Imran Khan’s party can bring hope to Pakistan

Press TV has interviewed Naveed Ahmed, an investigative journalist in Islamabad, over the upcoming general elections of Pakistan.

Press TV: It is the first time that a civilian government has actually completed a full term in Pakistan. Naveed Ahmed, before we get into the campaign promises and of course the parties and the candidates, what are the main issues that plague Pakistan today?

Ahmed: Pakistan’s basic issues are security, economy and of course its energy crisis, which people have been facing for the past many years but now this has become too crucial and it is really not possible for people to cope with because the income sources are really shrinking.

Law, order and security situation is really reversing to a great degree in Punjab as well as in the center and of course the energy crisis is so severe in the entire country that the electricity shortages are lasting up to 16 hours in the worst scenario.

Press TV: OK and out of the parties and the candidates, who do you think is best suited to tackle these problems?

Ahmed: That is a very subjective question basically. It is too early to call anybody a victor or best suited. The thing is that the People’s Party is not really seriously taking up the race. Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz since 1999 till 2013 – as I speak – has not changed any face on the platform that it has.

So it is still coming up with the same guys. The politicians are the same. They have been facing charges. There have been various kinds of success stories as well, but that party is basically a project-oriented party. They can make a motorway. They can create something else, but they are not going to have lasting policies that can actually shape up the county’s scenario, and overall improve the holistic situation of the country.

When we talk of Imran Khan and his party Tehreek-e-Insaf, there is a lot of optimism and a lot of grace marks that we give, because the man has been activist. He has been giving good news to the country. He has a scratchless character in terms of financial corruption besides winning the world cup. He has run a hospital for 15, 17 years, or even more, without any problem, without any financial, administrative or professional problems, and then his role in the rest of the things and his drone activism.

We see now, as Pakistani people, that the competition basically is between the two [parties] that I mentioned and Imran’s party has attracted best technocrats possible who have not been into politics. For that matter, 35 percent of the candidates are below the age of 35, and 80 percent of the candidates from his party who were vying for May 11 election have not contested the elections at all.

So it is basically a party of activists instead of politicians and electables, but it is anybody’s guess. I am not putting somehow he is in a situation where he could win.

Press TV: Let’s talk about some of the things that Imran Khan has said. When it comes to the US, has said that he would order the Pakistani air force to shoot down and target these US drones.

Now what I am asking here is why would he say that but yet his party is said to be more tempered that Pakistan will endeavor to have a constructive relationship with the US. It does not quite go together: Imran Khan’s statement and what his party’s stance is.

Ahmed: Primarily, Imran is basically putting the policy into an operational manner. He is basically telling us what could be the outcome of that policy, the outline that they have said. Pakistan’s sovereignty comes as supreme.

The other parties do not really have a clear approach towards the United States and they want to be friendly; they want to be in the good books of Washington as we saw in the case of WikiLeaks where clearly most politicians came up as the ones the US had already in their pocket, if I may say so, according to the WikiLeaks revelations.

So Imran’s policy on this is according to my understanding and his assertions when he goes up almost to Wana, Waziristan that we cannot compromise the security and sovereignty of this country and the lives of their people just because we want a constructive relationship with the United States.

The United States and Pakistan have had relations with each other in various phases, good and bad when there were no drone strikes and Pakistan and US had clearly gone on well. There is a big issue in North Korea for example with China.

The United States and China relations have not been affected because North Korea is going ballistic with all its nuclear ambitions. There could be a relationship which could be a balanced and calculated relationship which is called pragmatic relationship in the language of international politics but in Pakistan there is a lot of emotion that are put. Either you have to be on their side or you have to be against that. It could be a very calculated and measured relationship instead of a very emotional one.

Press TV: Naveed Ahmad, I saw you shaking your head there. Was it something that Matiullah Jan said that you want to give a reaction to?

Ahmed: I think I have a different perspective on a few things. For example, when you talk about Nawaz Sharif and his policies and his past, nuclear weapons was one incident, one major incident in Pakistan’s history that was not just up to him to make a decision and go ahead with it.

If it was up to him, then we should say that Kargil episode was also signed off by him and he actually was in the place and he was calling shots. Of course that was not the case and the military establishment was basically dictating us what should be happening in the case of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing.

The same is the next you see with the Washington agreement that Nawaz Sharif did. There have been various aspects of Nawaz Sharif policies that were very much pro United States. I am talking about the WikiLeaks which during the Musharraf time and later this communication was going within the embassies.

As regards to Imran Khan, partly I agree with what Mati says with regards to posturing. But Imran’s posturing lasts a long time. Ever since these drone started in 2004 I guess, he has been talking in the same tone and in the same manner and at the same wavelength and this is what people want to know.

On the other hand, if you see the gimmickry of politics and international relations, I do not think the United States will go much intensely after these people when they start pulling out of Afghanistan and they are already in the process of rapprochement with the Taliban and ironically they have these terms called good Taliban and bad Taliban.

There is a lot of calculations behind Imran’s saying that we are going to shoot down because this might end up before he actually makes a decision and the US government ironically and interestingly in fact has not spoken a word about politics in Pakistan and the election process in Pakistan. I say the US policy particularly with regards to the small parts in the countries that are important but not economically very strong and the United States ambassador and his engagements have been extremely limited.

The US has been very cautious about or not talking about or not leaving any hints with regard to as to which leaders they are supporting and which they are not supporting. There has been only one meeting with the prime minister of Pakistan by the US ambassador in the past say two months which is really explanatory of the situation and the mindset and the consciousness on their part.

Press TV: Naveed Ahmad, do you agree with Matiullah Jan?

Ahmed: First of all, there are various things that have changed. For example, Mr. Nawaz Sharif returned to Pakistan after signing an agreement and of course respecting an agreement with Pervez Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf comes back to Pakistan.

There is not a single protest outside the airport or anywhere by Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz); there has been no activism against military or militarization of Pakistan in many ways by PMLN and of course Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) is a party which is really rejected by most Shiites in Pakistan who have been attacked in many parts of Pakistan.

At least, these MNA’s are provincial and national candidates of Pakistan’s Muslim League (Nawaz) are really under scrutiny by the courts and of course by the security agencies and they are allegedly called terrorists. So with this kind of background, one cannot expect that someone who was in Pakistan since Zardari took over and never wanted to get elected for the parliament.

He never wanted to be in the parliament because there was a compromise. This man has really been one of those people who has preserved the status quo, respected the status quo and he was actually a part of the status quo in 1985, while the other guy Imran Khan because of whatever he did in his life had the courage to take a few challenges and delivered.

Three months ago, there was no such thing as Imran Khan making such kind of progress that he is about going to get equal number of ratings internationally in polls…

I really have to make a point because I am a journalist; I am not working within the national media where I have a partisan approach. I am trying to give you a sense of what is the real reality. Nawaz Sharif has been standing with the establishment without really speaking on the issues that you should be speaking about…

I am not supporting Imran Khan. I am trying to explain the only factor, the two mentioned, experience. Experience is how to step within the military and pick it back. This has been the case; this was the birth and this has been continuing.

Imran’s case, I have not mentioned; I was just asked as to react to what Mati says and do you agree to it. When I came to the Imran’s or Tehreek-e-Insaf point, I have a few things to say and that if you have some patience, I can; otherwise, it is fine for me.