Saving elections from ‘ill-actions’

By Jehangir Khattak

An edited version of this article first appeared in The Express Tribune.

Election ferver in Rawalpindi Pakistan. (Photo by Olaf Kellerhoff via Flickr)

As electioneering heats up, politics has shifted to high gear of rhetoric. All political parties have completed the ritual of unveiling largely ambitious manifestos. With few exceptions, these manifestos give semblance of half-baked utopian visions and hazy roadmaps. But politicians are promoting them to the points of fantasy.

One problem with most of these manifestos is their almost identical recipes for national issues. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32^nd US president once said: “An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as two peas in the same pod.” Politicians selling these manifestos are trying to prove wrong the tested philosophy of Roosevelt. And to their advantage, media, intelligentsia and voters are not raising too many questions about the practicability of these programs.

This disdain has failed to generate the kind of issue-based debate that shapes up election results in Western democracies. In the West, elections are the name of competing programs, ideas and ideologies. In 2000 presidential elections, the promise of reforming social security contributed to George W. Bush's victory. Economic pundits for long have predicted insolvency of social security system after 2030. Bush's program despite being controversial won the voters’ confidence and helped him reach the White House.

In 2008, voters were looking for a leader to pull the US out of its history's most expensive wars that were contributing to its economic crisis. This time Barack Obama was the man of moment. Obama believed that Bush's policy of “either with us or against us” had isolated the US internationally. His bloody and expensive wars needed to be ended responsibly and American troops brought back home. Americans elected Bush and Obama at difficult moments in their history after being convinced that their roadmaps to extending the American century would work. 

The wheel of democracy moved in opposite direction in Pakistan. The PPP ascended to power on sympathy vote after Benazir Bhutto's assassination. It was not elected on its program but on its political rhetoric -- remember "democracy is the best revenge" mantra?  

The PPP lived up to its promise, promoting a strange combination of corrupt political culture and creditable constitutional reforms. It made history by completing its term but left behind a complicated baggage of economic mess and lawlessness. Its rule left deep imprints of statesmanly decisions of NFC Award, renaming NWFP as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 18th Amendment to thuggishly handling the economy and governance. It piled up the largest ever domestic and international debt in a single term in Pakistan's history. Under its watch, the Pakistani state shrank within its geography. 

Pakistan is caught up in expensive and bloody fight against terrorism and extremism, a failing economy, crippling energy crisis and a tattering state structure at the end of its rule. These daunting challenges cannot be met with sexy manifestos and catchy slogans.

Thomas Edison once said that visions without execution are mere hallucinations. And rightly so, these manifestos seem like hallucinations when judged on the track record of the parties touting them. The biggest losers on this plank of judgment are parties of the erstwhile ruling coalition and the leading winners could be the untested PTI, PML (N) with comparatively better governance record and smaller religious and nationalist parties.

Lack of clarity in thought and action on voters mind on polling day thus could make or break a new Pakistan’s promise. Voters can save these elections from becoming “ill-actions” by making the parties realize that their vote is no longer available on rosy promises but clear visions and solid roadmaps to salvation.

The election results will hold credence only if all political players have been afforded an even playing field. The security threats to left-leaning secular PPP, ANP and MQM are bad omens. If extremists succeed in paralyzing election campaigns of these parties, which they largely have especially in case of ANP, it will make the electoral exercise meaningless, leaving the field open for only right-leaning parties. The caretakers and the establishment must create an environment that denies terrorists the space to dictate the results and make mockery of the ballot through their bullets.

The writer is a Senior Editor at http://www.voicesofny.org. He tweets @JehangirKhattak