Daily Times

Elections 2013 reflect a change in the nature of patronage politics. Patronage politics going back to 1980s has roots in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s nationalisation and doling out jobs in the public sector. The Sharifs in 1980s exploited it to new heights. The nature of politics changed since 1980s as redistribution of resources using the state machinery started to play a much bigger role than ever before. Since 2008, both the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) distributed patronage. The PPP in the form of Benazir Income Support Programme and PML-N through the Sasti Roti scheme, free laptops and other measures. The former PPP prime ministers Yousaf Raza Gillani and Pervez Ashraf did considerable development works in their constituencies as well. Yet, PPP lost despite its patronage politics and four million beneficiaries of BISP and PML-N won. It seems voters rated the overall performance of the governments more than mere patronage politics. It is a new trend and can have meaningful impact on the future politics in Pakistan.

Election results and the public face on state institutions shows deep contradictions. The PML-N has been a leading advocate of good relationship with India and is going to pursue its policies by potentially opening up trade with India. Yet, the PML-N also enjoys a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia, which helped Sharif to escape punishment and exchange it with a comfortable exile. Minorities such as Shias are deeply uncomfortable with the PML-N’s deep relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia funds the Wahabi extremists in Pakistan and is likely responsible for the cold-bloodied massacre of Shias. The Saudi influence has torn apart the entire fabric of Pakistani society. Cultural incidents such as Khuda Hafiz being replaced with Allah Hafiz just point to the tip of the iceberg. The PML-N was also blamed to cosy up to Wahabi extremists for electoral alliances. The PML-N also has very bad record of protecting Christians during its rule in the Punjab. If it wants to be seen as a party of future, it has to come clean on Shia genocide and attacks on Christian in the country and check its relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Kayani categorically said in his Day of Martyrs’ address that war on terror in Pakistan’s war and it has lost thousands of soldiers in the war. It is a welcome statement from the army chief as both the main political parties refuse to accept immense internal security threat from the Taliban. Yet, the army chief also needs to acknowledge that a certain section of the establishment has been seen being hand in gloves with the Taliban. If the army is fighting the Taliban, then why is it allowing a certain section of its establishment to patronise Taliban? Are there two or more armies with differing ideologies in Pakistan?

A strong section of the Pakistani establishment is opposed to normalisation of relations with India. Whenever a civilian government wants to normalise the relations with India, it is stabbed in the back by the establishment. Benazir Bhutto met Rajiv Gandhi to normalise relations with India and she was termed as a traitor and the establishment-backed media insinuated her to be exchanging smiles with Gandhi. They could not possibly hit lower than that. When Sharif tried to normalise relations with India in 1999, the army responded by launching Kargil. When President Asif Ali Zardari made a peace overture by declaring no first use of Pakistan’s atomic weapons against India in 2008, not only was he reprimanded by the army. it was also followed by a deadly terrorist strike in Mumbai. A terrorist attack whose route is allegedly traced back to a section of Pakistani establishment. Manipulated firing along the Line of Control or the brutal murder of Indian and Pakistani prisoners are further indications that hawks in Pakistan and India want to derail the process of normalisation by hook and crook. General Kayani has accepted that the war on terror in Pakistan’s own war. Army has also taken into the account that internal security threat to Pakistan is greater than any perceived threat from India. Would the army chief ensure that certain section of the army establishment does not derail the prime minister-elect Sharif’s efforts to have better relations with India?

The PTI chief Imran Khan refuses to come out of his false consciousness on the Taliban. One hopes that by forming the government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, he would be forced to come to terms with the reality. The whole edifice of Khan is that the Taliban and terrorism exists in Pakistan as a reaction to the US war on terror. Khan refuses to accept, despite being told numerous times that religious extremism and suicide attacks in Pakistan predate the US war on terror. Taliban and religious extremists are not going to become peace doves once the US leaves Afghanistan in 2014. They want to take over the state in Pakistan and they want to destroy Pakistan’s constitution, democracy and the way of life of the people of Pakistan. To term it as a reactionary war is tantamount to miss the whole point about terrorism in Pakistan. Khan could possibly become aware of his contradictory thinking by running a government in KP.

The state institutions and political parties are caught in their deep contradictions. The contradictions which are a manifestation of the deep fissures of the entire state-society fabric of Pakistan. Only time will tell whether the state institutions and political parties will be able to realise the contractions and get Pakistan away from a self-destructive path.

The writer has a social science background and can be reached on twitter @FoqiaKhan