Unrealistic expectations of embassies

Implicit in the President’s reported exhortation to Ambassador in Washington to stem the rising tide of criticism in US media against his conduct of state affairs is a flattering tribute to the capability of his personal friend but also a dangerously unrealistic expectation that the envoy can transform the President’s tarnished
image. With experience of eight years at the helm he should know that whatever their ideological biases independent media have to mirror reality and those most respected are least susceptible to personal intercessions for change in their professional approach. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that for six years they showered encomiums on the President and if that was deserved so must be their recent criticism. Instead of blaming them he should make an honest appraisal of his own recent performance, benefit from identification of errors by critics and try to rectify them. Only thus can he assure himself a high place in the roll call of honour. A leader should heed the proverb ‘Zaban-i khalq, naqqara-i khuda’ - Humanity’s voice is God’s trumpet.
Governments everywhere and more so in developing countries can benefit by remembering Abraham Lincoln’s aphorism of a century and half ago: ‘You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.’ In the twentieth century totalitarian states succeeded to manage information for some time but in the long term that experiment with state controlled media led to the ruin of their system. Freedom of expression and independent journalism are now a global norm and although spin doctors can still mislead opinion their impact is ephemeral. Access to diverse sources of information enables the audience to rectify biases and therefore there is little chance of making black permanently white. Neither Tony Blair nor George Bush could get away with offences against common sense. Even before their allegations of possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein regime were exposed as white lies, international public opinion rejected their rationale for war on Iraq. People in UK did not forgive Blair and Bush too will wish he had not committed the blunder.
In contrast with the curiously high expectations of present and past Pakistani leaders, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had a low and condescending appraisal of embassies. He once disparaged them by comparing their late and dull diplomatic dispatches on political events in foreign countries with instant and more readable reports in the media. Trudeau was fundamentally wrong in fallaciously equating embassies with news agencies but he got away with his flippant flamboyance because he was not only a brilliant politician but one of Canada’s all time great leaders having served the cause of preserving the unity of Canada. He could even afford to provoke Canadian farmers by telling them, ‘Why should I sell your wheat?’ Farmers protested but diplomats were too decent to publicly challenge and refute their respected head of government.
Of course both high and low expectations from embassies erred on the side of exaggeration. In the context of expanded functions of embassies in modern times, they are legitimately expected to promote exports and project state interests. On the other hand it is unrealistic to expect that more proactive lobbying by an ambassador can change the image of his country or its government. No independent media in the world at large should be expected to turn a blind eye to the evisceration of the constitution, ouster of a score of judges of superior courts, restrictions on media and detention of prominent political leaders under questionable arrogation of emergency powers. No less disturbing for well wishers of Pakistan are spreading insurgencies in parts of the country and proliferating extremism and terrorism. As Pakistan and its people have grown more despondent opposition politicians have predictably sharpened their criticism and independent media everywhere have become increasingly censorious. Only better thought out policies and improved ground realities can achieve relief from adverse portrayal abroad.
Public memory is proverbially short, perhaps more so in Pakistan than elsewhere. In consequence leaders cannot count on credit for past services however meritorious they may have been. Shaukat Aziz transformed economic and fiscal management to rescue the state from brink of bankruptcy but today he is reviled by some columnists and blamed by politicians even of PML(Q) for the flour crisis which is ascribable to erroneous estimates of harvest and failure to prevent smuggling. The same tendency is manifest in popular appraisal of President Musharraf who led Pakistan’s recovery from failed-state syndrome. Few gave him due credit even earlier for his achievements but some of his decisions since March 9 last year have exposed him to mounting criticism with opinion shifting focus to questions of legitimacy and credibility. Even fewer give thought to the objective problems of improving governance, putting the genie of extremism back in the bottle and re-establishing political consensus in the polity. The task of reuniting the people in purposeful pursuit of reform and rectification will demand great courage and wisdom and one can only hope and pray these qualities will be forthcoming after the election next month.