In Pakistan’s politics, one statement is often heard: the problem is not individuals, but the system. Yet an important question also arises-when the individuals sitting within the system themselves change direction, does the system not automatically begin to move in the right direction? A few recent initiatives by Punjab’s Chief Minister, Maryam Nawaz, have once again revived this debate: if rulers across the country were to work with the same spirit of sacrifice, intent, discipline, and order, could Pakistan truly become a better, safer, and more prosperous state?
It is an undeniable truth that the challenges facing Pakistan are not minor. Lawlessness, crime, economic instability, unemployment, the deteriorating state of health and education, and institutional weaknesses have deeply wounded public hope. For decades, most rulers who came into power have been accused of treating authority as domination rather than service. As a result, a wall of mistrust steadily rose between the state and the people.
In such an environment, when at the provincial level in Punjab it appears that the administrative machinery is being energized and problems are being addressed through field action rather than mere reliance on official offices, it certainly represents a glimpse of change. During Maryam Nawaz’s tenure, steps such as cleanliness drives, operations against encroachments, monitoring of hospitals and educational institutions, and holding the bureaucracy accountable have created the impression that at least the intent and the pace are changing.
But if this approach were adopted across the entire country, what outcomes might emerge? First and foremost, the rule of law could improve. When rulers themselves are serious about enforcing the law, subordinate institutions receive a clear message that negligence will no longer be tolerated. A major cause of crime is the weakness or absence of the state. If the state becomes active, the police are held accountable, and judicial processes are expedited, a reduction in murders, robberies, and other serious crimes would not be unlikely.
A second major benefit could appear in the form of administrative reforms. In Pakistan, the problem is not so much a lack of resources as it is their misuse. If spending at every provincial, district, and local level is monitored, development projects can move from paper into reality on the ground. Maryam Nawaz’s recent emphasis on fieldwork rather than file work reflects this very thinking.
However, it is also crucial to recognize that applying the example of a single individual or province uniformly across the entire country would be naïve. Pakistan is a federal state with provincial autonomy, political diversity, and differing ground realities. Balochistan’s issues differ from those of Punjab; Sindh’s political complexities are distinct; and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has its own unique security situation. Therefore, the idea of a “one-size-fits-all model” can only succeed if it is adapted to local needs.
Moreover, problems cannot be solved through administrative action alone. Public participation, transparency, and institutional reforms are indispensable. If initiatives are temporary or aimed merely at political point-scoring, their impact will not be lasting. The roots of Pakistan’s problems run deep. Any model that ignores factors such as educational backwardness, economic inequality, and delays in justice will remain incomplete.
Another important aspect that deserves attention is political tolerance. If rulers learn to tolerate criticism and do not treat dissent as hostility, the democratic environment can be strengthened. Maryam Nawaz’s actions have drawn both criticism and praise. The real test is whether the government learns from criticism or tries to suppress it. If this approach is adopted nationwide, political bitterness could diminish.
To turn Pakistan into a paradise, more than a single name or face is required-it requires a mindset. A mindset that views governance not as power, but as responsibility. If Maryam Nawaz’s recent style of governance teaches the lesson that delivering results is more important than crafting narratives, then this example can indeed be worth emulating. But the condition is that such measures are carried out consistently, transparently, and with full awareness of the ground realities of all provinces.
Pakistan’s history bears witness to the fact that people do not pin their hopes on promises, but on real, tangible change. If rulers across the country truly make public service their top priority, if the law is equal for all, and if institutions rise above personal interests, then perhaps the word “if only” may one day turn into reality. Only then can this homeland-so often described as a paradise-truly become a place worth living in, where future generations can flourish and thrive.