Is PTI a movement or an ideology?

Listen to article

To determine why PTI is not finding success it is important for the PTI to find an honest answer to the above dilemma. It calls itself a 'movement' but acts as a political party like any other. That remains the first dichotomy in how it is structured and how it thinks. A movement can base itself on ideology and at an opportune moment clad itself in the garb of a political entity to succeed if power shall define success.

Some political entities will originate as political entities clothed in traditional electoral process and consequences. China's Mao Tse Tung was an ideologue who began a movement to a defined political end. Over a couple of years, he led the movement to victory and replacement of an order that he and his followers fundamentally disagreed with. It seems the PTI fast forwarded to power without internalising the purpose first.

Pakistani politics is less of ideology and more of power grab. That much is clear and hence the various mutations of how politics is shaped in this country and what external factors determine how it will play itself out in governance and policy formulation. It is equally true that political parties hardly enthuse or embrace a political philosophy and act more like a tribe which associates with each other for the common purpose of accessing power to deliver tribal or personal interests.

Hence there is larger importance and value of enablement by external entities than the political process to find power. The arbiters in the process assume disproportionate weight in an exercise which in essence should reflect a level of acceptance with the people, in whose name power is exercised. But then that is too much of principle and adherence to rules and laws enshrined in the Constitution which are mostly set aside in a political culture based on expedience than purpose.

A perfect example of how we might judge a political journey exhibits itself in the neighbouring country. India has three main streams of politics reflected in its three major parties at the national level. Congress, the matriarch of Indian politics carries within it the dynamics of dynasty, and the politics it has practiced through decades. Gandhi may have begun a movement which got converted into a political thought over time to which many Indians gravitated.

From Gandhi to Nehru, it may have seemed a generational passing-on of the baton but Nehru's long stint at power after independence and a few hits and misses after it settled in the Nehru family to carry the torch forward. Somewhere along the way a political purpose was defaced by a singular objective of gaining and holding on to power to which all other members of Congress Party submitted and subscribed. Today the party brazenly reflects the attributes of a political tribe where authority resides in the leadership belonging to the Gandhi family to which all others defer.

It is equally brazenly claimed across South Asia that the mental make-up of the populace is more inclined to seeking dynastic exclusivity in their political leadership - euphemism for convenience of relevance and acceptability. And then there is the BJP enveloping RSS ideational philosophy based on Hindu exclusivism which then has been used to define nationalist identity through a political process.

It has a leadership cadre and its own internal process of enjoining leadership upon whoever they choose to assign the responsibility. Narendra Modi was a tea-seller who rose in the ranks of the RSS to move laterally into first the chief minister-ship of Gujarat and then the prime minister-ship of India. Those invested with the BJP/RSS philosophy generationally transfer the values and beliefs constituting ideology from one to the next. What is left for the world to see for academic reasons is whether governance of a diverse political entity as India has a reverse effect on ideology, or if ideology mutates to deal with the challenges of governance in a diversly constituted polity.

Most right-wing parties generally exhibit strict adhesion and submission to ideology. Adolf Hitler perhaps is the most eminent example of an ideologue who mutated to a political system that wreaked havoc in pursuit of an ideology of exclusivism.

The third example is that of the Aam Admi Party led by Arvind Kejriwal. The roots of the party lain in an anti-corruption civil society movement of Anna Hazare. A movement gave birth to a political entity around principles of clean governance and eliminating graft from within the system. In the presence of the two major parties, the Congress and the BJP, it could not establish an electoral impact on a nation-wide scale but was the first party to form outside the state system with nation-wide aspirations. It was successful in winning repeated elections in Delhi which has traditionally been a Congress haunt.

Allegations against Kejriwal and weak performance in the 2024 elections have lowered the stock of the party and its political prospects. A party formed on high ideology of clean and effective governance has been adversely impacted by challenges of contemporary governance. Ideology stood forsaken for political expedience — the reverse of what it was meant to be. The party is another example of insufficient time to imbibe and internalise the principles to form an abiding creed of sufficient believers. Without the usual cycle of commitment to the intended belief system or embedding its purpose in its structures and processes it turned into a routine political entity, losing both its base and its popularity.

Although the PTI had a longer ingestion period, it could not establish a well-founded purpose either in slogan or in ideational expression. It had a weak intellectual definition. In comparison Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did a stellar job in giving a populist slogan as well as in intellectual interpretation of its purpose. In politics all parties descend below their aspirational standards and normalise over time but the PPP in Pakistan was lucky to continue evolving itself in ideational measures to sustain its appeal and romance.

The PMLN tried to mimic the process for its own sustenance but succumbed rather quickly to the expedience of power. It has thus become a typical power-centred political entity. The PTI continues to struggle to define itself. It can neither easily find power nor can it underpin its intellectual purpose. Fighting the establishment — read military — cannot fill in for either ideology or an intellectual underpinning. ZAB had martial law to contend against which gave him relevance and longevity. Nawaz Sharif was a product of martial law. Imran Khan's politics is to offer himself as an alternate to either. That is neither power-based electoral politics nor an ideational pursuit especially if you are at loggerheads with the same principles. If PTI appears confused and lost, there is good reason to it.