srh-hashmi last edited by
The writer presents himself as the biggest supporter and defender of democracy in Pakistan as practised by Nawaz Sharif and is extremely worried about the situation post-Nawaz.
But is the system where Sharifs and Zardaris alternate as the official looters and plunderers anywhere near to democracy as it is known worldwide: Government of the people, by the people and for the people?
In democracies, do we get a situation where a country, not looked upon favourably by a majority of influential countries in the world, gets run without a foreign minister for years? And for a most important position like ambassador to the US, designates a young man with absolutely no grounding in diplomacy?
And the financial affairs of the country, which is in dire financial straits, are run by a mere 'adviser to the prime minister on finance while the finance minister is abroad on long leave, escaping from corruption cases at home in which he has been declared an absconder.
Also, just how could a mere adviser, who is there only for a few months, take the liberty of making offers like 'Buy PIA and get Steel Mills for free?'
And Cyril Almeida need not worry too much about Post-Nawaz Sharif scenario.
What I, and I believe most Pakistanis will like to see is disqualification of the present corrupt and inept top leaders as a result of the ongoing, across-the-board accountability process. And this, followed by fair and transparent elections, with eligibility conditions of aspiring parliamentarians thoroughly vetted.
And a fresh breed of honest parliamentarians, forming a dedicated government and an effective position would have the will and the ability to put Pakistan on a path to progress. Such a government, with its operatives not involved in corruption, could also take steps to bring back the looted wealth and use it to reduce the massive loan burden and to revive the economy.