P. J. The libertarian conservative comic P. J. O’Rourke used the phrase “she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters” to justify his vote for Democratic Party nominee Hilary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election.
Though O’Rourke’s views may have been more in line with those of the Republican Party, his views on what constitutes a normal and abnormal politician led him to reject the candidate of the party he supported.
I started to wonder if other Pakistanis had the same thoughts after reading this incident. Every nation has norms regarding what constitutes normalcy in politics, including what can and cannot be done. There are politicians whose opinions we disagree with. However, their actions are within the bounds of normalcy.
Professional politicians typically follow these guidelines. Celebrities enter politics with bombast, threats, and behaviors that blatantly defy the political conventions of their nation in an attempt to capitalize on the annoyance and dissatisfaction that the public feels toward professional politicians.
Exist any standards of appropriate behavior in Pakistan? Furthermore, can electoral democracy work well without these guidelines? In the absence of military authority, Pakistan’s political system operates in four nearly foreseeable phases.
threeIn the first stage, a politician wins an election that many of his or her rivals believe was rigged. Stage two involves the leader being fired or removed from office, and Stage three involves the leader being barred from running in any future election. When the formerly well-liked and elected leader is detained and accused, stage four begins.
Politicians can act in a way that helps them regain power even in this cycle of elect-dismiss-disqualify-arrest. For people who don’t agree with them, that would be considered incorrect under regular circumstances. However, an outsider star could view his “overwhelming popularity” as a means of challenging the status quo in politics. The choice to act outside the bounds of normalcy could energize anti-establishment politicians’ followers and cult-like adherents. However, it deters a lot of people who dislike disruptions.
Pakistan,The average person typically favors improvements to chaos-free lives.That is the main cause of disruptive politicians’ failure after their initial shock value wears off. Reminding people of the reasons why revolutions are rare is crucial, especially in Pakistan, where many have a fondness for revolutionary rhetoric. It’s never simple to persuade the vast majority of people to sacrifice stability in favor of some utopia.
Pakistan’s politicians not only need to define the bounds of conventional politics but also need to concentrate on becoming more self-aware and appreciative of the need of humility. Popularity and public backing are powerful combinations.
They have the power to sometimes take over a person and convince them that any criticism is coming from their foes. For this reason, it is purported—though not proven beyond a reasonable doubt—that Roman emperors felt it was important to be reminded of their mortality during their heyday. During triumphal parades, the emperor was continuously reminded to look behind him by someone standing behind him. Recall that you are a man. [Repare after you! Memento te hominem!].
The Roman emperors were not the only ones who exercise prudence. In 1937, Jawaharlal Nehru, one of India’s founding fathers, authored a self-criticism article and had it published anonymously under the alias Chanakya. The article discussed Nehru’s popularity, status, and influence in addition to his ability to control the throne. However, it said,In a democracy, men like Jawaharlal, with all their potential for great and good work, are unsafe. He identifies as both a socialist and a democrat.However, every psychologist is aware that the heart ultimately controls the mind and that human nature can always be bent to accommodate the will and insatiable cravings of the individual. With a slight adjustment, Jawaharlal may become a despot.
During his lengthy tenure (1947–1964) as the first prime minister of an independent India, Nehru never behaved in a dictatorial manner. If anything, Nehru should be acknowledged for having laid the groundwork for India’s constitutional democracy experiment, which has proven to be successful. Nehru resisted the urge to succumb to his autocratic tendencies, which were shown in the article he wrote about himself.
Years later, when Nehru was prime minister of India, C. L. Sulzberger, a journalist for the New York Times, questioned him about the authenticity of the column in which he attacked himself. He admitted, “Yeah, I wrote it for fun and sent it to a woman friend who published it.” No one suspected that I was the writer. Gandhi was so furious that he believed an enemy was pursuing him. Sulzberger questioned Nehru about the accuracy of his assessment of his character. “I guess this is early evidence that a man will never give in to such weaknesses if he can recognize them in himself and talk about them,” he retorted.
The present leaders of Pakistan, with a few notable exceptions, rarely admit their errors, weaknesses, or bad habits in public. Nor is there much evidence that they do so in private.
Because of the “Maula Jatt” political ethos in Pakistan, everyone is expected to trumpet their own achievements. There’s also no shortage of acolytes, who feed the haughty illusions of both populists and dynasts. Narcissism is common among celebrities. But in Pakistan, not even career politicians have someone to serve as a constant reminder of their own mortality.
Pakistan’s political leaders should be invited to write an auto-criticism akin to Nehru’s 1937 Chanakya piece, in addition to defining the parameters within which they will confront the nation’s establishment and each other in their quest for power. It is likely that only individuals who are prepared to own up to their shortcomings will be able to spare an already troubled country from suffering from these shortcomings.
