The people have spoken
By Irfan Husain

OVER the last five years, if I had a dollar each time somebody complained about democracy, I might not have become rich, but would at least have been able to afford a meal at a top restaurant in London.

Basically, the refrain from angry readers went something like this: ‘Is this the democracy you have been pushing all these years? How long more do we have to put up with Asif Zardari?’

Another variation on this theme: ‘Dictatorship is better than this corrupt and inefficient government.’

I would invariably counsel patience, and remind these critics that dictatorship was one of the reasons we were in such a mess. I argued strongly for the completion of the PPP-led coalition’s term: ‘Why don’t we let the people of Pakistan decide? It’s much better for the government to be voted out for incompetence, rather than be removed through a military or judicial coup. That way, they won’t be able to wear the halo of martyrdom.’

And so it has proved: the people have spoken loudly and decisively, and handed the coalition partners a stinging defeat. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement may have retained more or less the same number of seats in the National Assembly, but it has seen its votes decline. And it is a sign of the PPP’s bankruptcy of ideas that it has nominated Qaim Ali Shah as the chief minister of Sindh after he has presided over the mayhem in Karachi these last five years.

Apart from showing the previous government the door, voters have also sent a strong signal that they are fed up of feudal families treating their constituencies as their personal fiefdoms. Many powerful candidates who took parliamentary seats as their birthright were defeated. The Khars and the Gilanis, among many others, will be absent from assemblies. And remarkably, for the first time in decades, there’s no Bhutto from ZAB’s line in any assembly.

This, too, has been a constant refrain from anti-democracy voices: ‘How can you expect illiterate voters to choose wisely? Their votes are just bought by the local chaudhry.’ Not this time, it seems. While I’m sure there must have been an element of chicanery in some constituencies, by and large, the May 11 elections were free and fair.

Another thing voters appear to have grasped is that a split mandate produces weak coalition governments that are shaky, and subject to blackmail by internal and external elements.

They have therefore handed one party — Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League — an outright majority against all expectations. Virtually every pundit — this one among them — had predicted a coalition led by the PML-N to form the federal government. But ordinary, often illiterate voters decided differently.

After the declining turnout witnessed over the last few elections, critics also questioned the legitimacy of governments produced by less than half the electorate exercising their right to vote. ‘What kind of democracy is this that parties with a combined vote of a quarter of the number registered should rule the country?’

However, a 60pc turnout gives the system a level of credibility it has not enjoyed since the 1970 elections. In this, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf deserves much credit: by motivating young people to go out and vote, Imran Khan has helped strengthen democracy at a time it was in danger of falling into disrepute.

Voting patterns and preferences also reveal the rapid urbanisation that has taken place in Pakistan over the last decade or so. The PPP had become a largely rural-based party, and pitched its message to this constituency. And when it was in government, many of its policies were designed to attract the rural voter. However, in the event, it saw itself being squeezed out of the few urban seats it had been confident of retaining.

Urbanisation has been accompanied by a rising middle class that is demanding what the middle class everywhere demands: better infrastructure, more jobs, improved education and security. The PPP largely failed to address these concerns and paid the price. The religious parties, too, won a small fraction of the total votes. This has been the pattern for years as clerics are widely viewed as people who might deliver in the next life, but not in this one. Thus, between them, the Jamaat-i-Islami and the JUI-F received just over 5pc of the vote.

In fact, ideology appears to have played little part in this election: there was no left-right division, even though the PML-N is conservative on many issues, while the PPP professes itself to be the flag-bearer of the poor. However, the latter has moved so far from its founding principles that the rhetoric is all that’s left now.

Indirectly at least, voters have approved of Nawaz Sharif’s quest for better relations with India. Even though he was criticised for making this a campaign pledge by many of his opponents, the fact that he was given a virtual majority suggests that most people are sick of the unending state of hostility with our neighbour.

It is especially significant that the bulk of Nawaz Sharif’s support came from Punjab, the province that was supposed to be the most hawkish in terms of the Kashmir dispute.

There was a school of thought that the PPP and the Awami National Party would get a sympathy vote as they were being targeted mercilessly by the Pakistani Taliban. But it would seem that most people felt that the previous government’s policies towards these terrorists had failed, and they would rather try the path of negotiation. I personally feel this is a misguided approach, but then mine is a solitary voice.

So while I might disagree with Nawaz Sharif on a range of issues, I am glad he has a strong mandate, and hope he gets on with it.

irfan.husain@gmail.com