New political realities

Politics is not only the game of ‘possible’ but also a challenge to accept the ground realities.

This is not an era of ideologies, convictions or commitments. Even someone like Bilawal Bhutto is finding hard to capitalize on the strong Bhutto legacy. The myth like that of Altaf Hussain is fading out. Sharifs are facing a stiff challenge from someone like Imran Khan and not from Asif Ali Zardari. This transformation has come through democracy.

In Pakistan, the democratic system may not be as strong as in other parts of the world and still has a lot of challenges ahead, but, in the last 10 years, some major political developments have taken place, which many of us may not have noticed, but it is a way forward.

Today’s realities are that the mainstream parties like PPP, ANP, MQM, Jamaat-e-Islami and JUI (F) are all fighting the battle for survival or revival. For instance, the new reality is the rise of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and its leader Imran Khan while Bilawal Bhutto is far behind. In Karachi’s politics, if Mustafa Kamal is challenging both MQM-Pakistan and MQM-London, PPP is planning to make inroads in Karachi to fill this vacuum.

There has been political transformation in the last few years and if this process continues, we may see new leaders and parties. For instance, in KP, the electoral transformation came through elections. KP is the province where the electorate seem to be more mature and bring changes in each election. From 1988 to 2013, almost all the mainstream parties including religious parties have been given a chance whether it is NAP-JUI alliance in the 70s, PPP, PML (N), ANP, JUI-JI alliance or PTI-JI alliance. Thus, one could say that the electorate of KP are quite alert when it comes to vote and can’t be taken for granted. Pakistan Peoples Party could be blamed for many things, particularly for its style of governance and corruption, but the parliamentary record shows that it has brought some major constitutional reforms which can have far-reaching positive impacts, if properly used. These include the 18th Amendment as well as the presidential powers transferred to the parliament.

Similarly, for the first time, it was agreed that the leader of the opposition would head the Public Accounts Committee and, in a way, the government allowed the opposition to make government institutions accountable. Sadly, in the provinces, the opposition leaders were not made PAC chairmen that should have been done. Thus, the opposition could still take the government to task on the question of ‘good governance’ if it acts without political compromises and could expose corruption in government departments. At the same time, it could also correct its own flaws, when in power. Another improvement in the system came when it was decided that the composition of the Election Commission of Pakistan and the formation of an interim government before elections would be made with consensus between the government and the opposition. Therefore, the present ECP composition came after weeks-long deliberations between the two. Now if the ECP fails to perform its duty, both the government and the opposition will have to share the responsibility for picking wrong members. All this led to a smooth transfer of power after the 2013 general elections and politics of non-interference in the provincial setups. There was no horse-trading after strict compliance with rules and procedures. The opposition parties in the centre are the parties in power in provinces. In Balochistan, we also witnessed positive developments when a nationalist leader of a minority party was allowed to form the government. A strong parliament also showed its worth in 2014 when it passed a strong resolution and sent a strong message against any extra-constitutional step.

There has also been a major transformation in the mindset of the establishment. Had the army not intervened on October 12, 1999 and not derailed democracy for nine years, we could have seen some more transformation in the system. But, in the post-Musharraf army doctrine, we saw the army ensuring smooth elections and transitions, though the loss of Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a suicide attack while coming back after addressing an election rally at Liaquat Bagh on December 27, 2007, once again reminded us of the challenges ahead.

Pervez Musharraf’s decision to put Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of the electoral process came as a ‘blessing in-disguise’ which resulted in the historic Charter of Democracy. All the above-mentioned changes came as a result of the CoD. Many believe had she been alive, we could have witnessed a much improved PPP government from 2008 to 2013. The political consensus also led to a military operation against terror networks and even religious and rightwing forces. First, under the PPP government, operations against these networks were launched in Swat and Malakand and then under the PML-N government, the Operation Zarb-e-Azb was launched in North Waziristan and other areas.

It is true that politics would have been more matured had there been no military interventions even after 1970. Things would have been much better had our superior judiciary played its role and not given legitimacy to unconstitutional military rules. The growth of militancy, extremism and ethnic and sectarian politics also weakened national politics. Corrupt means were adopted, not only to divide popular parties but also to marginalize national politics. All this led to the fall of ideological politics of ‘Left and Right wings’. National parties became hostage to family legacies, Biradaris, ethnic realities, extremist mindsets and personality cults. No mainstream political party adopted the culture of democracy and conducted intra-party elections like in other democracies. The political parties need to improve themselves, otherwise they would either be eliminated or marginalized. For instance, the ‘Bhutto card’ is no more relevant today, outside Sindh. Even in interior Sindh, the PPP survival is by default, in the absence of true challengers and strong groups. It is an irony that the PPP government could not even change the lifestyle of its people or develop its home constituencies like Larkana. Instead, it is facing charges of Rs 90 billion corruption. There are also a lot of lessons for MQM in Karachi and Hyderabad. Had the leadership showed some political maturity and not taken Musharraf’s era for granted besides abandoning alleged militancy and muscles tactics and instead set some good examples of development in urban Sindh, it might not have faced the crisis it is facing today. MQM not only missed the opportunity of entering into the mainstream politics but today it’s a complete ‘divided house’ of Muhajirs. The Muhajir voters have already sent the message for both MQM-London and MQM-Pakistan, for the years to come, through low turnout in the last few elections.

The biggest challenge for all MQM factions as well as for its opponents is to bring voters to polling stations as voters’ disillusionment is dangerous for politics and democracy. MQM and its founder, Altaf Hussain, should have taken the voters’ tendency towards Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf as a challenge to improve party performance. Instead, through his reaction, Altaf only damaged his own party to an extent that no one knows the fate of either ‘Manzil or Rahnuma’ in the next elections. This is also not an era of attracting voters by giving ‘religious slogans’. Jamaat-e-Islami, JI and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam are too dependent on alliances, which itself means that they have flaws in their politics which had not been able to attract voters. They could create trouble for the government but are still far from ‘ruling the country’.

The rise of PTI as a party and Imran Khan as a leader also became possible because of this very system which Imran and many respected political analysts criticize. In the last general elections, we saw a very large number of new voters, particularly the youth and housewives.

Imran set a good example by holding party elections and despite problems, he at least initiated the process in 2012. He should not have abandoned the process when it was due for the second time. These elections in many ways were more important than his ‘Dharna’ and agitation as the party electoral process could have given him a new set up before the next general elections. Dharna, rallies and agitation can attract crowds but can’t bring people to polling stations. These are some new political realities in Pakistan and no political party can take the voters for granted. Yes, they can vote for change or development but may not vote for ‘cult or legacy’ anymore. A lot of improvement is still needed in the system as provincial governments have failed in bringing the kind of development expected from them after the 18th Amendment and also failed in checking the menace of corruption, but the electorate, perhaps, have adopted the concept of bringing change through vote. In a feudal-dominated society, it’s a big change in itself.

The writer is a senior columnist and analyst of the Geo News, The News and daily Jang.