Similar to many developing nations, Pakistan grapples with the endemic challenges of political corruption, pervasive double standards, and a questionable commitment to the well-being of its citizens. Within the intricate tapestry of Pakistani politics, a disconcerting reality emerges — politicians, rather than championing societal progress, appear to prioritize the accumulation of personal wealth. This palpable double standards exhibited by politicians in Pakistan, laying bare their apparent indifference to the public's welfare and their readiness to endorse military intervention when it aligns with their self-interest.
Whether it is the Sharif family, the Zardari clan, the relatives of Maulana Fazal, or leaders from the PTI and other political parties, one common thread binds them all — a noticeable increase in their wealth. However, what remains to be seen is the tangible impact they have had on the lives of ordinary citizens. Despite the considerable affluence of these politicians, a staggering 60% of Pakistanis continue to live below the poverty line.
Nawaz Sharif, who has once again assumed the position for his fourth term as the Premier, is yet to provide satisfactory answers regarding his London apartments. The questions surrounding the sources of his wealth and assets persist, leaving the common man seeking accountability and transparency from those who hold the reins of power.
Consider, for example, the ritual of politicians declaring their assets before elections or annually. A scrutiny of these asset declarations and their tax returns often reveals a stark disparity, with their assets significantly undervalued. Some even omit personal possessions such as cars from these declarations. Yet, when observed in public, these very politicians traverse the streets in opulent, high-end vehicles.
The incongruity becomes more apparent when one compares the tax burden shouldered by an average salaried individual with that of most politicians. It is disconcerting that a common taxpayer often contributes more to the national exchequer than many politicians who, paradoxically, assert their entitlement to govern in the name of democracy. This dissonance in tax contributions and perceived entitlement raises pertinent questions about the fairness and equity of the political system.
Another concerning trend is observed in politicians contesting from multiple constituencies, prioritizing personal gains over the democratic process and placing a strain on the national budget. In this regard, politicians show reluctance to legislate against such practices, emphasizing their individual interests over national welfare.
The authenticity of politicians' commitment to democracy becomes evident when examining the recent Senate resolution proposing the postponement of elections. Elections constitute the foundation of any democratic system, yet in Pakistan, a legislative body is endorsing a resolution to delay elections, seemingly to appease influential entities. If the Senate continues to play such a role, the nation might be better served without its presence.
Another concerning trend is observed in politicians contesting from multiple constituencies, prioritizing personal gains over the democratic process and placing a strain on the national budget. In this regard, politicians show reluctance to legislate against such practices, emphasizing their individual interests over national welfare. In contrast, India restricts candidates from contesting in more than two seats, highlighting a more disciplined approach to electoral participation. However, in Pakistan, the absence of such limitations allows individuals to contest from numerous seats without restraint. This discrepancy raises questions about the commitment of Pakistani politicians to the principles of democracy and their responsibility to the national interest.
When confronted with criticism regarding their lack of interest in improving the life standards of the common people, politicians often deploy democracy as a shield. Accusations are flung, suggesting that critics are sympathetic to military rule or failed to condemn past military regimes. While the condemnation of military rule is crucial, it is imperative to question politicians about the escalating gap between their burgeoning wealth and the declining standard of living for Pakistani citizens.
An increasing number of individuals in Pakistan are leaning towards a disillusioned viewpoint regarding the current state of democracy. The prevailing sentiment suggests that if democracy equates to politicians merely enriching themselves without delivering substantial benefits to the populace, then perhaps military rule is preferable. Under military governance, the argument goes, there would be a clear and identifiable leader, establishing a semblance of order and accountability.
This sentiment arises from the frustration of many citizens who perceive the current democratic system as plagued by self-serving politicians. The prospect of military rule is viewed by some as a means to instill a sense of responsibility among those in power, providing a straightforward hierarchy that contrasts with the perceived chaos of democratic governance.
Growing calls for military rule underscore the urgent need for reforms that restore public trust in democratic processes and ensure that elected officials genuinely prioritize the well-being and progress of the nation.
Moreover, those advocating for a shift towards military rule often cite the potential elimination of financial resources expended on parliamentary activities. Assemblies and their sessions are seen as costly endeavors, especially when a significant portion of politicians seems detached from legislative responsibilities. Many elected officials lack a comprehensive understanding of legislative intricacies, and when laws are enacted, the public perceives them as not primarily designed for the betterment of the common people.
This growing (and troubling) inclination towards military rule reflects a yearning for efficiency, order, and a perceived sense of purpose in governance, as opposed to the disillusionment stemming from the perceived self-serving nature of politicians within the democratic framework. Even though there is ample historical evidence that martial law descends into uncontrollable authoritarianism, growing calls for military rule underscore the urgent need for reforms that restore public trust in democratic processes and ensure that elected officials genuinely prioritize the well-being and progress of the nation.
Interrogating the dichotomy between their professed commitment to democracy and the palpable deterioration in the well-being of the populace becomes essential. The invocation of democracy as a defense mechanism should not serve as a smokescreen to obscure legitimate concerns about the disconnect between political rhetoric and tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.
A further dimension of the double standards within Pakistani politics is the selective amnesia exhibited by politicians in their alliances with the military. While ostensibly advocating for democracy and civilian rule, politicians display a willingness to align with the military when it serves their political interests. This opportunistic collaboration undermines democratic principles and fosters a volatile political environment.
The challenges faced by Pakistan in terms of political double standards, corruption, and a lack of genuine interest in improving the life standards of its citizens are critical issues that demand attention. The disconnect between the political elite and the common people is a troubling reality that impedes progress and development. As citizens continue to demand accountability and transparency, the hope is that a new era of politics in Pakistan will emerge—one where the well-being of the people takes precedence over personal gain and political opportunism.
There is no denying that military rule has inflicted significant damage on Pakistan in the past, proving to be an unsuitable form of government for our ethnically diverse nation. However, if politicians fail to undertake necessary course corrections and prioritize the interests of the people over their personal agendas, citizens may find themselves compelled to embrace a governing system where politicians are consigned to the annals of history. It is imperative for political leaders to recognize the gravity of this situation and redirect their focus toward serving the collective well-being of the nation.