Alternatives in politics
PPP & PML-N have given rise to yet another phenomenon as variation of ‘establishment’ — the ‘political establishment’.
The writer is a defence analyst who retired as an air vice-marshal in the Pakistan Air Force
Politics is about power. Period. Without reaching the helm, one can barely bring to effect policies, programmes and philosophies that should in the first place be the raison d’etre of politics. In the Third World though, politics is about power only, sadly; the rest is mostly an irrelevant qualification. Politics, meaning democracy, instead is more popularly explained as a journey, and not a destination. Translated, it means, ‘lower your expectations; we cannot deliver as quick’. People, then, are put on a long hold.
Consider the political landscape in the US. Ross Perot is alive and kicking and yet again a likely factor in the upcoming 2016 presidential elections. He will be appealing to many who are tired of the two-party options that come before them every election. Plus, there is a sense of policy fatigue in the similarity of the programmes and plans that respective administrations will bring to work. ‘Change’ to the Americans has meant a boring alternation between the Republicans or the Democrats. Not that Ross Perot might upset the status quo but his reentrance in the political arena surely signals a weariness with the two-party system.
Cross over to Pakistan. In a landscape where for almost half a century now just two political philosophies — that of the PPP and the Muslim League under various denominations — have ruled the roost, Imran Khan was a breath of fresh air and triggered the imagination of many; similar to the experience that Americans seek in people like Ross Perot. Yet, their power value in a system where politics is as deep as in any establishment, with foundations that are decades old, and organisational structures that are pervasive and omnipresent, is restricted and highly limited. The Green Party in most of Europe remains at a fringe; while Liberals in England can only find power with one of the mainstream parties, the Labour or the Conservatives. The pattern is almost universal in most of Europe from where democratic politics found its roots.
This becomes even more painful and unbearable when the larger impression is that the two major political parties, the PPP and the PML-N, are now tied into a supra understanding where neither will question the other, almost always at the cost of public interest. It is almost a given now that the two parties have established turns at power and in negation of the democratic processes will keep a low profile in the opposition; practically a carte blanche to the government in power. The Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed between the two was as much a product of their negative experience of the politics of the 90s, as it was to keep the army at bay by combining political forces against such interventions. Given their pervasive hold over power and its associated accompaniments, the two parties have given rise to yet another phenomenon as a variation of the dreaded ‘establishment’ — the ‘political establishment’. Which really means that the rest — political parties outside the pale of the CoD — by default are non-establishment political entities.
Is there no hope then; at least in Pakistan where political traditions are tenuous, and proximity to power means enormous misuse of it, and where participatory politics is restricted to only electoral inclusion while benefits flow to only the clients of their elite patrons? Not really. As India went to vote there was a clamour for the Third Front, a conglomeration of the non-Congress, non-BJP parties. That such a vast array of parties at the regional and national level could not find common ground, while natural, did not allow this exciting proposition to materialise. Nonetheless, it was an important enough consideration for the electorate to consider beyond the two mainstream players of power in the Indian political arena; similar to what makes Ross Perot relevant to the US. It will be interesting to observe how the regional parties make it to the big league, if ever. Given the experience elsewhere, the predatory big players in the game of power politics will remain dominant given their foundational strength, as well as practices and processes that enable them to get a much wider appeal among a historically reliable vote base.
What of Imran Khan then and his current resort to agitation? Politics of agitation has its place. The PPP under ZAB and BB was known for it; in power it always seemed lost and out of place, till of course, Asif Zardari turned it into an ‘establishment’ party that was comfortable with being in power. Can Imran be another ZAB or a BB, at least in reaching out and coalescing people into a mode of agitation for clearly enunciated political goals? There are numerous inherent elements that must come together to bring success to Imran Khan’s latest political initiative: clear political goals that appeal to the larger electorate — like moving away from the ‘political establishment’ that is known only for enriching itself with material gains; a style of leadership that convinces people that Imran has the wherewithal to take them to their goal of clean politics; and the persistence that is needed to develop the needed momentum that can force a change from outside the parliament. In the parliament Imran is meagrely represented.
The goal of ‘electoral reforms’ which can engender free and fair elections, and add credibility and acceptability to a chosen government is a fair plank. All Imran needs to do is add substance to this larger enunciation by reading contemporary electoral models, as for India, and propose methods, means and practices that will ensure that the process is tamper-free. There are sufficient grounds to suggest such was not the case in the 2013 elections. But then, rather than fight a past battle he should be focusing on ensuring a fairer field in the future. For that he will have to rise beyond his four-seat slogan and seek greater altruism. He has other reasons too, to follow the route; his government in K-P is not exactly on a blazing trail. He needs to compensate for inadequacies there by forging an alternative relevance.
Pressure outside the parliament will need co-opting media as a partner; alienating the media is self-defeating. Finally, a political ‘movement’ must have ‘mass following’ and must stay for ‘long enough’ to generate the necessary momentum to force the ‘political establishment’ to concede space. Does Imran have it in him to stay the course? That ultimately will define if parties outside of the ‘political establishment’ will have a future.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2014.
Consider the political landscape in the US. Ross Perot is alive and kicking and yet again a likely factor in the upcoming 2016 presidential elections. He will be appealing to many who are tired of the two-party options that come before them every election. Plus, there is a sense of policy fatigue in the similarity of the programmes and plans that respective administrations will bring to work. ‘Change’ to the Americans has meant a boring alternation between the Republicans or the Democrats. Not that Ross Perot might upset the status quo but his reentrance in the political arena surely signals a weariness with the two-party system.
Cross over to Pakistan. In a landscape where for almost half a century now just two political philosophies — that of the PPP and the Muslim League under various denominations — have ruled the roost, Imran Khan was a breath of fresh air and triggered the imagination of many; similar to the experience that Americans seek in people like Ross Perot. Yet, their power value in a system where politics is as deep as in any establishment, with foundations that are decades old, and organisational structures that are pervasive and omnipresent, is restricted and highly limited. The Green Party in most of Europe remains at a fringe; while Liberals in England can only find power with one of the mainstream parties, the Labour or the Conservatives. The pattern is almost universal in most of Europe from where democratic politics found its roots.
This becomes even more painful and unbearable when the larger impression is that the two major political parties, the PPP and the PML-N, are now tied into a supra understanding where neither will question the other, almost always at the cost of public interest. It is almost a given now that the two parties have established turns at power and in negation of the democratic processes will keep a low profile in the opposition; practically a carte blanche to the government in power. The Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed between the two was as much a product of their negative experience of the politics of the 90s, as it was to keep the army at bay by combining political forces against such interventions. Given their pervasive hold over power and its associated accompaniments, the two parties have given rise to yet another phenomenon as a variation of the dreaded ‘establishment’ — the ‘political establishment’. Which really means that the rest — political parties outside the pale of the CoD — by default are non-establishment political entities.
Is there no hope then; at least in Pakistan where political traditions are tenuous, and proximity to power means enormous misuse of it, and where participatory politics is restricted to only electoral inclusion while benefits flow to only the clients of their elite patrons? Not really. As India went to vote there was a clamour for the Third Front, a conglomeration of the non-Congress, non-BJP parties. That such a vast array of parties at the regional and national level could not find common ground, while natural, did not allow this exciting proposition to materialise. Nonetheless, it was an important enough consideration for the electorate to consider beyond the two mainstream players of power in the Indian political arena; similar to what makes Ross Perot relevant to the US. It will be interesting to observe how the regional parties make it to the big league, if ever. Given the experience elsewhere, the predatory big players in the game of power politics will remain dominant given their foundational strength, as well as practices and processes that enable them to get a much wider appeal among a historically reliable vote base.
What of Imran Khan then and his current resort to agitation? Politics of agitation has its place. The PPP under ZAB and BB was known for it; in power it always seemed lost and out of place, till of course, Asif Zardari turned it into an ‘establishment’ party that was comfortable with being in power. Can Imran be another ZAB or a BB, at least in reaching out and coalescing people into a mode of agitation for clearly enunciated political goals? There are numerous inherent elements that must come together to bring success to Imran Khan’s latest political initiative: clear political goals that appeal to the larger electorate — like moving away from the ‘political establishment’ that is known only for enriching itself with material gains; a style of leadership that convinces people that Imran has the wherewithal to take them to their goal of clean politics; and the persistence that is needed to develop the needed momentum that can force a change from outside the parliament. In the parliament Imran is meagrely represented.
The goal of ‘electoral reforms’ which can engender free and fair elections, and add credibility and acceptability to a chosen government is a fair plank. All Imran needs to do is add substance to this larger enunciation by reading contemporary electoral models, as for India, and propose methods, means and practices that will ensure that the process is tamper-free. There are sufficient grounds to suggest such was not the case in the 2013 elections. But then, rather than fight a past battle he should be focusing on ensuring a fairer field in the future. For that he will have to rise beyond his four-seat slogan and seek greater altruism. He has other reasons too, to follow the route; his government in K-P is not exactly on a blazing trail. He needs to compensate for inadequacies there by forging an alternative relevance.
Pressure outside the parliament will need co-opting media as a partner; alienating the media is self-defeating. Finally, a political ‘movement’ must have ‘mass following’ and must stay for ‘long enough’ to generate the necessary momentum to force the ‘political establishment’ to concede space. Does Imran have it in him to stay the course? That ultimately will define if parties outside of the ‘political establishment’ will have a future.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2014.