MR. Prime Minister: I don't know you, except by your rhetoric and promises. But soon I will get to know you very well by your deeds and delivery. So will most of the populace. There was more big talk during the last election campaign in Pakistan - we will lower food and flour prices, petrol, electricity and gas and so much more - all near impossible in a market driven by capitalist economy. We will revisit our relationship with America. We will talk to the militants. We will reduce expenditure, we will ... blah, blah, blah ... all the jazz that people wanted to hear. One cannot argue with anything in this wish list. Bombast, lies and exaggeration are fair ammunition in an election candidate's arsenal, but don't scatter bomb too much, for soon you will be called to account, which invariably will lead to more exaggeration, embroidery, embellishment, fudging, lies and propaganda. Once in government, you will have to quickly forget unrealistic promises and work within the realm of what is doable and what will not damage the people and the country. Thus far, virtually everything you have said is dripping with the symbolism that we are used to hearing from new rulers. During every ruler's honeymoon we tolerate it at the altar of what copouts call ‘realism,' for such high falutin promises are the normal fare of politicians trying to play to the gallery of their over-excited supporters and of military rulers looking to play to the gallery of an overexcited populace fed up with corruption, cronyism and poor governance. You, Sir, should be careful, for if very soon symbolism doesn't become reality, promises don't translate into performance, the bully pulpit isn't transformed into your decision-making desk and imagery doesn't become execution, your government's popularity barometer will fall faster than you can say, ‘I promise.' The time for rhetoric is gone. Now only results will matter. It's delivery time, not declamation time. In a nutshell, walk the talk, but walk briskly, for after the election rhetoric people's expectations have exploded while their patience has expired. They are convinced that deliverance is at hand. Those who have some sense of historical forces know that deliverance will never come within the alien political and economic systems that we have willfully chosen. Even walking the talk will not be enough if you are going to walk it on the well-trodden path. It will only come when leaders with an ideology walk the talk on the less-trodden path. It follows then that if a ruler talks less and walks more, he is less likely to get into trouble by not raising expectations unreasonably high. Better to implement what the people want first, and then talk - show off even. Your government is hardly a couple of weeks old and there are already contradictions developing between assertion and action. They are not major. For example, you promised to lower expenditure on the prime minister (they always do) by 40 percent. Why 40 percent? Why not 45? Which hat did you pull that figure out of? Having said that, you drove straight to Chaklala Airbase and flew to Karachi in a government executive jet, not for some pressing official engagement but to attend your son's wedding. Then you flew back in the same jet to take oath as prime minister. No one would have noticed if you hadn't made the 40 percent assertion. So don't make promises you can't - or won't - keep, not after you've become prime decision maker. What is wrong with PIA? The problem is that once you buy executive jets, you have to use them. You cannot let them rust. Then there are your handlers, who will insist on a private jet for security reasons. Of course security is a serious matter, but you cannot allow yourself to be minded. You are the boss. You should decide how you travel. It's the job of your security detail to provide you protection. If they can't, or won't, change them. You should not allow them to make you hostage to fear. If you want advice on this, talk to the president. He knows, because has been and still is target number one of the militants. He will tell you that security-too-obvious is a danger in itself, for you advertise your presence to the militants. Another contradiction. Having promised (in pursuit of populism?) that you will reduce the price of flour, you raised the support (or purchase) price of wheat by Rs115, without mentioning the price at which it would be issued to flour mills. Your argument was that it would benefit the poor farmer. How can it when most of the agricultural land is owned by a handful of feudal families of Sindh and Punjab. You are from one yourself. You should know better. The benefit will largely go to the feudal lords, not the peasant, serf or slave - you know we have slaves in Sindh and Balochistan, don't you? Result: wheat has become scarce, its prices are going up as are the prices of flour, exactly the opposite of what you promised. The same will happen with oil soon. We are with you all the way on letting parliament debate and decide our relationship with America on its war on terror. In fact, I'm the one who has been saying that we should use our parliament as bad cop and our executive as good cop, just as the US administration plays good cop and Congress plays bad cop against us. But remember the dangers. If things don't go to America's liking, it will definitely react. Calculate: can we tolerate and ride out the reaction? And just between us, you know better than anyone that your party is where it is today courtesy America. They didn't do it for nothing. Whatever assurances have been given to them have to be kept in mind. But I just cannot see how you can give them access to Dr. A.Q. Khan or permit them to plant boots in any part of our territory without an adverse reaction. You won't be able to get away with it and your opponents won't let you. So revisit those assurances as well. Mr. Prime Minister: Some people support you, others don't, as is always the case. But we are all one in putting a lot of premium on your success, for another failure will lead to severe - and most likely a violent - change in paradigm. Only the religious extremists will gain, exactly what America really wants (though their strategic communicators have convinced the world that they don't) because such an eventuality will create the justification for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution asking NATO and US allies to intervene and ‘help' the ‘helpless' Government of Pakistan ‘secure' its nuclear assets. Understand the wheels within wheels. The tip of the iceberg doesn't tell you what the iceberg really is. __
