Ever since our Prime Minister (PM) uttered the words “liberal” and “democracy” in the same sentence, the commentariat has gone berserk. Islam, Jinnah, the Constitution, Pakistan’s ideology and a slew of other shibboleths have been dragged in and around to oppose or agree with the PM. Personally, I think it is quite obvious that the PM actually did not write the speech himself. Obviously, a speech writer is responsible for the words spoken though presumably the PM agreed with the context those words were spoken in; I would not be entirely surprised that the PM was willing to initiate the controversy that now surrounds his usage of those words. However, I have a theory about what happened. The concept of ‘liberal democracy’ that the PM sort of supported is entirely reminiscent of the book/essay by Francis Fukuyama (End of History and the Last Man) where he states that liberal democracy has won as a system of government over all others. That statement is the bedrock belief of modern western political conservatives. Evidently, somebody in the PM’s inner circle, and that obviously excludes the ‘usual suspects’, recently read Fukuyama and was impressed enough to include the idea of liberal democracy into the aforementioned speech — more than 20 years too late but better late than never. That is the conundrum. Liberal democracy has nothing much to do with modern liberalism as a political ideology. Both political liberals and conservatives accept that liberal democracy is the desirable system of government. Basically, what this system entails is a representative form of government that supports the concept of individual rights, including the right to pursue a particular religion or profession. It also entails an essentially laissez faire system of economics. Modern liberal and conservative politics,however, do diverge around a few major points of view. Most important differences revolve around the extent of individual freedoms, especially from cultural and sexual perspectives, and about the rights of labour versus the capitalist class (trade unionism), the right of the individuals on the state (welfare) and, most importantly, the right of the state to use taxation as a means of wealth transfer from the rich to the poor. What has perturbed those who used to be called religious divines in the PM’s speech is the word liberal, irrespective of any political or philosophical understanding of what that word might mean. Our religious divines are entirely frantic that the idea of liberalism, conservative or otherwise,might include the concept of freedom of religious thought and practice. That, of course, presumes that the state will not impose a particular system of thought upon its citizens. Those that follow different ‘accepted’ branches of Islam in Pakistan might have some worry about other sects but what makes them totally incapable of rational thought is the idea that liberalism might force them to accept the Ahmedis as citizens with the same rights as they have. I do not know whether the PM really thought about the Ahmedi question when he mentioned the idea that Pakistan had to become a liberal and democratic country. If the PM wants Pakistan to become a liberal and democratic country he must presume that the Ahmedis as well as those who under the law are determined to be religious minorities must have the same rights as all other citizens of the country. That, of course, slip slides into the idea of a functionally secular polity where all citizens have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. I do not think the PM thought all this through but our religious divines did. The reason that they became so perturbed about the idea of liberalism is that theymight have to accept Ahmedis as citizens with equal rights. Pakistan is never going to become a secular country under the law. But then neither is the UKwhere there exists an official religion and the head of state (the monarch) has to belong to that religion. Even though the UK is technically not a secular state, it is a pluralist society where all religious thought and practice are treated equally. Even so, in its entire history, the UK has never had a non-Christian as PM. The US, on the other hand, is constitutionally a ‘secular’ state yet in its entire history it has only had one non-Protestant president who incidentally was assassinated midway through his first term. The point is that whatever constitutions or conventions dictate, many countries over a period of time will evolve and start to ignore non-democratic and non-liberal ideas written into existing laws. Once Pakistan actually embarks on the road to becoming a liberal democratic country, the religious divines will lose their power to inflame and excite ordinary citizens based upon religious ideas. Indeed, the military dictator who brought religion into politics might be turning in his grave because his political protégé is talking of liberal democracy. Frankly, I wonder whether our PM has actually accepted liberal democracy as a personal ideal. After all, it was just a couple of decades ago that he was all for the infamous Sharia Bill that would have made him the religious ruler of Pakistan. But then there is one very interesting statistic floating around. Daughters tend to make their fathers liberal. Whether that is a factor in the PM’s transition from a hard right religious conservative into a relatively liberal centre right political person is worth wondering about. That said the PM heads a political party that derives its support primarily from religious and financial conservatives in Punjab. The important question remains whether the PM’s political base is ready to accept a move to the centre. Here, I believe that there might be some pushback on the idea of liberal democracy. As the next general elections approach the PM is most likely going to move back to his pro-religious and anti-liberal stand that has helped him in the past. The author is a former editor of the Journal of Association of Pakistani descent Physicians of North America (APPNA)