Electables versus selectables

Why would a political party which publicly claims to be the most popular party rely so heavily on electables and is even ready to sacrifice its loyal workers? Isn’t it contradictory? Either the party is not popular enough to win majority on its own, or it lacks confidence in its ability, or it may have been forced to adopt electables. Whatever the reason, it could be argued that since election is the only way to legitimise the de facto as de jure, the political elites form alliances to keep their stranglehold intact over the business of legislation as well as over civil society. The purpose is also likely to prevent unwanted intruders, such as reformists, from winning elections. That explains why successive elections have, instead of improving governance, provided ‘legitimacy’ to deeply corrupt, unjust and exploitative status quo forces. No wonder very often they would not only oppose reforms but also frustrate implementation on pro-people, pro-women legislation. Because of that I am reluctant to use a respectable term like electable for them. Interestingly, in 1990s they used to be called lotas i.e. turncoats.

Therefore, publicity of electables is merely an attempt to hide real factors of their victory. Hence, the phenomenon of the electables may be examined from that angle. Oxford Dictionary defines election as “a formal and organised choice by voters for a political office”. Renowned pollster Patrick Murray defines electability “a perceived ability to win an election, as assessed by voters, party insiders, political pundits, and the media”. Thus, it is important to understand the factors that create perception. But Murray’s definition seems to be West-centric, as civil liberties are respected there and the public heavily rely on media, expert opinion and vote in a free environment for determining their choice.

On the other hand, our context is very complex and multi-layered. Besides, hidden hands manipulate and distort electoral processes. Also, a big majority of people have low trust in media and state institutions. Hence, they are likely to rely less on media. And unlike in the West, only few people could use their free will in critical matters, such as polling, while a significant majority is likely to vote under some form of pressure and coercion or immediate benefit such as cash for vote or both. In short, unlike the in West, hard realities matter more than the perception. Mera vote, meri marzi is considered an idealistic choice. Recent reports also show that 40% of Pakistan’s population is living below the poverty line and income and power inequalities are widening fast while the elites have captured every sphere of society, economy and state machinery. No wonder percentage of slave-like voters is likely to be very high in the constituencies of the so-called electables. Think of south Punjab, upper Sindh and Balochistan.

Pakistan’s electoral system is also inherently pro-rich and prone to easy manipulation because one can even win by one vote. Interestingly, in 2018 election, 239 winners had a victory margin of less than 5,000 votes. Though in most constituencies two powerful electables contest, lucky ones are likely to have more of the following characteristics:

1) Size of landholding and number of on-farm families; or size of business and number of employees. 2) Capacity and ability to spend money. 3) Size of his biraadri or clan. 4) Custodian of shrine. 5) Nepotism — number of jobs arranged for vote mobilisers, and development funds spent in constituency. 6) Being unscrupulous — don’t hesitate to buy votes, to use coercive means, and to intimidate rivals, register fake cases of theft etc against defiant voters etc. 7) Capacity to trigger feuds and to resolve disputes. 8) Relationship with the police and administration. 9) Relationship with underworld and criminals. 10) Strong streak of amenability to the powerful and being tough with the weak.

Having said that importance of good qualities can’t be ignored as well, such as:

1) Easily accessible and being responsive to the needs of constituents. 2) Being generous and sympathetic. 3) Relationship with professional bodies i.e. bar associations, press clubs, traders’ associations, etc. 4) Capacity to raise funds from local wealthy businessmen.

But good relationship with the establishment and administration has always played a pivotal role in making someone electable. The fact of the matter is that if the establishment withdrew its support, most of the above-mentioned attributes disappear overnight. No wonder they try their best to keep the establishment happy. But, in the long run, sustaining inequalities remains the backbone of their mission and strategy, which is against the spirit of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Moreover, electables abhor party membership drives and intra-party elections. No wonder no party is talking about manifestoes. This way, they keep leaders hostage; and when things go wrong, they are the first ones to run away. They betray the leaders and the electorate simultaneously. Almost every electable has amassed wealth through unfair means and brought their family members to the assemblies, resulting in diminishing social roots of democracy. In fact, they are the lotas of yesteryears but managed to become ‘electables’. But the new title didn’t change their nature. When Imran Khan had embraced dozens of lotas, most of whom betrayed him four years later.

Since the 1985 election, the electables have proved true to their character. Yet, political leaders have continued to embrace them. That reminds me of a famous tale. A tortoise and a scorpion were fast friends. During a rainy season, their land was inundated by floodwaters. The scorpion got hugely worried and asked the tortoise to take him to a dry land as unlike tortoise he could not cope with the floodwater. The tortoise asked him to sit on his huge back and began to swim. Halfway through, the tortoise felt something strange on his back, and he asked the scorpion what was going on. The scorpion said, “I am testing my sting to see if it pierces your hard shell.” The tortoise did what he could. He sank his back below the water and shook off the scorpion into the water. I don’t want to call anyone scorpion as some humans especially those who accumulate wealth and power are superlatively worse than most animals put together. But like the tortoise, public and political parties must get rid of the scorpions amongst them.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 9^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.