After many years of hesitation, the holding of the opposition conference was a positive development because the government and opposition are like the two wheels of the same democratic vehicle, and the movement of the opposition’s wheel in fact indicates the running of democracy. The record of Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar is free from any undemocratic stain. It was expected that this conference would, at the very outset, acknowledge the collective mistakes of the past and give a solid assurance of not repeating those mistakes in the future. In the recent past, the PTI government had treated politicians, journalists, and intellectuals in an undemocratic manner, and the witnesses and targets of this were none other than Achakzai Sahib and Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar Sahib themselves. Yet, while promising a new Charter of Democracy, they deliberately forgot to mention the highhandedness of their allied PTI, because the real issue is that PTI neither considers those past events to be mistakes, nor accepts them, nor is willing to say that in the future they will not do the same again. Until such a clear statement comes from PTI, the hope for any new democratic movement or new charter is zero.

Achakzai Sahib is highly respectable, but should he not get his alliance to admit that when you were on the same page with the establishment and General Bajwa, you were not bulldozing the whole country towards an authoritarian system? That you not only kept your opponents imprisoned, but also used to threaten to turn off fans at their rallies? Was arresting Rana Sanaullah in a false narcotics case not an attempt to give him the death penalty? Those who support the opposition conference—do they remember that in their own tenure they considered even shaking hands with the opposition to be beneath their dignity? Will the opposition conference care to state even one or two sentences condemning such attitudes?

Let me remind you: when the “one page” used to exist, a TV anchor was publicly abused and stoned at a rally in Lahore. When that page existed, after every rally, stone-pelting at Geo TV coming and going was a routine matter. Who, at whose behest, launched the campaign to prove every journalist to be “envelope-receiving” by making fake documents? Shouldn’t these accounts be cleared before launching a new democratic movement? In the conspiracy to reduce journalists’ and anchors’ salaries and to cut off advertisements for newspapers and TV channels, were the then military officers along with the PTI prime minister and ministers not partners? Should they not seek forgiveness for that conspiracy? The throttling of journalism and media that we see today in fact began in that very era. Today, those who participated in that conspiracy want to become leaders of a new democracy. If they have truly changed with sincerity, then at least confess to the sins of the past first, admit to the crime of reading out agency-prepared scandals and affidavits, first publicly apologize for the sin of scandalizing journalists and media. Were these not the very same people who, when a brave journalist like Hamid Mir was shot, mocked him and so ruthlessly declared those bullets to be plastic bullets? Were these not the same who rejoiced at the arrest of the biggest media stakeholder Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and repeated on social media the allegations manufactured by the fake factory? Have we forgotten that hundreds of blasphemy cases were filed across the country against the owner of the largest media group, and these so-called democratic people of today clapped at it? Has even one of them ever condemned these inhuman, undemocratic, un-journalistic attitudes even once?

Granted, you have all undergone a transformation, and everyone of then is now democratic—but if this is really so, then first admit to your crimes and tell us on whose orders you stabbed democracy in which ways. People think becoming a Muslim is easy, but even then, before boarding the train of faith, one must recite the Kalima. Likewise, to board the democratic train, at least correct your appearance, and in your bundle remove the account of abuses against democracy—what kind of democracy will you bring otherwise? Before becoming a Muslim one must recite the Kalima; there is no strict requirement for becoming democratic, but at least verbal admission and acknowledgment of past mistakes should be made. Even if one wants to sneak into the mosque rows by merely wiping away disbelief from the forehead, still the Kalima must be read.

Due to Mahmood Khan Achakzai’s past and Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar’s democratic ideas, I believe they are sincere to the democratic cause, and they rightly understand that the future of a strong Pakistan lies solely in democracy. They have spoken of a new Charter of Democracy; surely, they must have carefully studied the first Charter of Democracy, which begins with a public apology for past mistakes and then moves forward to a declaration of commitment for the future. PTI and its supporting YouTubers insist that they were right before and are right now—that when they were killers, the killings were justified, and now when they are the victims, killing has become forbidden. This duplicity and contradiction will not work. It is expected that Achakzai Sahib and Khokhar Sahib will obtain from PTI a clear commitment to democracy; otherwise, the opposition is merely going to become a partner in PTI’s struggle for power. In that case, what is the need to use the name of democratic and noble objectives?

The people of Pakistan have been deceived in both democratic and authoritarian eras. The people have, many times, bestowed their full trust upon democratic leaders, and with that trust came the expectation that democratic leaders, acting upon democratic ideals, would solve public problems and lead Pakistan towards prosperity. On the other hand, in authoritarian eras as well, the blood of the people has been shed under the deception of public aspirations. In short, neither democratic nor authoritarian governments have tried to bring the sinking boat of the country to shore. If the opposition truly wants to show the dream of a new democracy, then at least present a practicable solution—one that is lasting and not, like in the past, deceptive.