IT seems that, like public representatives, our national heroes will also be selected for us. The Senate deputy chairman declared on Thursday that he would henceforth be enforcing a strict prohibition on any criticism in the House targeted at “institutions, national heroes and leaders of political parties”. Specifically, “You cannot speak against political heroes who suffered martyrdom, went into exile, worked for the nation and the country, conducted nuclear tests, and made [the] nuclear bomb”, the deputy chairman said. Lest there was any uncertainty regarding the pronouncement, the gentleman, who was elected on a PML-N ticket, spelt out that this included his party’s president, Nawaz Sharif. Others to have earned the deputy chairman’s high regard included former prime ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, nuclear scientist Dr A.Q. Khan, and “all those who had signed the 1973 Constitution”. The deputy chair was not content with just sharing his list of ‘national heroes’. He made it clear that he could also issue “strict orders” to ensure their respect. “This includes the power under Rule 246 to suspend a member,” he warned.

These are interesting times. We now have leaders who are beyond the reach of the law, and leaders who are beyond reproach. Deference to them has either been codified through legislation or compelled through parliamentary edict. What, one must ask, is the need for all this? Leaders are human after all, and prone to mistakes. Why must any of them be elevated to a level where everything they do or may do or have done should be venerated and accepted unquestioningly? Why is tolerance for criticism and opposing viewpoints disappearing at such an alarming pace? These are questions for everyone to ponder as the nation turns to a new chapter in its political history. The core conflict has not changed. The will of the many and the will of the few continue to contest for legitimacy and space. If the people cannot choose their leaders, and if they may not even choose their own heroes, what does it mean for the social contract they have had with the state? The country’s teeming masses cannot remain relegated to the footnotes, as they are in the narratives in vogue these days. History shows that societies push back when denied agency. It would be prudent to consider what such a pushback could entail.

Published in Dawn, December 6th, 2025