Pakistanis voted for the PPP, and the poll reflects the sentiments of Pakistanis today, not when they voted in the election at the beginning of the year.
At that time it was Musharraf and the PML-Q's policies that were seen to be 'leading the country in the wrong direction'. Now it seems the PPP is losing support, and Nawaz Sharif is back in favor.
However, it is still early days for the PPP government, and to be fair to them, they walked into a sh*t storm and the problems facing Pakistan need time to resolve. They should complete their entire five year term before we pass a final verdict on their performance.
so I guess we just have to live with it? we can wait while thousands of diehard jiyalas, who never
ever change their minds, vote for PPP again? forget about them, what about the jahel people living under waderas, who hop onto trucks and head out to vote?
let's say we just wait this one out, now what will happen? who are we going to vote for, PML-N? more than a decade ago and immediately after Zia's rule, we decided to give democracy a chance. Benazir was elected in, then Nawaz, then Benazir, and then Nawaz again! the only way we can have a new party enter the political arena and actually stand a significant chance of winning, is through the fists of a dictator. Ayub/Yahya practically gave birth to PPP, Zia gave birth to PML-N, and now Musharraf gave birth to PML-Q.
Let's be real here, there's no way people like Imran Khan and PTI, or JI, ANP, or any other party stand a chance. besides, it's not like this govt. right now is any different from a dictatorship. Zardari, is doing almost everything without consulting parliament. the whole entire party is making laws that suit them, they've eliminated charges against themselves, they've eliminated the NAB, they are definitely looting (talk to people working at SBP), visiting countries with 200 companions, they're appointing their favorites and family members into positions of power, they've failed to honor their promises on the justices, and other commitments.
Now we are just supposed to take this crap? the media, journalists, and so-called intellectuals think it's okay now because they were elected and they have a free reign to do whatever they want? I'm guessing we will say that the media or other institutions, which are supposedly "strengthened" after the fall of dictatorship, will stop these politicians from doing whatever they want? where are the chief justices, I'm talking about the ones right now, and the supreme court? where is the writ of law? I suppose everyone will again say, "let democracy run its course, the bad things will eventually filter out." so far, history is not your witness.
Use of the royal we
By Anwar Syed
I BEGAN to think about this subject as my mind went to Mr Zardaris excessive use of the personal possessive pronoun (my); something to which I shall soon return. The queen of the United Kingdom refers to herself in the first person plural pronoun (we) and to her things in its possessive case (our).
It was in 1169 that an English king, Henry II (d. 1189), first referred to himself as we. He was being harassed by his barons at the time, and he invoked the divine right of kings to convey that he did what he did with Gods authorisation so that his acts were Gods and his. We then meant the king and God.
The idea caught on and subsequent kings and queens continued to use personal pronouns in the first person plural form. The practice spread to Europe, but it had already been in vogue in the Abbasid, Persian and Mughal courts. More recently, an instrument of abdication signed by Nicholas II opened thus: In agreement with the Imperial Duma we have thought it best to renounce the throne of the Russian empire. Commenting on the basic law of the state, the ruler of one of the emirates referred to himself as We Qaboos bin Saad, Sultan of Oman.
The pronoun we is also used by popes, newspaper editors and columnists. We are not concerned with these usages. In royal usage, the intention sometimes was to assert that the speaker and his office were entitled to deference. In other situations the speaker meant to join his people with himself and wished to be taken as speaking both for himself and his people. The same holds for a high court judge or, among others, a member of parliament. We in these cases includes both the speaker and the institution to which he belongs. A word now about the possessive pronoun my. It may denote the users ownership of the object named as in my car or the fact of his belonging to an entity as in my country or my tribe. A politician in a democracy will avoid using it in its possessive connotation when he is referring to institutions.
Addressing a video conference organised by the Hindustan Times on Nov 22, 2008, Asif Ali Zardari declared that I am not threatened by India; let the people of Pakistan force me and let the people of India force their leaders to find a just solution of the Kashmir dispute: I am glad I can say with full confidence that I can persuade my parliament to consider ways of improving ties with India. On other occasions he has referred to my economy, my budget, my deficit, my treasury, my foreign exchange reserves, my need for $100bn.
In this connection it is noteworthy that he has been announcing policy initiatives and reaching understandings and accords with foreign governments without consulting the cabinet or the parliament in Pakistan.
Mr Zardaris frequent use of the personal pronouns (I and my) raises questions regarding his self-perception. We know who and what he was and is, but we have to figure out how he places himself. We know, for instance, that he came from a moderately prosperous Sindhi land-owning family. He completed high school. His father owned an entertainment business in Karachi which he managed. Somewhere along the line, he caught Begum Nusrat Bhuttos attention while she looked for a prospective son-in-law and Benazir was persuaded to marry him .This connection made him a public figure. He now was the husband of a formidable politician and, for periods of time, a prime ministers husband.
Within days of Benazir Bhuttos assassination on Dec 27, 2007, Asif Ali Zardari rose to be his own man, standing taller than he had ever been. Claiming that Benazir had named him as her successor, he got the PPPs central executive committee to elect him as the partys co-chairman. A few months later members of parliament and the four provincial assemblies were persuaded to elect him the president of Pakistan in preference to a former judge of the Supreme Court.
As president he is required by the constitution to perform his functions upon the prime ministers advice. One may be astonished to find that in actual practice it is the other way round: it is the prime minister who acts on the presidents advice, not he on the prime ministers.
Before Benazirs death Mr Zardari was not a politician, leader or ruler. Since then he has been cast in all of these roles. It is possible that the potential for them lay hidden in the inner recesses of his personality, and it came to the fore when the call for it surfaced. He does have the knack of taking people along, even leading them up the garden path, so to speak. But it is not equally clear how long he can keep them in his camp. His performance as a politician and as a ruler is, to put it mildly, problematic.
Let us now turn to his frequent use of the possessive personal pronoun in the first person singular form (my). A couple of explanations come to mind. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that he feels that everything existing in Pakistan land, people, institutions belongs to him. Instead of identifying himself with the country and the state, he identifies the country and the state with himself. He may reject this interpretation if confronted with it, but that doesnt matter, for it is to be expected.
Second, he may believe that the offices of PPP chairman and president of Pakistan invest him with majesty like that of absolute kings. Yet, he may be unaware that in that case he should use pluralis majestatis that is, we.
One of his close associates may consider telling him to be more selective in his use of the personal possessive pronouns.
DAWN - Opinion; December 21, 2008
