The Oxford dictionary gives two meanings of the word ‘cliché’ that are relevant to this inquiry: 1) a hackneyed or over-used phrase or opinion; and ii) a very predictable or unoriginal thing or person.

We have a serious problem in applying the second definition to Pakistan’s politics. Pakistan’s politicians are hardly ever predictable because there are no rules of conduct for many of their activities, by which their actions could be considered predictable or otherwise.

For instance, there is no rule that the prime minister or ministers shall attend a given number of sessions of the National Assembly and the Senate. They are free to appear or not to appear in the houses of parliament. Thus, they are not predictable persons and they cannot be labelled as clichés.

At the same time, Pakistan’s politicians have rarely been accused of originality in matters related to politics. Most of them will have to be classified as unoriginal persons and, thus, liable to be described as clichés.

This will create some computation problems. There may be persons who are predictable and unoriginal; in their case classification as clichés will be easy. But there could also be persons who are predictable but not unoriginal or who are unoriginal and not predictable. They could only be graded as semi-cliché, or half-cliché or cliché by half.

The views of how many half-clichés will be considered significant, worth nothing, or decisive by political analysts, especially TV anchor persons who hold talk shows by inviting panelists to listen to their own speeches? And what will be the consequence of having a large number of politicians in categories of clichés or half-clichés, especially in respect to quality of governance and the rights of the people?

In comparison to the difficulty in applying the word cliché to persons, its application to phrases or opinions that are used in our politics is quite easy. Not only do we have many phrases and opinions that have been rendered trite by overuse, our political vocabulary is quite rich in phrases/opinions/slogans that were or are patently incorrect or inauthentic.

For instance, in the pre-independence period the Muslims of the subcontinent were told Muslim hai tau Muslim League mein aa (If you are a Muslim you must be in the Muslim League). There might have been many definitions of a Muslim, some very simple and some extraordinarily demanding, but there was none that held membership of Muslim League essential for anyone’s being accepted as a Muslim. This was an example of a cliché raised to the level of an article of faith.

The political use of this cliché has had far-reaching repercussions. One has seen several of its mind-boggling variations. For example: one God, one nation, one roadliner or one God, one nation, only one leader. From where does anyone derive the sanction to oblige me to follow a particular leader if I believe in the one-ness of God and cannot deny membership of the "single nation?"

General Ayub Khan was quite fond of clichés. He regularly called upon the people to strengthen the hands of the government. His cheerleaders changed the call to Sadar Ayub kay haath mazboot karo (Strengthen President Ayub’s hands). I could never understand that by strengthening Ayub Khan’s hands the police could become more efficient or drought-hit agriculture could yield enough food grains to feed the burgeoning population.

Pakistan’s politicians have always sworn by the democratic and federal structure of the state -- Pakistan aik wafaqi jamhooria hai. This cliché became increasingly hollow within a few years of independence because Pakistan was anything but a federation. While the country was ruled by one dictator or another the people knew that it was not a jamhooriya either and they could neither laugh nor cry over their condition.

The leftists and radicals were in no difficulty when they only called for REVOLUTION without giving a time-frame for its occurrence. But then they or their over-excited followers started declaring that a revolution was about to take place or was around the corner. They reduced their call to a cliché.

Read more on: Victims of their own popularity

The Pakistan People’s Party arrived with a bagful of attractive slogans -- Islam is our faith, socialism is our economy, democracy is our polity, and power flows from the barrel of the gun. While no one dare call the last mentioned slogan a cliché, opinion is divided on whether the other slogans have become clichés. According to a line of argument, that is quite convincing, these slogans have not become clichés because they have not been overused by their mother-party itself.

Similar is the fate of the most popular slogan ever -- Roti, Kapra, aur Makan. Many think this slogan has become a cliché while some others think it is still a potent political weapon provided the people can be convinced of its users’ will and capacity to fulfill the promise.

"Pakistan cannot exist without democracy" is perhaps one of the most hackneyed opinions that has been heard from a variety of pulpits and platforms in all seasons. Even dictators have presented this declaration as their motto. Ordinary people believe that anyone raising this slogan or subscribing to this opinion will desist from acting in a manner that violates democratic assumptions of the state. The slogan is reduced to a cliché when those mouthing it acquire power by destroying democracy -- to begin with. The cynics say that quite a few people have undermined democracy in the hope of proving the axiom.

In the 1970s, people were told that a final solution to the Ahmadi question had been found. In reality, this question has become more and more intractable with the passage of time. Now ‘final solution’ has become such a worn-out cliché that anyone trying to ride high on the promise of a final solution for this issue or that will find his valet as the sole human being as his audience.

A popular cliché these days is that the government and all parties or X or Y are on the same page, when evidence to the contrary is available in abundance. In addition, often the page is not visible to the people -- and not because of their poor eyesight -- and it is not clear as to how much space is occupied by the parties concerned or what their order of appearance is. As we all know, a footnote cannot be treated as equal to the operative part of the text.

But why are we discussing the use of clichés in politics? The reason is not far to seek. Pakistan is addicted to the politics of slogans and statements. The media rarely gets an opportunity to report what X, Y, or Z has done, and mostly the people are served with, "he said, he said," stories. For that reason the phrases and opinions that pour out of privileged mouths are treasured as solemn declarations even when they are mere clichés.

Further, in a make-believe world that Pakistan’s politics is the ordinary citizens can easily be disposed of with clichés that they will hail as gems of wisdom and live happily with illusions of freedom, grandeur, and prosperity that the cliché-laden harangues create.

Politics by clichés might be described as one of the main reasons for Pakistan’s downhill slide.