Pakistan’s democracy is largely a dynastic enterprise. It’s all in the family. Just like kingship, political leadership here is passed on from father to son and the decision-making process remains hostage to a narrowly defined kitchen cabinet’s whims. The political parties are supposed to fight for democracy in the country but within their own precincts, absolute dictatorship is the rule.
The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), a political and public policy research body, has come up with some interesting findings on the “prevalence” of inner party democracy among Pakistan’s major political parties. The research focuses on eight mainstream political parties, which received an overall score of 40 out of 100, indicating a drop from the score of 43% in 2014. It is notable that five of these parties hold the largest number of seats in the National Assembly.According to Pildat’s survey, the ruling PML-N is the least democratic political party when it comes to running its internal affairs. The ruling PML-N holds irregular, or no, party meetings, and there is a glaring lack of competitive elections for party posts. Since the founding of the party, the same leadership continues to call the shots. These factors greatly weaken the democratic character and claim of the party.
The Pildat report shows that Jamaat-e-Islami leads the way with its strong inner party democratic structure. It tops the democratic scale with a score of 56%. The JI’s regular elections, changes in leadership through polls, meetings of consultative councils and the working committees and discouragement of dynastic leadership show that it is essentially democratic in its constitution and character.
Balochistan’s National Party led by Hasil Bizenjo follows JI with 47%, while Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has a score of 44%. The NP has emerged as the second most democratic party — a significant improvement over its fourth position the previous year — because it has gone through regular changes in top leadership since its founding in 2003, and held transparent party elections for all four provincial chapters.
The report points out that PTI’s 2012-13 party elections were among the most popularly contested and elaborate party elections in the country’s history but they were later found to be flawed. The next PTI election, which is scheduled this year, will decide not only the party’s own democratic credentials, but the success or failure of this experiment may also decide the future trends in the internal elections of political parties in Pakistan. The fourth position is claimed by the Awami National Party (ANP) with 40%, followed by Pakistan Peoples Party (36%). Both Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement have a score of 33%, with PML-N coming last with 31%.
The report shows the sad state of the internal working of so-called democratic political parties. The situation, instead of improving, has been deteriorating over the years. Pildat observes that there is an almost converse relationship between the quality of internal democracy of political parties and their mass popularity. The PML-N, MQM and PPP are popular parties but, surprisingly, their weak internal democracy has not come in the way of their mass appeal. JI and NP, on the other hand, are among the most democratic parties but their popular base is narrow.
The paradox is self-perpetuating and seemingly unchallengeable. It was daughter Benazir after ZA Bhutto and the mantle has now fallen on son Bilawal Bhutto. Asfandyar Wali takes over from Wali Khan and Moonis Elahi is successor to Pervez Elahi. There are unmistakable indications that Maryam Nawaz is being groomed to take over from Nawaz Sharif, while Hamza Shahbaz is the heir apparent in Punjab.
Pakistan’s political history shows that a limited number of families have continued to dominate the national and provincial legislatures ever since independence. According to an estimate, about a hundred families hold more than 50 percent of the seats in the federal and provincial legislatures, underlining the “representative” character of Pakistan’s democracy.
With a few exceptions, all the political parties are an extension of powerful families — both feudal and business — whose politics mainly revolve around managing and strengthening family interests. Elections are seen and used as an instrument to gain control of state patronage and power. Clan, tribe, caste and biradari play the key role in the perpetuation of dynastic politics.
Dynastic politics is exclusive whereas democratic traditions are inclusive, under which anyone having the support of the majority can become the leader. Political dynasties not only vitiate the quality of democracy but also block and retard the country’s economic progress. The reform of important economic institutions is obstructed by members of the political dynasties who benefit from the status quo and resist any change favouring the broad masses. We have seen over the last few decades how the dominance of the Bhuttos and Sharifs has resulted in the adoption of policies and institutions that benefit only a small group of people — party leaders and their hangers-on. Under dynastic politics, misappropriation of state resources makes politicians and their cronies filthy-rich, while the masses remain deprived of their basic needs.
Post a Comment