March 27, 2012
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The country marked Pakistan Day at another critical moment in its history when many questions about its future remain unanswered. An important question is this: can the country acquire the means to govern itself better by aligning politics with the energy and dynamics of a changing, more urbanised society? Will the gap that has emerged between electoral politics and a transformed social landscape be closed to deliver a more ‘functional’ polity?

Pakistan can either remain trapped in a quagmire of weak governance, politics-as-usual, economic stagnation and crumbling public services. Or it can take advantage of changes underway in society to chart a course of reform and renewal.

Recent years have seen the political matrix being transformed by a number of economic and social factors. They include a shift in the centre of economic power (indicated by the falling share of agriculture in national output), a wave of urbanisation, expansion of the middle class, spread of modern communications, greater public awareness brought about by a free and energetic media, and enlargement of civil society. A new era of transparency has been ushered in by unprecedented public access to information and the extensive reach of an independent broadcast media.

All of this is recasting the relationship between citizens and the state and the way people relate to the government and what they expect of it. Political attitudes are being transformed and space opening up for greater public engagement in politics. These factors are unleashing sustained demands for responsive and accountable governance. Members of a more assertive urban middle class are using opportunities created by globalisation and greater ‘connectivity’ in society to demand a bigger political voice and better governance.

But a paradox characterises the political scene and lies at the heart of the country’s predicament today. Representative or electoral politics are lagging behind, not reflecting the changes occurring across much of urban society. This is creating a disconnect between traditional politics and the new social dynamics. Electoral politics based on biradaris, clans and influential families inhabit a world quite different from the one that a more politically conscious, urban Pakistan identifies with or aspires to. While traditional, patronage politics continue by and large to hold sway in the electoral arena, the political ground has been shifting in ways whose implications are still not fully understood.

One symptom of the gap between electoral politics and changing public aspirations is the falling voter turnout. A more politically aware citizenry should be participating in greater numbers in elections. But this is not so. In 2008 the majority of the electorate did not vote even though the polls took place in a politically charged atmosphere following a long period of military rule. Non-voters accounted for as much as 56 per cent of those eligible to cast the ballot.

This trend has held in many by-elections that followed. Although fewer ballots are generally cast in by-elections, the exceedingly low turnout in many (20 per cent in a Lahore constituency in March 2010) denotes a phenomenon that merits more attention. Low and declining voter turnout is particularly surprising when set against other indicators that suggest higher public interest in politics and middle class activism on political issues.

The explanation then seems to lie more in voter disaffection than disinterest in the political process. It also indicates voter rejection of the narrow choice available at the ballot box, which is seen to neither reflect their interests nor their aspirations.

The two major parties have been slow to respond or adapt to the political currents set off by socio-economic changes and the emergence of countervailing forces to traditional centres of power. Whether in their ticketing decisions or their policy platforms, these parties have shown little interest in tapping into and embracing the new social dynamics especially a larger, more educated urban middle class and the youth ‘bulge’. Because these parties are able to muster enough votes to win elections they have little incentive to change themselves or their political game.

This has implications for the credibility of the representative system. If voter turnout for example drops further it will cast doubt on the representative credentials of the ‘winning’ parties. It will denude them of the authority to take effective actions even when they wield power.

There are other reasons too for the gap between the electoral process and citizen involvement. Despite greater urbanisation, rural Pakistan is overrepresented in relation to heavily populated urban centres. This gives undue weightage to rural elites and leaves many urban groups feeling underrepresented, even excluded. Moreover constituency demarcations still reflect the distribution of kinship and biradari groups, especially in the Punjab, in a hangover from the colonial past. As this has suited the major parties the basis of this delimitation has rarely been questioned.

A comprehensive delimitation of parliamentary constituencies (rather than tweaking before elections) is needed to bring the representative system in line with new social and demographic realities. That the country’s last census was held in 1998 is a telling reminder of the ground that has to be covered.

But it is the persisting character of representative politics that increasingly puts it at odds both with changing social and economic dynamics and the needs of most citizens. Society, for the reasons cited above, is changing but the nature and structure of politics is not keeping pace.

Pakistani politics still pivots around patronage and operates principally on the basis of patron-client structures that ties political and electoral activity more to a web of hierarchical relations and obligations rather than to a world of citizens, rights and issues.

Patronage-dominated politics or clientelism rests on working a spoils system rather than responding to the needs of the people. This ensures that electoral politics mostly revolves around an exchange of material favours for political support. Thus electoral competition becomes principally about gaining access and control of state patronage to distribute to supporters.

Such representative politics is geared towards rewarding networks of supporters, not responding to the demands of the broad citizenry. This keeps politics focused on the parochial and stymies thinking about larger national issues. Clientelist politics also encourages rentier behaviour – its beneficiaries live off unearned income from state resources – and of course corrupt practices, which is regarded as ‘acceptable’ by many practitioners of such politics. Nowhere is the tension between this politics and the demands of wider society more evident than in the growing public sentiment against corruption and for an end to the practice of stripping state assets to distribute among supporters of those in power.

Patronage-driven politics is also dysfunctional to the needs of modern governance especially in a country beset by mounting challenges. Because clientelist politics has a patronage not policy focus it is not geared to resolving issues of governance or finding solutions to national problems. Its status quo nature also makes it resistant to any reform. Politics trapped in narrow transactional patterns and structures are inherently unable to promote the welfare of the populace at large. This produces a governance deficit.

If improving the quality of governance is essential for any serious effort to surmount the country’s grave challenges, the gap between politics and a changing society must narrow if not end. This requires the basis of politics to change and move away from the overwhelming preoccupation with patronage towards issue-based concerns.

A newer form of politics must give voice to changing public aspirations, tap the resilience of the people and the energy of the young, represent the growing urban middle class, and above all offer an alternative course to that provided by patronage and hereditary politics – one that leads to merit and professionalism in the management of the country’s affairs.

It is through fundamental electoral, political and economic reform that politics can be aligned to public purpose and the politics of public service encouraged to take hold. This in turn can secure the means for the country to deal effectively with the many problems besetting the nation. The question however is who will spearhead such reforms?

-The News