We Pakistanis spend most of our lives in a tussle of politics. In our political parties' tug of war, we take on the role of both, the rope and their muscle. They use a pull-strategy backed by two factors, bribery and threat. We've been bribed every time we fell for another unrealistic vow, for instance '100 din bijli in', even though you might argue that it isn't bribery since we're only naive individuals that were tempted by the falsely painted picture of a better nation. But let's face it, it hasn't been the picture of a better nation that attracted us, it was the picture of a better individual life.

Our deep seeded selfishness sprouts out and reveals itself: a well settled man dreaming of better infrastructure would find PML-N's intentions wise, while the man looking for a sponsored education will probably end up at PTI's jalsa. This is no why implies that we're immoral; we just fail to see the bigger picture because of the curtain they pull down on it. 

Imran Khan, Chairman PTI, successfully handed us eventful few months recently. Needless to say that he resurrected the long died political enthusiasm in people. He also managed to make people believe that an idealist is the leader our nation needed. 

Idealism and realism have been long fought over, but neither is correct and nor wrong. Rather, both need to be coupled together to get the perfect recipe, and that's what we lack in this country. We've been presented with polar extremes of idealists and realists. 

To some people, idealism is simply self-righteousness. That's the card Imran Khan played on this nation that's been deprived of even the basic necessities. To present a deluded vision of perfection achieved in short run to masses that haven't stepped close to mediocrity is sinful because of its unrealistic aspect.

We can't say the man was lying, he's held onto his integrity of intent unlike the rest, regardless of the indecisiveness and irrationality we've witnessed at times. So it's possible to say that he truly 'intended' to achieve all he planned. But the problem remains that an idealistic plan cannot be achieved through idealistic actions. You may have to take ruthless courses to stick to your moral purposes as a leader.

Our leaders, unfortunately, seem to lack that maturity and moreover, they lack the long term vision needed for this country. For instance, take heed from Franklin Roosevelt's violation of the public vote for neutrality in 1930 as Europe attacked all over itself. He secretly made commitments to Winston Churchill and the French. Why? Because global strategy required this action in order to preserve democracy in the United States.

Can we really expect any of our leaders to take on such a ruthless course to protect a moral core as he thought of the national long run interest? I believe not. 

Imran Khan failed to prove his capability to possess vision. Does someone who spontaneously decide on a country wide protest which could have been a potential revolution, but fails to recognize how a revolution is meant to be sacred, have what it takes to lead an unstable nation? Does someone who had every camera in the world focused on him but only chanted 'Go Nawaz Go' for weeks before making any credible speech, have the wisdom to take us forward?  Someone who defeated the purpose of his own protest within 48 hours by presenting a DJ to turn D-Chowk into desi tomorrowland. 

The man wouldn't step near the boundary of corruption, surely. Furthermore, his USP has to be how he’s not bound by hierarchical or ancestress politics. There is no Bilawal, Maryam or Hamza in PTI. He does not claim to have family right over this country as PML-N does. He is not accumulating power and training his descendants to step in for the next elections. He does not believe that every Khan is the right Khan. Which is why he would get my vote again as I believe he's the best of the worse.

But here's what we ignore. Idealism and Realism are both linked through the dreaded concept called power. Idealistic views can't take shape without power; realism teaches you how to wield power. Imran Khan is just another man with big words till power falls into this lap; without that all his pure intentions will remain lifeless.

So it's safe to say that all his movements, protests and struggles have not just been for correctional purposes but also for availing power. It's a necessity of course. Except who's to guarantee that someone who's been fighting for power because he needs it more than the realists, by motivating people to protest against the excessive exertion of power, won't be burnt by the flames of it himself once he acquires it? It's a huge risk we PTI supporters take as we delude ourselves to believe that the party won't get accustomed to the taste of power and become the next PPP. 

As of now, we've witnessed PTI make quite a few questionable decisions: a failed movement which caused loss of purpose, loss of life, loss of supporters and an economic concussion. PTI might have forgotten how every protest isn't an inevitable revolution, and every revolution isn't a success. (Evolution might just be our answer instead here).  The insensitive timing of a marriage celebration before a few hundred children were even laid down to rest. Persistence on holding talks with a terrorist organization – does Imran Khan not understand the consequences of offering militancy a permanent position in the state by offering an office to them?

This is where our country's conspiracy theorists take charge and make accusations of PTI being either pro-Taliban or even better, pro-American. But who said idealism isn't accompanied by irrationality. PTI also stirred up confusion among supporters about a few electables, their intake has been a stain on the party.  Supporters merely continue forgoing these factors for Imran Khan.

Displaying organization inability to find coherence of intention amongst its members; this is where PTI fails to present itself as a party, but rather stands as a one man show by Imran Khan. What will happen the day Imran Khan is no longer with us?

To judge which party is better than the other would depend on our subjective judgments of their actions and intentions, and of course our stubborn loyalty that would always keep us biased towards our respected sides. It seems that democracy only has us tangled in a web of politicians we can't turn our faces away from.