Bad news for democracy

Imran Khan has just showed the world the real strength of democracy. Much like Khan, Arvind Kejriwal also began (and continues) his political journey as a disruptive force. Both professed commitment to a good cause, made several naïve voters believe they are sincere and different from other politicians, and when given a chance to prove their worth, threw it away because matching actions with rhetoric is always tough.

More than a year after Pakistan's national elections, Khan is yet to reconcile himself with its results and like a child who will not listen to reason, insists that the country's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif must resign. Kejriwal was elected as chief minister of Delhi but couldn't produce anything except some unrealistic poll pledges and had to resign in a peculiar way. The same goes to Khan.

Few would argue against the substance of Khan's complaints that the electoral process needs major reforms and that corruption throttles the economy. Instead, most debate focuses on just why Khan is so confident that he will succeed in dethroning Sharif, despite the prime minister's nationwide support and Khan's falling stock.

Sharif has angered the powerful military by few actions -- trial of Musharraf, seeking good ties with India and peace talks with Taliban. And not to forget, Sharif's this term in power is the first transition of power to a democratically elected government to other in Pakistan, which itself possess a threat to military's dominance.

For now, the most Khan is likely to achieve in challenging Sharif is further strengthening the military's already strong hold on key decisions guiding the country's future.

Both Khan and Kejriwal were no different from other politicians. They were probably worse. A regular politician knows the limits of what a government can do. Khan and Kejriwal think a government can do anything defying political and economic sense. Like most who join politics, all they ever wanted was a share in the power pie. Which is why Kejriwal gave up chiefministership of Delhi in the hopes of becoming the prime minister and Khan is ignoring Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the hope of unseating Sharif.

The crucial difference, however, is that Khans are in a position to cause real damage to Pakistan while the strength of India's democracy can accommodate and ignore the antics of Kejriwals.

For a country which has just started a difficult journey towards making democracy a norm rather than exception, Khan is indeed a very bad news.

Fortunately, there are no shortcuts to success, even in politics of rousing masses to a high pitch. When the likes of Khan and Kejriwal fall from grace, the fall is steeper and spectacular.