Abstract:
Western world often bring home the faith that liberal democracies place in judgment of people, from an intellectual point of view there is no match. It was just like a skilful fencer dueling against the clumsy cudgel of a street fighter; in the presidential candidate one had all the facts, nuisance, logic, poise and graceful assertiveness while other had a rehearsed and obstinate repetitiveness with a frustrated smirk. Personally it only reinforced one’s utter amazement at naivety of puritan country like Pakistan in grasping concepts. Not only it was the stark contrast between two candidates, follow up comments by well informed analysts were equally divided. Pakistan now stands divided today between “NAWAZ gut level conviction and IMRAN’S pragmatic evaluation of self interest “the former quality is fraught with disastrous bravado and latter is susceptible to ineffective benignity. Now Pakistanis want to decide which risk they want to take today. (HAQ, 2012)
At least they have a choice and both players have a level of playing field, the system is a great equalizer as it strips the incumbent president of his authoritative immunity and compels him to stand before a neutral moderator who tell him how long he can take to answer a question. Whenever the vote count comes in November, at least half of south Asian will be thinking that other half greater made a wrong mistake. It will not matter because the right of making a wrong choice will never be questioned either by winners or the losers, the people are the winners because they have got their right to question, be informed and make a choice, so that another democratic government will produce adverse side effects in term of policies privatization.
