wisdom to put their word into veracity have very short political career. In dealing with rhetoric and rationality, the balance must lie with the rationality
The irony of Pakistani politics is that we have leaders without rational approach. We are a nation without political leaders which we deserve otherwise leadership would have been able to have deep understanding and in depth knowledge of the challenges with which we are contesting since independence. A number of leaders came into our political scenario and met with the same doom after a short political career due to their incapability. Decades have been passed and we as a nation found ourselves at the same place from where we started our journey. Of course, all institutions are like state organs and to facilitate the government in office but it is you who need to consolidate your power and transform it into good governance and service delivery. Hands can only prepare and put meal into your mouth, it is you who have to masticate your meal and convert it into your potency.
