Pakistani Idiot of the Year 2017: Khadim Hussain Rizvi

Now you can’t really say that our Pakistani idiot of the year this time around is really an idiot because he has been grabbing the entire nations by the balls and making them do what he essentially wanted to. Albeit for a limited period of time. He has got hundreds of followers mesmerized by him despite obviously being a foul-mouthed psychopath who wants to see blood on the streets and want everyone killed who does not subscribe to his views about the finality of Prophethood, or even someone who even remotely have sympathy for those who do not.

He is a dangerous idiot because he has endangered the legitimacy of the government and the rule of law in Pakistan. And the state apparatus that has been so tolerant to him and his goons of the Tehreek Labaik Ya-Rasool Allah probably do not realize that he has singlehandedly undermined their authority with seemingly irreparable damage caused by the approval of his unreasonable demands on the alleged attempt to amend the Finality of Prophethood clause. I cannot begin to get into the horrific world of Khadim Hussain Rizvi but in my tradition of celebrating the most hideous instances of idiocy every year, here is a little glimpse of what the not-so-charismatic-and-abusive cleric-politician is capable of.

This is the wildness and viciousness of the religious extremism that shows its face when it cannot express itself in violence.

There have been other quite a few idiotic incidents this year as well and please forgive me for not keeping track of all the nonsense that has been going on through this year, so please free to add something to this list if you want to bother. One of them being the goofball they have hired as the new DG ISPR Gen. Asif Ghafoor claiming to be a “fundamentalist and not an extremist,” apart from a wide array of idiotic political statements. High Court Justice Shaukat Siddiqui for taking unsolicited action against bloggers and suggesting that social media be blocked if blasphemous content is not removed. Aamer Liaquat Hussain for his ridiculous blasphemy witch hunt on BOL TV Network and Orya Maqbool Jan for his declaration of Jihad against secular bloggers.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Jamaat-e-Islami Chief Prof. Ibrahim Khan for taking pride in undoing the secular curriculum in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and his Emir Siraj-ul-Haq offering to bear the expenses of the wife and children of Mumtaz Qadri to honor the “martyr.” Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Minister of Interior Ahsan Iqbal, who is otherwise a sane and supposedly progressive politician, by being the most responsible authority figures under whose eyes the social media and information ban was imposed on November 26. Pervez Musharraf, who has apparently completely gone senile after losing power for praising the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for supposedly supporting him and thinking it is cool to shame his political rivals by insulting women. Right at the beginning of this year, our honorable Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif anti-Semitic rant in reaction to fake news about Israel.  And of course, who could forget the filthy McCarthyist hate speech-laden tirade by Captain Safdar on the floor of the assembly.

Khadim Hussain Rizvi is particularly an idiot to even alienate the most religious of Barelvi Muslims by his unacceptable behavior, for which the devil in me also has admiration for him as he has contaminated the supposed sanctity of religious teachings. But such a useful idiot he was for the state, which let him loose to harass and harness an elected government.

The real idiots should actually be the people of Pakistan, who actually supported his cause one way or the other, but wouldn’t that be every year?

Read about the Pakistani idiot of the last year here.

Advertisements

Post-Traumatic Stress Governance

Source: Dawn News

Source: Dawn News

The way constitutional amendments are passed in Pakistan makes you marvel at the degree of national unity we enjoy.

You would probably never see such unity among any nation in the world.

Despite speaking passionately against the ruling, not a single MP or Senator dared casting a vote against the constitution. Some even voted against their conscience.

It’s good to know that some politicians in this country take up the constitution seriously enough to consider it a matter of guilty conscience.

But the question remains. Why was not a single vote cast in the opposition of the passage of the constitutional amendment?

Why did the JI and the JUI-F boycott the voting session instead of casting a more effective nay? Did they not betray their loyal voters?

There is no doubt about the fact that the 21st constitutional amendment is a resounding insult to the judicial branch of government in Pakistan. A legally sanctioned statement making fun of its perceived inability to dispense the elusive commodity known as justice. No one is bothered.

Despite the gravity of the situation, let’s concentrate on the silver lining in this dark thunderstorm. Maybe, the government has finally made up its mind to eradicate terrorism from the country, despite all the cynical skepticism.

What if the military courts really would deliver the kind of “swift justice” that the people of this country have been waiting for? Hopefully, not the kind of swift justice that the Taliban are known for.

But why have a trial in the first place?

Or maybe there is hope because Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman believes that the bill for the constitutional amendment reflects secular thinking for linking religion with terrorism. Finally, our parliament ended up doing something secular. Though he is unaware that even many secularists are worried about that too.

Perhaps, the way constitution can be altered in Pakistan offers some distant hope for the secularists. Who knows, some day, some compromising situation would bring all the politicians together and make them all unanimously vote to remove the Islamic provisions from the constitution.

All we need is stirring a little sense of urgency for that.

Now that the constitution has been altered pretty drastically, you can only wonder what happened.

What changed so drastically after the Peshawar massacre that it required bringing about such drastic changes to the way the state worked?

How did the terrorists manage to change the way our government works? A lot of people are perplexed about the way the government, all the political parties and the military have reacted.

To others, disappointed that the civil courts keep on releasing or delaying indicting suspect terrorists, the sudden change came as a sigh of relief. This might deliver some justice, finally.

Yet harsher critics merely saw the recent government legislation using the Peshawar school attack as an excuse for imposing undemocratic constitutional measures.

Let’s just blame their destruction of the constitution on their post-traumatic stress symptoms, instead of deliberate intent to sabotage.

But let’s not take the overzealousness of our administrators for malice.

Let us judge actions instead of the intentions.

Though for some, that would make the case even worse.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Voting By Candidate

Source: thekooza.com

Source: thekooza.com

I have grown up hearing that you should always vote for the party and the ideology. Well, it makes sense too because with more seats, the party would possibly gain a majority and the people who remotely share a fraction of your political world view could become decision makers. But does that mean you should turn a blind eye to the candidates?

But thanks to our parliamentary system, this voting approach has a severe drawback. Particularly for undecided voters and particularly for people who are not voting for ideology. I guess there would be a lot of educated voters in the upcoming 2013 general elections in this regard.

To most people, the general elections for National and Provincial Assembly representatives are a substitute for Presidential or Prime Ministerial elections. They vote for Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan or Asif Zardari, rather than considering the candidates. Probably it is the same for the rest of the parties too.

I am even told by many that they would vote for a pole if it runs for the party or the leader of their choice. Others would vote for fly-over bridges and construction and development projects, which is a somewhat better approach, But obviously hardly anyone concentrates on their legislative stance and ability.

A lot of people vote for the legislature candidates as if they were voting for a councilor or a mayor, and that is the value they get in the end. But probably it is not their fault. We have a terrible parliamentary system prevalent in this country which only lets people vote for their representatives, but not for their Senators, Governors, Chief Ministers, Presidents or even Prime Ministers.

Furthermore, the 5 year term of a government is ridiculously long. I can hardly think of any better system than the bicameral US Presidential system which has 2 year terms for the representatives, though a long term of 6 years for the senators. But it is an electoral system which allows the US people to elect all of their representatives and even mayors directly. The parliamentary system seems autocratic in comparison.

Now they have even worsened this terrible electoral system in the 18th Amendment to the 1973 Constitution during the last term by introducing and unanimously voting for the Article 63 (A) about disqualificaiton on the grounds of defection. It is an article which requires every member of the legislature to vote according to the party lines or have their membership terminated.

How undemocratic is that. I actually find its passage hard to believe, and our politicians have the audacity of incessantly boasting about it. I can’t imagine a democracy without individual freedom and liberty.

How is this for treason to democratic values? At least it goes to show that there is no respect for individual freedom and individual opinion in Pakistan. Then why worry if the message is reflected at the grassroots?

This clearly goes to show that democracy has “not been able to work” in Pakistan because several provisions in the constitution are not democratic in the first place.

But when voting for a party is thrust upon you as a moral responsibility, you are hardly worried about factors such as these.

But when I look at a candidate, and I imagine whether I would want him or her to represent my constituency or not, I would really find myself responsible for the sake of spending public money the right way to assign the right person to the job. Well at least they must be able to read and understand the constitution, even if that means voting for a candidate who would get a total of 63 votes. I am mentioning that figure for a reason.

Malik Ibrar Campaigning - Source: Official facebook Page

PML (N) Candidate – Malik Ibrar Campaigning – Source: Official facebook Page

PPP Candidate Zamurd Khan campaigning - Source: pakistanleaders.com.pk

PPP Candidate Zamurd Khan campaigning – Source: pakistanleaders.com.pk

PTI Candidate Hina Manzoor Campaigning - Source Official facebook Page

PTI Candidate Hina Manzoor Campaigning – Source Official facebook Page

I need to vote in the NA-54 constituency where the major contenders are the incumbent Malik Ibrar Ahmed of PML-N, Zamurd Khan of PPP and Hina Manzoor of PTI, apart from other members from the JI, JUI (F), MQM, ANP and independent ones which are not expected to get much votes, like always. The candidates for the PP-10 Punjab Assembly constituency are much worse and picking the right canddiate would be an easier task there.

While I largely find myself undecided over the current constitutional and electoral mess, I would surely vote and I would try to vote by candidates. I am not saying there is anything wrong to vote by parties. Do so by all means. But I believe that evaluating the candidates is just as important.

While I am disechanted by the last parliament for unanimously voting for the controversial clause about Article 63 (A) in the 18th amendment, by the same rationale, I could just as well vote for just about any candidate not elected to the last parliament term.

But is that really the answer? Because provided our brilliant parliamentary system, any member you vote for would simply vote on party lines, regardless of what they want and how terrible the party stance is. Slavery could never have been abolished in the United States if they had such a constitutional provision. This largely destroys the purpose of voting for choosing the legislator for your constituency, because you are actually choosing no one, as rightly pointed out by some in my family.

I wish I could possibly not vote for gangs, because this is what political parties wearing the most civilized and democratic façade are acting like. And it is such a shame. Sadly, it is behavior like this that extremists and undemocratic forces like the Taliban would like to see, which in the end means that you have no choice but to stick to “lesser evils.”

That is why we need to criticize the autocratic legislation of our political parties loudly and clearly more than ever before if we are to ensure the establishment of true democratic values and principles in this country. But I know I must vote to send out a strong and clear message to those who do not want me and all of you to.

But it’s all really confusing and I would rather like to wait till May 11 to make up my mind.

Till then, I’d rather vote for the person I’d hire.