What was Jinnah's Pakistan? Constitutionalism (never mind if it was the India Act of 1935), rule of law, good governance, highest standards of probity, and a tolerant society (where mandir, masjid, and girja could co-exist) were the defining elements. The 'steel frame' of a competent and neutral civil service was there to guard the edifice.
What was people's Pakistan? Beyond great hope and faith in the leadership, it was one marked with impoverishment of every kind. Their need of a decent living - roti, kapra aur makan - came before the want of good governance.
What is Imran's Pakistan? It promises to be largely the same as Jinnah's - with the same challenges and same resolve, albeit with lesser concern, for the minorities and a significant add-on of a welfare state. Jinnah did not invoke the State of Madinah, and the Scandinavian countries had yet to establish themselves as a role-model to all who aspired to the trappings of a welfare state.
What about the people? Their needs remain the same - and come before the wants of good governance. Plus, they have the add-on of great expectations, and can be excused for conflating end of corruption with the end of their misery.
It is not that good governance doesn't have a nexus with the well-being of the people. They just can't fathom the extent to which its trickle-down effects will change their lives. Is 'rule of law' the tune they swing to? Is 'justice for all', processed and delivered in an alien language, lost in translation? How long before macroeconomic stability translates into a more secure economic future for them? What do they do with GDP growth that does not include them?
Of course, rule of law, good governance, and sound macroeconomic indicators matter. But what is our audience for this narrative? It is worrisome if the audience consists of less than one percent of a 208 million strong populace. Where does the aam admi come into in this vigorous debate among the literati on 'to go to the IMF or not', is public debt a boon or a bane, or if merit is the sole criterion for appointment of Chief Minister Punjab?
The aam admi can't relate to this highfalutin debate of the cognoscenti. His questions are simple, but the answers complex. "How will my son get a job" bags the answer "let the economy grow 7% a year for several consecutive years". "How do I get bijli" is answered in terms of distribution and transmission issues, and the 'load factor' of his village. The rising costs of food items are explained away by the trends in international commodity prices and the pass-through effect of a weakening rupee. Some cold comfort!
The rule of law, eminently desirable, rarely takes into account extenuating circumstances; nor does it admit that sometimes law can be an ass. The family of four riding a motorbike is of course violating the law, but what choices do they have when reasonable public transport is non-existent? The car mechanic is wrong when he keeps his 10-year-old as 'help' rather than in school, but to him his cost-benefit analysis is on the dot. Yes, the man in Dera Murad is guilty of breaking the law on child marriage but in his universe going against custom is the bigger crime.
To him governance is all about thana and katcheri, and he is mortified of them. His safety comes from the 'protection' of the electable, not the local judge and most certainly not the police. Pious hope of good governance delivering him of servitude to the local powers is at best a post-dated cheque that has a habit of bouncing. Isn't it suicidal then for him to rebel against his wadera?
Lofty ideals of justice have not filtered down to the wretched of the earth. They don't understand the system, can't afford a lawyer, or the long years it will take for them to get justice. He would rather go for the rough and ready system that he is familiar with: the wadera as the mediator or the Jirga as the court.
The divide between the one percent and ninety-nine is a bit Martian; they seem to inhabit different worlds. It is more than being rich or poor, or a matter of vocabulary. It is different sets of value that set them apart.
Public lynching is odious to the one percent. They consider honour killings to be barbaric. They look upon Jirgas as a relic of tribalism that has no place in a modern state. The ninety-nine percent find them perfectly legit.
How do we reconcile the opposing worldviews of the two?
Imran Khan seems to have an intuitive feel for the problem. His audience for his address to the nation was the ninety-nine percent. The once percent lost the plot in their adulation of the speech. He deliberately eschewed their language. It was not through oversight that he did not go into the minutiae of the economy or foreign policy. He went for majoritarianism. He knows his austerity measures won't balance the books, but it resonates with people. They love it, despite the incredulity of it, when he asks the Civil Servants to treat them as VIPs. They have waited so long to become ineligible for zakat!
But does IK have a credible road map, with each milestone marked with a date? His team makes us wonder. Not that they are not able people; it's where they come from that raises questions. To the last man, they are all apostles of elitism. Even in the civil service, all excellent choices so far, 'following the book' is deeply ingrained. The National Economic Council, again well chosen, consists of people (men only, average age pushing seventy) who sing from the same hymnbook. Who is there to chart a different course - that goes beyond social protection to a quick, marked, and sustainable improvement in the lives of the ninety-nine percent?
Equality and economic growth do not make for good fellow travellers. The textbook answer is you have to grow first, and then talk about sharing. Unfortunately, as the experience around the world amplifies, this unfailingly widens the gap.
IK should trust his instincts. He should get a different orchestra. Tabdeeli can't be brought about by the tested and tried.
Beghot2@gmail.com