Daily Times

Chairperson Pakistan People’s Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari gave an important statement yesterday rejecting the trend of banking on powerful political individuals aka ‘electables’ for winning the elections. Talking to his party’s local leadership from Faisalabad, the young Bhutto showed his enthusiasm to contest next general election on ideological grounds.

It was 1977 when heavyweight personalities soaked in riches were inducted in electoral politic for the first time in Pakistan’s history. General elections in 1977 under then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were the pioneer in introducing feudals and the rich in electoral politics while divorcing good old lot of committed party workers.

Like a range of other things that Mr. Bhutto is accused of, this one too was done in a haste and eagerness of winning at all costs under the overall nervousness which the elected government of Mr Bhutto was put in using religious parties. Not that Mr. Bhutto didn’t help military establishment in weakening his own government by making lousy decisions like cracking down on the leftist progressive forces, starting a military operation in Balochistan, isolating ideological elements within his party and succumbing to the religious forces going too far in his slogans of ‘Islamic socialism’ and ‘Islamic Bloc’.

Nevertheless, it was not Bhutto who corrupted the entire scheme and structure of the state by institutionalising the elite capture of electoral system and butchering down of every last remnant of ideological politics. Looking at the election manifestoes of PPP for the general elections 1970 and 1977, it strikes you that PPP was on strong footings on ideological compass even in 1977. Both the manifestoes began with intellectually fulfilling discussion on neo-colonialism, internal colonial structures within the state of Pakistan, the national question, addressing the question of primary identities of ethnically and (then) religiously diverse peoples woven together in their Pakistani nationhood, the untenable structure of the state, etc.

The Manifestoes discussed the need for greater ownership of the means of production by people, how the proletariat would be empowered by creating their stakes in wealth generated primarily by them alongside an analysis of why the exploitative, capitalist structure of the state needed to be changed and how. There was the talk of Pakistan’s situation within the neocolonialist pourer sphere. There was a rejection of the class structure and promise for a class-less society.

Things got dirtier in the election game when the military dictator introduced constituency development funds in a bid to keep the stakes high for the newly born ‘electables’ in case they tried to slip out of hand

It was party’s ideology on which each and every election candidate designed his/her election campaign. People voted for their representatives on ideological basis rather than the promises of doling out jobs, building streets and sewerage, etc. For what its worth, the literacy rate in 1970s remained the range of 21-23 percent. In 2013 when last general election was held, the literacy rate had jumped up to 56 percent. So the ‘illiterate’ and ‘ignorant’ voters argument seems to be overrated and superfluous here.

Not only PPP, it was same for other parties save Muslims League’s improvisations aka Muslim Leagues Council and Convention. Major right wing party Jamaat-e-Islami and key left wing socialist party National Awami Party’s both groups i.e., Wali Khan and Bhashani Groups (in 1970 election) had their manifestoes with distinct ideologies.

In 1977 when Gen Zia deposed Mr. Bhutto’s elected government, a long dark era began thereafter, the shadow of which still lingers. There is no looking back because not only the policies of the establishment haven’t changed but also the neo political class thus born and groomed under the establishment’s patronage post 1977, has found convenience and vested interest in continuing with the slaughter of ideological politics.

Just like Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracies, Gen Ziaul Haq too tried to sanitise the electoral politics from the ’nuisance’ that political parties could become if left free to work with the people at grass roots. The local bodies elections and the general elections that happened under the watchful eyes of military dictator, were held on non-party basis. Meaning thereby, the candidates were on their own to run their campaigns based on the personal patronage networking.

Thus came the times that allowed only the rich and the influential to enter the electoral race whichever party they might belong to. Things got dirtier in the election game when the military dictator introduced constituency development funds in a bid to keep the stakes high for the newly born ‘electables’ in case they tried to slip out of hand.

What followed were all-time stronger patronage networks under the ‘electables’ who depended heavily on placating the masses with short-term relief from the strangulating economic and political order. In the name of job creation, public sector jobs were doled out to favourite electables, further strengthening their grip on the masses.

In Muslim League that represented the right wing answer to PPP’s left-of-the-centre populism in 1970s-90s and thereafter, had long been converted into the handmaiden of establishment that conveniently changed its values if there were any, by just changing the portrait on the walls. Those who refused to fall in line were branded corrupt while those ready to play slaves were accentuated to the pedestal of patriotism and competence. Intelligentsia played along knowing fully well that corruption was the least common denominator among the entire political class and structure of state. Thanks to the opportunist interventions by the self-righteous generals who wanted to ‘correct the system’ through these short-sighted measures.

The practice still continues only with the introduction of a new name and a new slogan of ‘change’, without any intellectual debate about changing what and how, other than the portraits. All political parties have succumbed to this post-ideology era. The intellectual laziness and sheer conflict of interest is keeping all stakeholders — the political class and the military establishment — from re-introduction of ideology. It would mean no control of the unseen on any party.

This has now brought us to very interesting times when one can’t really differentiate between various labels available in the market of electoral politics. Such smooth has been the murder of ideology that we can’t even name the assassin.

The writer is a staff member who tweets at @marvisirmed and can be contacted at marvisirmed@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, November 16^th 2017.