The Third Way

The success of PTI in the general elections represents a significant shift in Pakistani politics. A third power has arrived to counteract the influence of PPP and PML-N.

For a shift to occur, it isn't enough that a party simply carves out room for itself on the political scene. It must do so on the basis of some new political idea or strategy that hasn't been tried before.

In the case of PTI, it can claim to be the first truly democratic party in Pakistan on the basis of the highly visible and transparent internal elections that it conducted leading up to the general elections. When these internal elections were conducted, many onlookers believed that PTI would have been better off delaying them given the destabilizing nature of party elections. However, PTI proved that internal elections could take place and party unity could still be maintained. That PTI was able to reorganize themselves after the internal elections and launch an effective election campaign displays a level of party professionalism rarely seen in Pakistan's political culture.

Another characteristic that sets PTI apart is consistency regarding policy. For example, it has steadily maintained a clear anti-drone stance. For better or for worse, it has refused to compromise on this issue. This is in stark contrast to the policy adopted by the previous PPP government which tacitly allowed drone attacks while publicly condemning them.

However, there are several grounds on which people argue against PTI being a third force.

There is the fact that PTI has only been able to form a government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). Even if the party manages to set itself apart from other parties, it only has representation in KP. The argument is that this isn't enough representation to cause any major political shift.

However, parliamentary presence is not the only indicator of popularity. For example, PML-N has more than three times the number of National Assembly seats as PTI. However, it has only won twice as many votes overall. These results don't even take into account the vote-rigging that occurred in Punjab where PML-N won the brunt of its National Assembly seats. The same can be said for the vote-rigging that occurred in Karachi. Eyewitnesses and vote counts testify to PTI's substantial popularity here despite the near omniscient presence of MQM.

It is clear, then, that the alternative appeal of PTI is not relegated to KP.

Another complaint that is frequently brought forward is that PTI came to power using political tactics not much different from other parties.

For example, PTI brought political veterans like Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Javed Hashmi into its ranks. As Makhdooms, they derive much - if not all - of their political capital from their personalities and not their policy positions. By engaging in this practice, is PTI not perpetuating personality-based politics in Pakistan?

There is no doubt that these are expedient measures which PTI used to gain a short-term advantage. However, as a party which has national ambitions, PTI needs to work within the very political culture that it seeks to change. And this political culture is a direct product of a social culture which is frequently centered on powerful individuals, clans and families. It is that culture which produces the phenomenon of personality-based politics.

Many critics also point out that the party engaged in the age-old practice of seat adjustment with the likes of Jamaat Islaami and Sheikh Rasheed. This tactic is essentially an alliance of convenience which parties enter into to secure seats. It is rarely an alliance based on vision. The worst part is that it degrades the political process by removing the element of competition between parties.

This, however, is once again a by-product of Pakistani society. Many voters simply refuse to vote along the lines of ideology. And where there is no demand for a competition of ideas, there will be no supply of ideas. It is within this context that PTI - like all other parties - agreed to enter into seat adjustments. The difference is that with PTI, there is at least some room for ideology. With most other parties, there is little to none.

In any case, this is all set against the backdrop of elections in which many parties came to power through coercion, voter intimidation, and rigging. Gaining power through personality-based politics and seat adjustments may be short-sighted. But it doesn't compare to stealing a mandate.

PTI must use the mandate that it has gained to solidify its position and push through its policies wherever it has gained power. KP represents a major challenge in terms of security and success here will have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the country as well. KP, then, will be one of the major tests of whether PTI represents a true third way.

Reform, Revolution and Conservatism

Is reform possible?

Though it may not seem so, the upcoming elections offer a significant opportunity for change in Pakistan's political system.

On one side stand the tried and tested crop of parties. Those that have tasted power and would like nothing more than to do so again. Their constituents may differ and their strategies may diverge. But they all share the distinction of having been major forces at some level of the past government. The PPP has ruled in the centre and has kept its hold on Sindh. The PML-N has dominated Punjab. And MQM has governed Karachi with an iron fist.

On what basis do such parties campaign for votes? After all, Pakistan has lurched from one crisis to another on their watch. Whether it be an economic crisis in the form of inflation or a fiscal crisis brought on by aid dependency, the country is experiencing crises on virtually all counts.

For parties like the PPP whose constituents are largely the rural poor, election campaigning isn't much to worry about. Most of their constituents have neither the time nor the resources to understand the crises that are afflicting them and who to assign blame to. However, other parties have to deal with constituents who have the capability of understanding the quagmire that the ruling parties have thrown them in.

Faced with no track record to offer, such parties instead promise stability in a world of political uncertainty.

The constant presence of the Sharif brothers, Altaf Hussain and the Chaudhary brothers are all an attempt to remind people that change is not always a good thing and that experience in government should count for something. In short, people should vote for them because their parties have lasted and ruled the longest.

Such reasoning ignores the fact that power brings with it many benefits. One of these is the ability to manufacture legitimacy for your party. The rampant politicization within Pakistan's law enforcement agencies and judicial system means that any party in power can use the legal and judicial system to survive no matter what the wishes of the public may be. The longevity of these parties, then, may not be a reflection of the public services they provide but rather of how well they can use the system for their own sustenance.

The appeal for no change is also a clear violation of this generation's democratic right to reshape their country as they see fit. This violation is particularly acute in the case of youth that are willing to vote for someone different in the face of biradari, ethnic and family peer pressure. No generation should have to inherit the political evils of a past generation for the sake of stability. This is especially true when the previous political administration has little good to offer and much ill.

If this conservative appeal for stability and lack of change is not the requirement of the day, then what form of change is ideal? And how should it be brought about? Through reform? Or revolution?

Reform begins with a recognition that whatever needs to be reformed is capable of being saved and doesn't need total dismantling. This is ideal for Pakistan where social structures are ancient and capable of enduring whatever revolution is thrown their way. Social structures such as biradaris and pirs don't lend themselves well to a modern form of ideological politics. The only solution, then, is to layer ideology on top of such structures.

Of all the current parties, PTI is the only one that has attempted to achieve something like this. When it began bringing on board political veterans like Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Javed Hashmi, the party leadership was severely criticized for abandoning its ideology in the name of political expediency. However, it vindicated itself by holding transparent internal elections and legitimizing positions at all levels of the party. In this way, PTI reformed traditional politics by blending it with visionary politics.

Besides a willingness to work with what already exists, another advantage of incremental reform is its ability to take place without violence and coercion. In contrast to the brand of bombastic and radical politics that a figure like Tahir-Ul-Qadri advocates, incremental reform attempts to bring about change in a manner acceptable even to enemies of reform. This is because incremental reform works around political divisions through consensus-building and not violence.

When Tahir-Ul-Qadri took to the streets to demand electoral reforms, the PTI leadership was under populist pressure to join in. However, its refusal to do so was vindicated when Qadri began making anti-democratic statements and hinted at forcing the government's hand violently. This points to PTI's commitment to incremental and long-standing reform.

Change is inevitable. Hopefully, for the better. And the only mechanism that can provide this is incremental reform.

Caught between conservatism and revolutionary ideologues, PTI will stand alone on election day as the only party that has genuinely pushed for true reform.

Alliances of Convenience

In the run-up to the general elections, electoral alliances are occurring at a staggering rate.

They're taking place between the ruling PPP and its largest coalition partner, the PML (Q). The PML (N) has joined hands with a host of smaller opposition parties. Even parties with no representation in parliament - such as PTI - have joined in

Electoral alliances don't necessarily remain once elections are over. Nothing prevents a party from backing out of a ruling coalition. After the 2008 elections, the PML (N) did just that when it backed out of the government. However, it never gave up parliament. Instead, it managed to remain in opposition and continue to have its voice heard - albeit, in a less direct way. The main purpose of its electoral alliance, then, was not to form a government with the PPP and implement any sort of joint government policy. Rather, it was to grab as many parliamentary seats as possible.

It is with this view that one should analyze Pakistan's ongoing electoral alliances. They're not examples of parties wishing to implement joint policies. What use for joint policies when politics is based on individuals and not policies? Nor are such alliances examples of ideological consensus. What use for ideological consensus where there is no ideology?

In Pakistan's current political culture, electoral alliances are simply a convenient means of grabbing seats in parliament.

Is this such a bad thing? After all, a party should strive to ensure that the voices of those that it claims to represent are heard. And the parliament is one avenue for this.

The problem is that Pakistan's current batch of parliamentarians do not garner votes on the basis of any clear principles or ideology. In such a system, the only possible electoral alliance is one that is narrow and short-term.

Pakistani politics lends itself well to alliances and consensus building. There are a range of national issues that can only be solved via legitimate political consensus. One example is the issue of how to share Balouchistan's natural resources. This requires consensus between Balouchi political leadership and the rest of the country. Another example is the issue of the rights to the Indus River. What is required here is an alliance between stakeholders in Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Punjab. 

Nor is there a lack of issues requiring electoral consensus at the provincial level. The Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance revealed the tensions that exist between rural and urban Sindh regarding the distribution of administrative power in Sindh. In Punjab, the push for a Seraiki province revealed the difference in living standards between South Punjab and the rest of Punjab and the need for consensus on the distribution of Punjab's provincial resources.

The lack of progress on these issues exposes the refusal of politicians to arrive at any meaningful long-term consensus. Certainly, there are other factors that affect the success or failure of these difficult political issues. The communalism and sectarianism of Pakistani society doesn't help. Nonetheless, it is the job of political leadership to forge a consensus despite such hurdles. This responsibility becomes even more heightened when one considers the rampant illiteracy in Pakistan and the prevalence of uninformed voters. In such an environment, responsibility shifts towards the better informed in society and those with authority and resources.

Instead, the public is confronted with the ruling PPP and the PML (Q) meeting to discuss "seat adjustment". This political tactic amounts to little more than haggling and bargaining over a particular constituency and trading and swapping one constituency for another. This tradition has continued for far too long and political power is far too addictive for political parties to stop engaging in this act on their own.

As such, the responsibility falls on voters to hold their leaders accountable. Such responsibility is made easier by growing media coverage and an increasingly independent judiciary that have allowed the public to become more informed about political events. The voter is now in a better position to judge their political representative.

Ultimately, it is the average person on the street who suffers from alliances of convenience that produce no long-term social gain. When the only consensus that political parties arrive at is which constituencies they can use to gain power, such parties have already shot themselves in the foot. Voters and loyal party followers will inevitably realize the true nature of such alliances when they fail to produce long-term solutions that directly improve their lives.

One Party to Rule Us All

What is an ideal outcome in the upcoming elections?

Everyone has their own definition of ideal. In a society so diverse and a political system so complex, can one expect anything less? Diversity and pluralism breed a range of political interests. What adds to this complexity is that most of these interests stand in direct opposition to each other.

Come election day, some will vote based on ethnicity while others on religion. Some will vote based on loyalty to a political family or to individuals like Pervez Musharraf or Pir Pagara. Some political interests are urban like those that support the MQM while others are rural like the PPP's. Some operate at the national level like PTI's while others are provincial like Punjab's PML-N. The presence of so many political interests represents a splitting of political power within society.

However, one possible election outcome could be the very opposite: a concentration of power in a single party government.

In a way, such an outcome runs counter to the very fabric of Pakistani politics. Over the past 5 years, the ruling PPP has taken the art of building and maintaining a coalition to another level.  This has strengthened the perception that coalition governments are the new Pakistani norm. Such a perception is aided by Pakistan's ethnic diversity which allows the creation of an endless variety of parties around ethnic interests. To make matters worse, there is no shortage of opportunistic politicians who have no ideology but have supporters. The many faces of the PML - N / F / Q - are one of the best examples of this. Such politicians will never allow their voices to be contained by a larger party. Instead, they represent an endless supply of coalition partners that refuse to become a permanent part of the largest party. In this way, they ensure that coalitions thrive and single-party governments remain impossible.

If forming a one-party government is so unnatural in Pakistani politics, why should it be pursued at all? For the simple reason that having a single party controlling the government increases the efficiency, effectiveness and stability of government action. And Pakistan is severely lacking on all three counts. It would mean less time spent on consensus building and more time spent actually implementing policies and laws. The policies need to be well planned and the laws need to be just. But, at the very least, there will be some sense of government attempting to govern.

A legitimate concern is that a one-party government may be unjust against smaller parties. However, elections are always available to vote the party out. Democracy should never be just about consensus-building. It should also be about the government feeling a sense of urgency in delivering upon its mandate and being voted out if it doesn't deliver. Besides elections, there is also the presence of the judiciary to hold the government accountable as well as the media.

What, however, are the chances of a one-party government forming? At least one of two events needs to occur.

Firstly, individuals need to stop identifying themselves and others on the basis of religious sects or ethnicities. This would stop the endless formation of political parties and unite people around a smaller number of parties. However, the chances of this happening in the near future are very remote. Such social change occurs across multiple generations and there is a strong possibility that it may never occur in a country as conservative as Pakistan where people identify themselves less by individual identity and more by the social group they belong to.

The second event that needs to occur is that the largest and most established parties take the initiative and transform themselves from serving a narrow section of the population to representing the concerns of the wider public. It is possible for such unifying parties and leaders to emerge even in a population that is riven by sectarianism. Such a scenario acknowledges the presence of deep divisions within society but seeks to overcome them by promoting a unifying political vision.

It remains to be seen whether such a unifying party can emerge.

The PPP has the advantage of being the largest party in power. It would seem they are the most capable of forming a one-party government. However, their brand of politics has largely consisted of building coalitions to hold onto power. The economic mismanagement that has occurred across Pakistan over the past 5 years as well as the deteriorating security situation has virtually ensured that the PPP won't have the same popular support it commanded following Benazir's death. Far from increasing its share of seats, there is a good chance they will lose power. Besides, the PPP doesn't have any semblance of an ideology that can go beyond Bhutto worship and the rural population of Sindh and Punjab.

The PML-N is the largest party after the PPP and has spent most of the past 5 years in opposition. Ideologically, it is empty and centered around the Sharif family. In terms of a national presence, it doesn't have one and its focus doesn't extend beyond urban Punjab. It has even less of a chance of forming a one-party government.

The only party that stands out in any way is PTI for it has campaigned on the basis of a truly unifying ideology. The ability of this ideology to cut across many segments of society lies in its nationalistic character. PTI's framing of US drone attacks as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty is one of the best examples of this nationalism. And while it is true that nationalism can be a reactionary force, it is just as true that nationalism can be used to unite people divided by ethnicity. The PTI's brand of nationalism which attempts to use the philosophy of Iqbal is a far cry from the reactionary nationalism of the religious parties.

Regardless of which party forms a one-party government, it is clear that doing so would be a positive step for Pakistan's politics. It would increase the possibility of strong, and capable government. It would mean the presence of a unifying party that can cut across multiple social classes. And it may finally put an end to the ceaseless coalition building that has weakened and paralyzed so many past Pakistani governments.

Sindh Local Government misses the point

At first sight, the Sindh Local Government ordinance seems to be a step in the right direction of effective government administration. However, it is more of a tactical ploy driven by political interests than a strategic plan aimed at delivering quality government administration.

The concept of local governance is one that applies very well to Pakistan's situation. Given the ethnic, linguistic and cultural differences among Pakistanis it is impossible to devise a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of public administration. The One Unit policy of Ayub Khan and the subsequent secession of East Pakistan is but one example of how excessive centralization can result in disaster. The ongoing discontent in Balochistan is another example.

One possible solution to the problem of local administration is the creation of new provinces. Earlier this year, resolutions that called for the division of Punjab into further provinces were adopted by the National Assembly and the Punjab Provincial Assembly. However, the creation of provinces in a country as ethnically fragmented as Pakistan risks the revival of sectarianism and the mobilization of groups that demand the break-up of Pakistan into provinces based purely on ethnicity.

In contrast, a system of local governance would keep the current provinces intact and still allow for a devolution of powers that can respond to the varying needs of different regions. In addition, it is harder to devise a local government system on the basis of ethnicity than it is to form provinces based on ethnicity.

However, the problem with local government arises when one considers the relationship between the state and political parties as it has historically existed in Pakistan .

Far from viewing state finances as something to be used for public investment, Pakistan's political parties have primarily viewed them as a way of paying off supporters. The methods of payoff range from the creation and awarding of useless ministerial posts to the handing out of state loans that are never paid back. There is a strong possibility that the state money which will flow to the local government will be used as similar political payoff. There is nothing to indicate that local government will be different from the provincial or the federal government in this regard.

To make matters worse, there seems to be no way of keeping the creation of local government from becoming politicized. The PPP is a perfect example of this. Previously, they disbanded the local government system from the Musharraf era and reinstated the less democratic commissioner system. If the PPP truly believes in the urgent need for local governance, they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of first disbanding local government and then reviving it. Rather, they would have wasted no time and simply focused on reforming Musharraf's system. The fact that they have revived this issue so close to the end of their term is nothing short of pure political manoeuvring to score points with voters.

This move also calls into question the PPP's decision to support the division of Punjab into multiple provinces. If local government is good for Sindh, why isn't it so for Punjab? Or is it that the division of Punjab into additional provinces is suitable for the weakening of the PML-N and has nothing whatsoever to do with providing better local administration? If so, then the PPP is once again guilty of politicizing local government.

Local government will eventually have to develop in Pakistan. There is simply no other way to administer a land so diverse and fragmented. However, there are other problems that need to be tackled first.

The rule of law needs to be extended so that political party elites and the state bureaucrats that they appoint are held accountable for how they use state finances. Parties need to change to where their leaders stop viewing state finances as a way of granting political favours. The political culture needs to develop to where parties stop politicizing the issue of local governance.

Only then can we begin to think about implementing an effective local government system.

The Division of Punjab

There has been a lot of recent talk regarding the impending division of Punjab. From the viewpoint of many analysts and politicians, it is simply a matter of time before Punjab is divided into, at least, 2 provinces.

Does division, whatever form it eventually takes, make sense?

There is one line of argument that focuses on how large countries like China and India are able to experience substantial economic growth side-by-side with a substantial number of provinces. This argument makes the false assumption that the provincialism is somehow driving the economic growth. The truth is that the economies of these countries may be growing despite the provincialism as opposed to growing because of the provincialism.

In the case of China, there is a national history of a strong central state that has always ensured unity despite the many provinces. There is also the presence of a clear ethnic Han majority. Both of these factors ensure a stable and united political climate which helps economic growth. In Pakistan, we do not have a history of a strong central state nor do we have a clear ethnic majority. Regarding provincialism in India, there are worrying signs that regional parties are beginning to make inroads into the votebanks of the national parties. This may result in a more unstable political climate, which may affect Indian economic growth. A similar increase in regional parties and political instability can occur if Pakistan begins creating new provinces. As such, the economic benefits of further provinces is not clear-cut.

Besides economic benefits, supporters of devolution argue that there are political benefits such as enhanced government administration. The basic argument revolves around how Lahore and its neighbouring regions make maximum use of provincial funds and leave barely anything for the other regions of Punjab. There is some merit to this argument. It is a proven fact that provincial capitals have a natural monopoly on provincial resources. Generally speaking, the further a locality is from the provincial capital the tougher it is for provincial resources to arrive there.

However, there are many factors that help make a government's administration more efficient. One of these is a sincere group of administrators and bureaucrats. Even if a massive amount of funds are present as a result of creating a new province, there is a possibility that the funds will be captured by political groups that are not intent on sharing the newfound resources with the rest of the province. Who is to say that such a group will not exist in future provinces? In fact, the creation of provinces and the sudden granting of large provincial funds may cement the power base of corrupt groups that already exist in the region.

Supporters of Punjab's division regularly argue that the creation of further provinces provides another political benefit because it is a legitimate assertion of the democratic rights of the residents of Punjab. On what basis do they make this claim?

Do they make it on the basis of the resolutions that were recently passed by the National Assembly and the Punjab Assembly supporting the creation of further provinces? Such resolutions may represent the will of elected politicians but they do not represent the will of the people of Punjab. It is one thing to elect someone as your representative and have that person represent you in day-to-day political matters. It is quite another to have that person make a momentous decision on your behalf regarding the political status of the territory you live in. That is exactly what the National Assembly and Punjab Assembly have done.

The division of an entire province requires a referendum across the province. Only then can one make the claim that the creation of further provinces represents the true democratic aspirations of the majority of Punjab.

In short, the economic and political benefits of new provinces is not clear-cut. The speed with which the resolutions have been passed on such a momentous issue illustrates that the motives behind the resolutions are more for political power than they are for any serious solution to government inefficiency or disenfranchisement of the people of Punjab.