Time and time again, voters are offered a clichéd promise: vote for us, and we will take the country back to the better days. There’s a subtle appeal in reminiscing about the prime experienced by a country previously. They feel more stable and less complex than the present. This feeling becomes especially overpowering amid uncertainty. In Pakistan, just like in multiple parts of the world, politics unusually capitalises on this emotion.
But a very significant question remains unasked: were those times truly as good as we recall? Nostalgia is very different from history. Human memory is inherently selective; it filters out the friction of the past, leaving only a refined version of history. This version gives priority to narratives of solidarity over the discordant truths of social and political turmoil. Therefore, what people hold onto is actually a softened version of the past and not the whole truth. This makes nostalgia a misleading force yet extremely powerful.
Political leaders are well aware of this fact. Alluding to a “golden age” enables them to avoid the complex realities of today’s era. Rather than addressing more trivial issues such as those of inflation, failures in governance, unemployment and institutional restructuring, they offer a more enticing idea: regeneration. In Pakistan, since the public faces economic pressure and unpredictability, this message is convenient to accept. It puts forward the view that the solution is not to create something new but to restore something already familiar.
This promise, however, is quite unrealistic; economic restructuring/recovery and institutional reformation/advancement take their due time. Around the globe, nations that achieved developmental success have done so through persistent efforts over many years. Systematic reforms in taxation, governance, legislative bodies and education normally require 5 to 10 years before impact becomes evident. Yet campaigns run by political parties constantly promise transformative change within a few months.
This fosters unrealistically ambitious expectations which are challenging, if not impossible, to meet. The idea that deep-seated national issues can be retracted and “resolved” instantaneously may sound optimistic, but it strips away the nuances of reality. It reduces complex issues into mere slogans and diverts attention from the efforts required and considered pivotal to address them — ultimately hindering and delaying meaningful progress.
Nonetheless, the core issue still remains, and that is societal evolution. The market changes, populations grow, and global dynamics shift. Legislation that was effective in the past cannot always be applied in the same way in today’s era. Clinging to the past stifles a country’s true potential — actual progress requires not just new ideas but also the tenacity and grit to face the uncomfortable realities that demand change through adequate measures.
Nevertheless, many voters still remain amused by the notion of going back to earlier times. To some extent, this reflects the innate desire for stability while also showing that one tends to continuously look for simple answers to crucial issues. It is easier to assume that existing solutions suffice in comparison to accepting the need for new and innovative solutions to present problems.
The concern isn’t valuing the past but relying on it too much. The constant effort of trying to recreate what once was will always prove to be an obstacle in the path of a nation’s success. While the past may offer insights, lessons and guidance, it still cannot replace a practical roadmap for the future.
To conclude, what truly matters isn’t whether a golden age existed but whether we, as a nation responsible for our country’s future, are open to improving things through awareness, patience and an honest and informed grasp of the current realities.