Daily Times

The situation of Pakistani politics is a peculiar mix of dynastic politics, a firmly entrenched political party that appears stronger than ever in the electoral game, and a new political party that ostensibly does not lose elections, but, rather claims to fall victim to rigging. Where the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) has kept the reins of power of both the party and government within the Sharif family, with even its name indicative of this phenomenon, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) similarly has it co-chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari whose only qualification that matters for holding that office is being the son of the deceased former leader of the party, Benazir Bhutto. Both of these parties have shared between themselves the reins of power during the periods of democratic rule in Pakistan. It is true that two dominant parties in a first-past-the-post parliamentary form of government is nothing out of the ordinary, but what is unsettling about this is the lack of change at the base that their ostensible democratic ways has effected. The networks of patronage politics still continues to define the electoral landscape of Pakistan, and, consequently, electoral strength is to a large extent determined by the degree with which political parties have entrenched themselves within them.

When it comes to mainstream national politics, both of these political parties are embroiled in allegations of corruption. In the latest round, the Panama Papers controversy raised a lot of serious questions regarding the wealth of the first family, questions that up till now have not been adequately answered. Similarly, the PPP did not escape notoriety either as the names of its leaders and former leaders were also on the list. In lieu of meaningful action on part of government, it seems that the ruling party wants the issue to be brushed under the carpet. And it is for similar reasons that the response of the PPP towards it has been lacklustre. Hence, chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan does have a point when he says that there is an implicit mutual understanding between the PML-N and the PPP, and so they have to be pressurised into becoming more accountable.

While the goals of PTI are admirable, the means through which PTI has sought to change the status quo are reflective of the desperation on its part to overthrow the ruling party. Seemingly, PTI pledges adherence to democratic principles, and Khan’s speeches are often full of references to the standard to which western European countries hold up their democratic values to. However, in the same vein, Khan casts doubts to his commitment to the democratic setup in Pakistan through controversial references to the Pakistani military. Similarly, while Khan talks about the merits of the right to protest in mature democracies, he threatens to ‘lockdown’ the capital city if his demands are not met. Not only this but Khan has failed to prove his mark on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the one province in which he had the opportunity to show the electorate what his party can offer to the public. Preoccupied with power games at the top, Khan is increasingly being cornered by the consequences of his own actions. And now he stands to lose the ethos of his party, by turning to brazen threats of forceful lockdowns.*