THERE are worse things than drift, impasse and bland uncertainty — see, much of the rest of the world is seemingly going to hell — but it is awfully tedious.

Imran said this, Qadri threatened that, Nawaz did nothing, somewhere something semi-relevant happened. It’s difficult to get excited or agitated by any of it any more.

Pakistan usually does its crises high-octane and this slow burn struggles to hold the interest. Everyone knows it’s not going to end anytime soon and, at this stage, mid-term elections are the worst-case scenario.

The new protester, who last year was a last-minute voter or didn’t get around to voting at all, is angry about May 2013.

If off-schedule elections are the worst thing on the table, that’s a buffet Pakistan will be able to digest without too much trouble. And even that seems like a distant prospect.

So we must make do with smaller matters. Like this business of why Imran’s agitation is resonating, perhaps not quite a groundswell as the PTI wants folk to believe, but definitely more than a trickle.

The most interesting protesters are the new ones. PTI activists you already know what they’ll say and do. PTI voters in 2013 you kinda have an idea what they’re about.

But what about the people who seem newly drawn to Imran, the ones who are willing him on and are ready to participate in his latest agitation, who neither hate Nawaz nor love Imran, but somehow have decided they care enough to pick sides in this fight?

It is possible to find them. Sometimes you see them chanting the slogan that has got under the skin of the PML-N. Sometimes they’re out on Constitution Avenue in the evenings. Many stay home, but will answer the call when Imran turns up in their cities.

Talk to them, listen to what they have to say and some themes emerge.

First, Model Town still rankles. Even though Qadri is there on Constitution Avenue, the protester newly drawn to Imran tends to start with Model Town.

How can you kill people in cold blood in Lahore? And then not let an FIR be registered? What kind of government does that?

Model Town was the original rupture, at least for the new protester. And Model Town is a powerful lightning rod because the crime was so manifest, the injustice so clear — no explanation is needed nor can responsibility be denied.

Second, it is the election. The new protester, the man or woman who last year was a last-minute voter or didn’t get around to voting at all, is angry about May 2013.

It’s not about specific rigging allegations or minutiae of ROs and stuffed ballot boxes; it’s a far more basic question that Imran has succeeded in making them wonder about: why should votes — any votes — cast legitimately not be counted?

What is this system which decides that since an overall result was expected anyway, why bother about some people being cheated out of their vote?

That grievance by the new protester is expressed in several ways and it has the power of simplicity, and principle, on its side.

Why do we have elections in the first place, where votes are counted and results tabulated, if it’s already known who’s going to win?

Or: if the PML-N wins a fresh election, so be it, but what’s this business about not being able to ensure that every vote is counted? What kind of democracy is this?

Why, in this day and age, are we to accept a process where some people’s vote gets counted and recorded accurately and others’ not?

And: what is the government afraid of? If they won, then why can’t they just satisfy Imran that they won fair and square?

What’s the harm in doing what Imran asks, the new protester is wondering, especially since everyone agrees that the process was flawed. What great principle is at stake which prevents votes from being recounted?

You can ask this new protester, the one drawn to Imran since the summer, all kinds of things. Was 2002 or 2008 fair? If 2013 was an improvement on 2008 and 2008 an improvement on 2002, then aren’t we at least moving in the right direction?

Is it not obvious that the army has, thanks to the endless protests, reoccupied much of the political space that ought to belong to the civilians? If elections are to be redone just because someone isn’t happy with the result, what kind of precedent would that set?

But the questions are easily deflected. If rigging happened in the past that doesn’t mean it should be ignored today. Demanding fair elections does not mean inviting the army into politics, rather the opposite.

And the kicker, the weapon that the new protester can use to shoot down most questions: Imran is the only one saying this stuff — and that’s why he deserves our support.

Here’s why that’s so potent: it’s true.

Imran may be saying a lot of loopy things, he may come up with kooky ideas galore and he may not have much of a grasp on how to fix things, but in his basic, essential point he is right: the election was not free and fair nor was it completely transparent.

And Imran is the only one who is saying that is unacceptable.

You can explain why a credible and acceptable May 2013 was progress, why democratic disruption may help anti-democratic forces, why Imran didn’t come close to winning, but to those who have heard Imran and absorbed his basic point, how do you explain that tainted is OK, that they should get over it and move on, vote counted or not?

You can’t. Which is why Imran is resonating and there’s more than a trickle of new converts every week.

The writer is a member of staff.

cyril.a@gmail.com

Twitter: @cyalm

Published in Dawn, October 5th, 2014