The masses consider polls more like the game of ‘musical chairs’, contested by the well-entrenched oligarchs to take their turns to rule. At the time of elections, the contestants make lofty promises, but after elections they forget their promises and abandon the electorate. Since the exercise does not result in bringing any substantial change or improvement in the lives of masses, almost 50per cent of the voters remain undecided, till the last moment, whether they should cast their vote or not
Despite their yearning for participatory democracy, over 56per cent people did not cast their votes in general elections held in 2002. The turn out in general elections held in the country earlier was also not much different.
Due to democracy deficit, election rigging and hollow promises that politicians usually make at the time of elections the people believe that electioneering only serves the interests of the elite.
The masses consider polls more like the game of ‘musical chairs’, contested by the well-entrenched oligarchs to take their turns to rule. At the time of elections, the contestants make lofty promises, but after elections they forget their promises and abandon the electorate. Since the exercise does not result in bringing any substantial change or improvement in the lives of masses, almost 50per cent of the voters remain undecided, till the last moment, whether they should cast their vote or not.
Nourishing of such feelings by the masses reflects poorly on the leadership of a country, which was established through a democratic process - the process of vote, but where even after over 60 years there is neither political stability nor participatory democracy. This is, indeed, a sad commentary on the political acumen and sagacity of the leaders, who succeeded the brilliant founding father Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his able lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan.
If one tries to find out the major causes of democracy deficit in the country, though not the sole factor but the bane of feudalism appears to be its root cause. Both Pakistan and India gained independence simultaneously in August 1947. But, the Indian leaders took no time in abolishing the feudal system and consequently they have an established and functioning democracy.
After strengthening their foothold in the sub-continent, the British dispossessed the elite of the pre-British period of their Jagirs and fiefdoms, and allotted those to the natives who had provided services or material support to the British in battles against the native princes. The newly acquired properties and official patronage enabled the collaborators to accumulate wealth, develop clout and get berths in City/Town/State Councils within a few years’ time.
After a prolonged freedom struggle, the natives forced the colonialists to pack up, delegating authority to people’s representatives elected in 1946 general elections. Fearing that the new governments might confiscate their newly acquired Jagirs, the neo-feudal decided to make efforts to embed with the state hierarchy.
Within 13 months after independence, Pakistan’s founding father - the brilliant and compassionate lawyer who, because of his sincerity and devotion to the cause, enjoyed great esteem among the masses - passed away. The leadership vacuum provided the feudals an opportunity to grab power.
They used those very tricks, once again, that had endeared them to the alien rulers. They started showering praises on leaders and state officials. They would regularly send gifts to the authorities and hold lavish receptions whenever a VIP happened to visit their region. These gimmicks endeared them to the authorities, who believed that they have discovered in those persons influential, wealthy and ‘useful friends’.
The official patronage helped the neo-feudal and their ever-swelling progeny to grab important positions in the state hierarchy. They gradually kept strengthening their hold, sidelining veterans of the freedom movement and, within years, the ruling party got transformed into a party led by the neo-feudal. This was a virtual take-over – rather hijacking – of the political party founded and laboriously nurtured by the Quaid-i-Azam.
The power-grabbers had no scruples. Their only motto was to remain in power, protect their assets, accumulate more wealth and keep the countrymen under shackles, mimicking the style of their former alien masters. Changes in the hierarchy made no difference to them. They would immediately embed themselves with every ruler and start playing the second fiddle, caring little about the legitimacy of the incumbent.
Over years, they have achieved perfection in sycophancy. Since late 1950s, every ruler, whether elected or otherwise, had found them handy for consolidating and strengthening his position. The masses ridiculed these neo-rich and often called them names, such as turncoats, mules, traitors or ‘Lotas’. But, the public ridicule neither pricked their conscience nor did it make them feel ashamed.
When, once confronted by public, one of them retorted by saying: “We are not Lotas, but men of principles, who never change loyalties. Since joining politics, we are with The King’s Party, have been supporting it through thick and thin and would continue to do so for all times. We don’t switch loyalties. Rather, the helmsmen change, and the ignorant masses accuse us of changing loyalties.”
One of them, who had served for a long time as a minister, once went to England as member of a parliamentary delegation. During visit to India Office Library, the Librarian drew the group’s attention to a document carrying account of a person who had supported the British against the Mughals, in the 1857 war, with 105 men from the northwest. Looking at the paper, the ex-Minister bowed before the librarian and, with a broad smile on his face, said: Sir, the knighted person was his great grandfather. If the British needed the services of his family again, we would feel very happy to carry out the assigned duties, as did our elders.
On a number of occasions, the polls produce a split mandate, largely due to election engineering, resulting in the formation of governments by different political parties or groups at the centre and provinces. On each such occasion, the King’s Party would split into independent groups. Each splinter group would lend support to the persons at the helm of affairs in a region, the sole criterion for the support being preservation of status quo and self-interests. Thus, through clever moves and maneuvers, the feudal succeed in retaining their position as co-rulers despite change in rule or transition from an elected to a bureaucratic disposition.
In fact, the feudal consider the governance to be their forte. They do not like to share power even with knowledgeable, talented and experienced commoners who, some times, get elected to the legislatures. When talented/educated persons get ministerial slots or other important positions in the state hierarchy, the feudal immediately start grumbling that experts, having little knowledge about statecraft, have grabbed political positions. Little do they realise that the top leaders of the freedom movement were talented and educated professionals like Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a barrister, who started the movement for Pakistan; Allama Dr Muhammad Iqbal, a barrister and poet-philosopher, who prepared the people for such an eventuality; and Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, again a Barrister, who led the nation when the flag of independence was hoisted.
Given their tactics and past record, one should not be surprised if this time, over 300 feudals are contesting elections as black horses of the King’s Party or the political parties in alliance with it, relying on the support of the local governments, local administration and the police. But, the incumbency’s negative effects and their lack luster performance in the previous regimes are likely to loom large on their fate this time.
