Electoral accountability

Exceptions apart, faced with accountability, politicians’ response is two-fold: one, the people are the ultimate judge and elections are the only credible instrument of calling political leaders to account (electoral accountability). The very fact that the electorate returns a candidate, or a political party, to the assemblies repeatedly is proof of their credentials.

Two, politicians have no objection to accountability provided other powerful institutions are also made answerable for their acts of omission and commission (across-the-board accountability).

Whichever position politicians may take, it is hard to gainsay that accountability and democracy go hand-in-hand. In democratic theory, political power is a trust and the trustee must be made accountable for the way the authority is exercised.

In ancient Greece – universally regarded as the cradle of democracy – the government was elected from the whole body of citizens. At the end of their term, the members of the government were subjected to a detailed ‘performance audit’ where they had to address, on the spot, any complaints that may have been brought against them.

The political unit in ancient Greece was the city state and direct democracy was in vogue. In contrast, modern democracies are representative and the states are much larger. Therefore, performance audit as practised in ancient Greece may not be practical now. But responsible government remains the ultimate basis of democracy, whether direct or indirect.

Electoral accountability has many achievements to its credit. Democracy is an implicit trust in the wisdom of the ordinary voter and the electorate is the best judge of how well or bad a party has fared. At the end of its term, the ruling party and the parties in opposition go back to the people. It is for the electorate to decide which party or politician should be voted into power (reward) and which should be voted out (punishment). A party may be mired in corruption scandals or have the reputation of being grossly incompetent – but if the people elect it to power, the popular mandate must be accepted. As they say, “The voice of the people is the voice of God”.

The importance of electoral rewards and punishments can’t be disputed. At the same time, one must be wary of the limitations of popular or electoral accountability. One of the most obvious limitations is ideology or political beliefs. In a particular milieu, a section of the electorate may continue to see a political party as its best bet irrespective of its performance or reputation. Parties which campaign on the basis of identity politics have more or less a secure vote-bank. Pakistani politics abounds in such parties.

Take the MQM and the PPP. Over the years, the MQM’s popularity and credentials in urban Sindh have been a tough nut to crack despite the party having been widely charged with masterminding criminal activities and thus subjected to crackdowns by the authorities off and on. The party has also been in power both in its own right (local governments) and as a coalition partner (federal and Sindh governments). During those stints in power, the party may have performed exceptionally or terribly – opinion remains divided.

At any rate, it will be a capital mistake to attribute the MQM’s popularity, in a considerable measure, to its performance. The MQM’s essentially Mohajir credentials have enabled the party to maintain its electoral edge over its rivals in urban Sindh. The party’s popularity is rooted in the perception that if the Mohajirs are to have any voice in political or economic matters, the only effective vehicle available to them is the MQM.

The MQM’s overwhelming popularity in urban Sindh is matched by that of the PPP in the rural regions of the province. The reasons for this are similar. Unlike the MQM, the PPP has had a nationwide character. At the same time, the PPP adroitly plays the ‘Sindh card’. Since 1970, with one exception (1997), in every election, the PPP has emerged as the single largest party in Sindh. Allegations of massive corruption and gross incompetence have fallen flat on the voter. Only a skin-deep analysis will attribute the PPP’s electoral exploits in the province to its performance.

The same goes for the JUI-F, which continues to boast a substantial religious vote-bank in parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

The second limitation is the lack of credible information, which, ironically enough, is on the rise in the age of information. The human mind is known for selective perception and the presence of a number of 24/7 TV channels heightens this characteristic. The ordinary reader or viewer is bamboozled by the contradicting stories about the major political parties doing the rounds in the print, electronic and social media. If one section of the media glorifies a political leader, another vilifies him. The clueless viewer can’t make up his mind.

To a person who is without political affiliations, all parties seem to be equally clean or corrupt, efficient or incompetent. So it hardly matters who is, or will be, at the helm. This is the major reason for the absence of Pakistan’s significant chunk of the electorate at the polling stations. The highest even voter turnout in the country was recorded at 55 percent in 2013. Electoral accountability is difficult to come by in such circumstances.

Another limitation arises from the asymmetry of power. The voters are no match for a powerful candidate, who has tremendous resources – men, material, law, propaganda – at his beck and call. Only by an immense stretch of imagination can we believe in effective electoral accountability.

Even if such limitations are overcome, elections will primarily remain a device to elect the government rather than to hold political leaders to account. The fact that people are the ultimate court in democracy is only figuratively true. For the purpose of accountability, the electorate can’t replace a court or tribunal or any other institution set up under the law.

It’s hard to disagree with the notion that politicians alone should not be singled out for accountability. However, from this premise it does not logically follow that the accountability of the political class should be made contingent upon that of the other elite. For one thing, discrimination applies only to similarly situated people. Holding some politicians accountable while allowing others to go scot free will constitute discrimination. For another, it is the politicians who have to set the pace and direction of accountability and other public policies. If they hide themselves behind the misconstrued notion of across-the-board accountability, the process will not be set in motion.

Accountability of politicians, however, needs to follow the due process of law and transparency. In the past, accountability was used as an instrument of a forced change in loyalties or of political victimisation. During the Gen Musharraf era, for instance, several politicians were put in the dock for alleged corruption. But the moment, they joined the king’s party, they were given a clean chit. That was not accountability but political manipulation.

At the same time, mob justice, though very appealing to a large section of society, ought to be avoided. The majesty of the law must be ensured at all cost.

The writer is a freelance
countributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com