Let the game begin

With less than a year to go before the next general elections, the games of political expediency have begun. The PPP appears to be realigning itself, this time a little closer to the PTI and in direct opposition to the PML-N with which it had in the past attempted to strike up partnerships of various kinds.

At its most recent rallies, PPP Co-Chairperson Asif Ali Zardari has lashed out strongly against the PML-N, accusing the party of attempting to damage Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other ‘minority’ provinces. Imran Khan as we all know has used far stronger language against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

We can expect such exchanges and verbal battles to continue over the coming months. The sitting government is under attack over loadshedding as well as the Panama leaks case, and no doubt other issues will be put on the platform at the right time. In many ways, this is only to be expected.

We wonder, however, if the major political parties ever consider precisely what they have to offer to people and what the nature of their political agenda is. At a time when political ideology or any commitment to beliefs appears to be a thing of the past, all the large parties essentially follow the same set of strategies. They concentrate on attacking other parties but without stating what that party hopes to offer to people. For example, there has been no suggestion of precisely how the problem of loadshedding will be solved or how the other essential needs of people will be addressed.

The PPP will perhaps remember that power cuts were no better during its own five-year period of rule which ended in 2013 while there is little evidence that Imran Khan has been able to turn Khyber Pakhtunkhwa into the model province he had pledged to create.

All this presents a serious dilemma. Despite the different banners and electoral symbols that will go on display over the coming months, there is very little difference between our main parties. Each of them essentially follow the same ideology with perhaps minute details separating them. All the parties also toe the line of more powerful institution which, in effect, determine major affairs in the country and make policy decisions.

This really leaves the parties as nothing more than groups with leaders who raise slogans and make promises – all worded in very similar language – but who can offer very little else. Ideological diversity barely exists. Yes, the PML-N and the PTI may adopt a more conservative line on some issues than the PPP or the ANP. But the PPP and the ANP have abandoned their roots on the left of the political spectrum long ago and moved even past the centre, increasingly towards the right.

The PPP does not even pretend to adhere to any economic vision or any idea of major reform which would transfer power and wealth more equitably. The ANP sometimes makes these claims, but has also embroiled itself in the ugly gang wars of Karachi and has had representatives who have defended actions such as the killing of four women in Kohistan for clapping along to music at a wedding.

No party seems willing to look beyond the box it has been shut into towards other horizons. Essentially, they all conform to precisely the same shape and structure and, for this reason, suffer precisely the same problems. People question how political change is ever to arrive in our country. At times, the answers seem non-existent. We appear doomed to continue moving endlessly in the same cycle: the quest for power, the games that go with it, the cowing down to powerful institutions and the money-making that drives so many elements of politics. ‘People’ come last in this equation. The media, too, is guilty of creating such a situation.

In southern Punjab, last week, a father killed five of his children and then attempted to end his own life because of a discord in the household created by financial strife. In the same area, a mother ended her own life and that of three of her children – all below the age of five – because she felt she was unable to offer them a decent life. Similar stories come from other places in the country as well. A few weeks ago in Lahore, a mother thought it better to drown two young children and then hang herself rather than continue with the poor quality of life that was the only one available to her. This is the life of people in our country, which is often seen only when scandalous, tragic events occur. The misery occurs everywhere and is suffered by millions of people on a day-to-day basis.

If a party dared to put ‘people’ first, it will need to put them first on its priority and also build the understanding that nations do not constitute a mere swathe of territory but are made up of people who live within its boundaries. No nation-state can be viable or secure if its people live in deprivation and in constant need.

In many ways, this is the root of our problem. It has helped create militancy, assisted the extremists in gaining ground and with the political parties unable to offer meaningful answers, led people to believe that they are entities of little value to their lives. Their value only arises at the time of voting when work in specific constituencies may determine which candidate wins the ballot in that area.

On the larger front, this means very little at all. The bribes offered by individual candidates to procure votes – either by installing taps and drainage lines or simply offering money in some form – has made the situation worse. It has, like a needle stuck into a vein, literally drawn the blood out of politics in the country and removed any trace of ideology.

But let us imagine ideology was injected back. If a party spoke of the rights of people, defended their need to obtain the basic necessities of life and offered a method that would make it possible to deliver this to them, a great deal could change. The method of course is the difficult part of the equation. Slogans are easy to raise. But do we have even a single party that is ready to talk about land reforms, administrative austerity or perhaps most crucial of all, cuts in defence spending?

National security has, of course, been made the battle cry of a nation born in blood and with battle written down in its history. The question of what constitutes national security has been written out by men who wield guns and tanks. A political party which challenges this by suggesting that sufficient food, education and a decent life could help build national security would face a great deal of opposition. However, if that party is able to present even a modicum of credibility, it will be able to present ‘people’ along with it.

In a democracy – and indeed within nation-states – people, when they act in unison, can bring about enormous change. We have this in states around the world. Leaders form the vanguard for this change, and a party that has the courage to deviate from the set lines and chalk out a path of its own could persuade millions of people to walk along with it, bringing about the kind of change we need.

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.

Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com