A Case for Politics: Naseem Naz
In the cases of many things, practicality has far more potential to influence than rhetoric or words. Take, for instance, the definition or understanding of many of us of politics, which is mostly grossly misplaced and misunderstood, thanks in big part to the approach and practices of the politicians we see and hear routinely, and whose genre of politics largely helps form our understanding of politics as a whole.
Thus, it is not surprising at all that a vast majority of people among us extremely dislike, detest or disapprove of it. Even if any of them somehow understands the true essence of politics, he or she nevertheless deems politics totally useless. I am not talking about the ones who have been unable to attend any higher place of education, college or university, i am talking about ‘educated ones’, of course. But then, the question is: should every educated person be interested in politics? Maybe not necessarily. But in a constantly messy place, may be yes.
It is often argued by intellectuals and political thinkers that religion must always be kept away from the ambit of politics. Similarly, about the involvement of politics in sports, it is also suggested that politics should be kept away from sports. And this particular argument, to me, has largely helped portray politics to be harmful, despicable, disgusting or a messy thing.
No doubt, politics does not appear to be what it must be, and in a plenty of countries around the world, it has been (and is) quite nasty, of course. Even if, for instance, the politics is satisfactorily transparent and ideally principled in a country, the separation of politics from several sectors, like sports or religion, is nevertheless inevitable, I fully understand and wholly acknowledge it. But what is all too often disturbing about it is the disturbing impression of politics that the separation gives, which always feels to be a gross injustice to a concept that almost entirely stands for justice.
In order to further understand the long-running tradition of the distortion of politics (and the perception of the general public about it, of course) in our society, the case of the politics of parliamentarian politicians is quite helpful. Periods of overt military rule aside, politicians have almost always worked under tremendous pressure (and influence) of a certain state institution. That does not mean that these politicians have entirely been faultless.
History suggests that too many of them (The example of Nawaz Sharif, who has been both a victim and perpetrator of brutal conspiracies, is quite fresh) had been involved in brutal conspiracies with that certain institution to discredit, disable and eventually disband civilian regimes that had somehow enraged the elements who always wish and want civilian rulers to work under them. Parliamentary politicians have always enjoyed allowing themselves to play at the hands of nonpolitical elements to the extent that irreparably damaged their credibility.
In the province, an embattled region serious nature of issues of which strongly demands far more transparent and democratic politics, parliamentary politics has always been far too messier and ridiculous than it has perhaps been in other provinces. There is a near to complete mainstream media blackout, apex court of this country has hardly ever been stirred by whatever may take place here, thus this region is in many ways invisible to the residents of other provinces, imagine now what may or can not happen. Both the absence of mainstream media coverage and the lack of interest of the apex court have in many ways made parliamentarian politicians in the province to do whatever it takes to appear a more ‘patriot’ than their opponent. This is, after all, one of the main requirements that qualify someone to be able to take part in (and win comfortably) an election (central, provincial, local, or of any other sort)