Mubashar Nadeem
Suhail Warraich is a seasoned columnist with an established readership, admired for his conversational tone and ability to translate complex political realities into accessible narratives. Yet his recent column, “First Meeting with the Field Marshal”, reveals significant weaknesses in journalistic rigor and analytical depth. While the piece succeeds in attracting attention through its storytelling flair, it falls short of the fundamental requirements of serious political writing. What emerges is less a sober analysis of statecraft and leadership and more an exercise in narrative construction, one that risks undermining credibility rather than enhancing it.
Follow Republic Policy Website
The most glaring weakness of Warraich’s column is its language and style. Political writing demands clarity, coherence, and a disciplined use of language that maintains both seriousness and objectivity. Instead, the column employs an anecdotal style, presenting high-stakes issues such as military leadership, civilian governance, and foreign policy in the form of casual conversations, friendly quips, and narrative digressions. While this may entertain general readers, it trivializes subjects that require depth, precision, and respect for context. In matters concerning the state and its institutions, the absence of disciplined expression leads to weak credibility.
Follow Republic Policy YouTube
Equally troubling is the careless use of references. The column alludes to Quranic verses, international relations, and historical analogies, but these references remain vague and unsupported. For instance, the mention of Reko Diq generating two billion dollars annually in profit is cited without any economic rationale, data, or policy framework. Similarly, the treatment of global power dynamics is limited to generic statements rather than grounded analysis. This creates an impression of intellectual superficiality: weighty issues are referenced without the evidence or reasoning necessary to strengthen the claims being made.
Follow Republic Policy Twitter
The narrative thrust of the column is also problematic. Its core aim seems to be enhancing the image of General Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, presenting them as decisive, credible, and stabilizing figures. However, the execution of this objective is flawed. Rather than presenting evidence of leadership, policy decisions, or institutional reforms, the column relies on exaggerated praise and uncritical admiration. For discerning readers, this turns the column into propaganda rather than analysis, raising doubts about the very leadership it seeks to defend. If leaders are truly strong and credible, why should their reputations require reinforcement through superficial storytelling?
Follow Republic Policy Facebook
This leads to the question of reputation management. A well-researched and balanced defense of national leadership can strengthen both credibility and legitimacy. But when the defense is carried out through casual anecdotes, inflated claims, and weak references, it has the opposite effect. The reputations of the individuals highlighted—those very leaders meant to be strengthened—are inadvertently weakened. Readers conclude that serious, authoritative voices are not available to defend these figures, and so the task falls to superficial storytelling. Instead of fortifying the narrative, such writing dilutes it.
From an academic perspective, the deficiencies in Warraich’s column are stark. Effective political writing must demonstrate coherence, objectivity, evidence-based reasoning, and balance. On each of these counts, the column falls short. Rather than coherence, the writing meanders like a casual story. Instead of objectivity, it leans heavily on personal admiration and hyperbole. Evidence-based reasoning is absent, replaced by sweeping claims and shallow references. And instead of balance, it offers a one-sided narrative centered on personalities rather than policies. The absence of these principles transforms the column from serious commentary into casual opinion.
Follow Republic Policy Instagram
It is worth underscoring that narrative-building in politics and journalism is not inherently problematic. Every society requires stories that explain and contextualize leadership. However, for such narratives to be effective, they must rest on research, intellectual honesty, and analytical strength. Warraich’s column fails in this regard. Instead of constructing a persuasive case for leadership credibility, it exposes the fragility of the narrative. In attempting to elevate its subjects, the column inadvertently highlights the weakness of their public image, demonstrating how poorly constructed narratives can backfire.
Follow Republic Policy WhatsApp Channel
In conclusion, Suhail Warraich’s “First Meeting with the Field Marshal” serves as a cautionary example of how not to conduct political journalism. By prioritizing anecdotes over analysis, praise over objectivity, and references over reasoning, the column weakens both its message and its credibility. More importantly, it undermines the reputations of the very figures it seeks to defend, creating the perception that leadership narratives in Pakistan are being managed through shallow rhetoric rather than substantive engagement. For narrative-building to succeed, journalism must ground itself in research, intellectual rigor, and balanced critique—without these, even the most well-intentioned efforts collapse under their own superficiality.
