Good politician, bad politician
More often, it’s a bit of both
MQM supremo Altaf Hussain diatribe against the state has initiated a debate about good politician and bad politician. As usual we are confused about it as we are confused about most of our other issues. There are cries about banning MQM as well as a demand to file court cases of sedition against Altaf Hussain. I fully support state action against those that incite violence and cause disturbance of social order. But banning MQM is not wise. The real question we need to address is the structure and culture of our political institutions. In the absence of any structural changes the probability of Frankenstein politicians emerging on the scene will remain very much there.
Political parties are controlled by autocratic individuals that do not tolerate anyone demanding respect for party constitution, merit and ideology. Identities of person and party remain inseparable. Their first preference is loyalty to themselves while party and the nation can take a back seat. Establishment and other stakeholders prefer this set up and do not want to disturb it. Asif Ali Zardari was held in jail on corruption charges for 10 years but courts acquitted him on all those charges. This means that Asif Ali Zardari is not corrupt but, no one questions his luxurious lifestyle. No questions are asked about the sources of enrichment of the ruling family. Even Imran Khan can stop a police van to liberate his party members - taking law in his own hands - and no one asks him any questions. Same is the story for all other political parties. In other words there is a muk mukka among political elites that they will not punish each other regardless of their repeated breach of rule of law. Rising to the top of a political party is a guarantee of immunity from prosecution unless of course an expedient General takes over. The education system and hierarchical structure of our society also prefers this dictatorial set up of parties. This has to change, party heads should be accountable to party members and replaced through democratic means from their positions. Rule of law has to apply to all members of the society without regard to their political position.
These undemocratic parties have given rise to a ruling elite that consider it their birth right to be served by the nation. A statement by a PML-N Senator that poor are meant to serve them without question is indicative of this mindset. But PML-N is not alone I would like PPP Senator Taj Haider, who got angry by this statement of PML-N senator, to read Wall Street Journal interview of PPP’s leader, in which he proudly suggested that the Bhutto and Zardari families have a birth right to rule. Imran Khan in his July 20th speech told party members if anyone disagrees with him then they can leave PTI. In other words the party heads want to act like a god and believe that no one else can serve this country except them.
Another hurdle is that it has become prohibitively expensive to contest elections for elected office. During campaign for 2013 general elections I asked people how much does it cost to contest elections. The information provided by former NA members was revealing. They told me that in 1980s and 1990s average cost was affordable by any middle class person and not only that most expenses were incurred by supporters to facilitate win of a good candidate. This is not the situation anymore, now a rural NA contest can cost anywhere from Rs 6 million to 12 million depending upon close contest. Urban contests are even more expensive. This is about 12 to 24 times average annual income of a person and no middle class can afford to spend such money in the absence of a proper campaign funding mechanism. Not only that a vicious cycle has developed. Those that win elections engage in misappropriation of development funds so that they have resources to contest next elections. This means that a new candidate has to arrange campaign funds to match them and when they win they have to engage in same corrupt practices to prepare for next elections. This has to change if we want politics to evolve for the better.
In a true democracy everyone is given equal opportunity to pursue an ambition and any hurdles based on race, color, gender and religion are demolished. Can we say that in Pakistan person of humble beginning can dream of succeeding in politics? In UK Sadiq Khan son of migrant parents with humble beginning became mayor of London securing highest ever mandate in an election. In USA Senator Elizabeth Warren proudly mentions that her mother had a janitorial job in a high school. She is expected to be a key member of Hillary Clinton cabinet if she won presidential elections. In Indonesia President Joko Widodo is from middle class. This is not the case in today’s Pakistan a person has to belong to an elite class to be able to hold a party position or contest elections. To rejuvenate any society it requires news ideas and leaders to emerge at regular interval. In Pakistan only sons and daughters of sitting MNAs replace them rather than allow new leadership to emerge which has stagnated the society and regressed it.
This brings us to the question of the hour: whether political parties are able to attract talented people for award of tickets and cabinet positions. I hope some scholar from a political science department of a university will write a PhD dissertation to answer it.