What is meant by “strengthening the ideological moorings” of the state and how does the PML (N) intend to go about it if returned to power, however has not been spelt out in any detail. The Party has to clearly state what its definition of the ideology is or at least whose definition of the ideology it intends to adopt, whose moorings it has promised to strengthen.

The ideology as defined by the Quaid, when he said “you may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state” or the ideology as propounded by the ideologue of PML (n), i.e. Maulana Abdus Sattar Niazi when he said “only he has the authority to rule who is more pious and wise?” It is not an idle question because it was during Mr. Nawaz Sharif’s 30-month stint as prime minister that his ideologues bulldozed the Ideology Bill prescribing 10 years rigorous imprisonment to anyone who “defiled the ideology of Pakistan” without even defining what ideology was. Dictionaries define the world ‘ideology’ as “an abstract set of ideas and a visionary theorizing.” A party which has once made an abstract concept the basis of criminal prosecution owes to the electorate to delimit the parameters of that concept. The question is also relevant, because on the basis of his understanding of the term ‘ideology’ the Quaid, had **** the minorities that there would be no difference in the political and social rights guaranteed to them but the PML, claiming to be the Quaid’s party and whose mantle of leadership has been adorned by Mian Sahib, adopted a different course. It adopted separate electorate and Hudood Ordinances as its guiding philosophy thus relegating both women and the minorities to the status of the oppressed classes. It is pertinent to ask whether the guiding principles of yester years have been abandoned?

It is heartening that the manifesto pledges “true democracy” based on the supremacy of the Parliament-a clear reference to undoing the Eighth Amendment. But here again the party has sought refuge behind subterfuges so as not to displease the religious lobby. The Eighth Amendment has distorted democracy by making the Parliament subordinate to handpicked court in the name of Shariah and Islam. “True democracy” and supremacy of the Parliament cannot be restored until the Eighth Amendment is removed in its entirety and the Shariat Court divested of powers to strike down laws passed by the Parliament. But the manifesto is silent on this crucial issue and seeks to modify the constitution only to the extent of divesting the President of his powers to dissolve the National Assembly.

Nevertheless what is good about the manifesto is that it recognizes, perhaps for the first time, the need to investigate allegations of corruption against elected representatives and providing for permanent mechanism for accountability. It also promises a “transparent framework to provide the right to information to every citizen.” Since corruption and violations of the law thrive in secrecy the “right to information” legislation will go a long way in tearing apart the shroud of secrecy around government decisions and expose wrongdoing by legislators and public representatives. Politically conscious people will now watch whether this important promise made in the manifesto will be honoured if the party is returned to power.