Yesterday, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Senator and former finance minister of Pakistan Shaukat Tareen said that others rulers in the country took dictation for 75 years but his government said “absolutely not” to the dictation which caused their ouster. Saying “no” to the dictation indeed sounds rebellious and flattering.
Pakistan followed an instruction manual for a long time which was disastrous for both our economy and foreign policy. Pakistan remained on a continuous downward spiral because our rulers were taking dictation, but then God blessed us with a PTI led government that decided to turn the table and said no to the instructions that were being given to them. So a government that openly abandoned the old-school rulebook must have an astounding performance in its portfolio, after all, it was different from its predecessors. Right? Well, in the case of PTI, it did not happen.
PTI members repeatedly brag about saying no to the traditional approach but they never tell how their own approach turned out.
Dear PTI, you did not follow what they told you to, you wanted to work according to your insight and ability, but would you mind telling us how did it go? Can PTI talk about its own policies turned out?
Those previous rulers who (according to PTI) were taking dictation were running the country way better than the rebellious PTI. Rebellion is an attractive concept but it only makes sense when you stand out to be better than the ones you oppose. If you rebel against a system, you have to show how you would fix it. PTI resisted a system for more than a decade, and finally, in 2018, it got the opportunity to showcase to the world how amazing Pakistan can be. It had three years to prove that it is different from others.
Indeed, it did turn out to be different from others, but not in a flattering way. The three-year tenure of PTI turned out to be the worst for both the economy and the foreign policy which affirmed that the people who were being accused of taking dictation were more capable of carrying out the tasks and duties.
This statement of Shaukat Tareen bragging about not taking dictation is not worth knighthood because this statement has no basis on the ground. PTI might have not taken dictation from the US when it comes to the tour of Russia, but it did take dictation from it when it comes to IMF. Yes, taking dictation from IMF is taking dictation from the US. IMF is not owned by Turkey or China. The US is the biggest shareholder of IMF, and PTI was very submissive to IMF. It never said “absolutely not” to the IMF despite making promises. So when it comes to the economy, PTI was taking dictation and was willing to amend the authorities of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The other sector was foreign policy. Imran Khan visited Russia, but he did not make any deal or agreement with Russia. If he really wanted to put the interests of his country, or if he was really rebelling against the US, he would import gas from Iran, and oil from Russia which would be more reasonable and save a lot of funds. But he didn’t. He wasted his time bragging “Oh I went to Russia, Oh I went to China, See… America hates me”. He only said no to a hypothetical question about airbases (which has been denied by ISPR) in an interview. Other than this, he did nothing rebellious that would practically outrage the US.
The only reason the US loathed him was his rigid attitude and untrustworthy reputation due to which they avoided talking to him. Imagine, Imran Khan goes to the US on a tour, they would tell him something confidential, and he would come back and reveal all that information in a rally to look good in front of his supporters. No country wants to work with a person who cannot keep classified information to himself. Imran Khan has an explosive personality.
Even a routine foreign office cable has been used by him as a part of his narrative for the election. What was thinking before dragging the US into this? Suppose, Imran Khan comes back in power, does he really think that he will never have to face the US? And if the US really ousted him after three years, will the US try to oust him again?…. And I feel like I just gave PTI another backup narrative to justify why they lost (in case of a general election).
The PTI voter, it will easily buy anything that that the party sells, however, a considerable majority is not likely to buy this narrative. So PTI needs to reinvent itself because this “absolutely not” narrative is not enough to attract two-thirds majority.