This and that

Pitfalls of selective politics

Maybe Heraclitus was referring to politics when he said that there is nothing permanent except change. For in politics, carefully structured ideologies and principles built thereupon can change in a jiffy. Principles only endure as long as they serve their purpose. With years of practice, our politicians have gotten shrewder at picking principles and have expertly selected populist ones. From roti, kapra aur makan to ending corruption, all are more of a sloganeering exercise than an actual representation of the ideology behind them.

How and why a politician chooses a populist line to follow is as much of a moot point as is how he conveniently forgets, or ignores, the other important ones. This practice of selectivity and omission is actually what has made these parties lose support in their traditional strongholds, and gain some from others. PML(N) has alienated much of its ultra conservative rightist votebank, and to some extent the centre-right too, with their newfound mantra of anti-establishment sentiments. PPP has done the same with its central Sindh and south Punjab votebanks with its arguably objectionable policies on intra-party politics and its consistent support for an unpopular war inside and outside our borders.

The assumption that politicians practise their art for the sake of art is seriously flawed; for in every person, there is an almost instinctual need to cater to his personal needs before anything else. So we cannot deny that there is an element of self-preservation in politicians choosing their slogan. But the actual act of choosing or ignoring an issue is a tricky one; after all, it could become a pitfall for the very politician who is so keen on it. For instance, turning a blind eye to the existential threat posed by the Taliban is a matter of political convenience and choice, not a far-reaching policy decision.

Most of the political parties in Pakistan, including the major ones – PPP and PML(N), have developed a certain course of action that they follow on almost every issue. For matters democratic in nature, PPP would brag about its sacrifices, struggle and suffering. The PML(N) has a tendency to capitalise on public sentiment after an issue has gained enough momentum; they start rattling their sabres and roar at everyone that dare stands in their way. While Bhutto’s party is eager to take a stand against the establishment, the Sharifs are (or were) more at home in its lap. Recently though, to their credit the N-League has changed its stance about military intervention in politics whereas the PPP seems to have cozied up to the very forces that it once considered its eternal enemies.

This role reversal in these parties’ traditional approach has forced them to practice their art only on selective issues. Sidetracked by their personal agendas, both parties are no more true to what once they stood for. If taken with a pinch of salt, this strategy is not as bad as it sounds as no realpolitik is possible without such ideological somersaults. What could really matter to them is the fear of losing their votebank. A diminishing votebank is bound to cause some stir among the political leadership. But the dynamics of how votebanks change have so many variables, making it impossible to pin the changes on specific U-turns alone. At least rural politics, which for the major parties is more crucial as voter turnout in rural areas is greater than urban areas, shows little signs of changing due to their leaders’ changing political stance.

Buoyed by the success of their repetitive about turns without any backlash from their constituents, politicians have started taking them for granted. Offering no alternatives to the problems faced by the public, they usually give in and opt for the more opportunistic politics of criticising the ones in power.

However, playing selective politics is a dangerous slope for the political parties that fail to take into account a changing political landscape such as ours. In such a changing landscape, it is not just the public that is more aware of its role and responsibilities regarding its participation in representative politics – for which the lawyers movement must be given due credit – but other factors are important too. Some of these are new entrants in the political arena like Imran Khan, an actively critical media, and pressure from the international donor agencies to clean up our governance and economic mess.

It is factors such as these that have wrangled away the manoeuvring space out of politicians’ control, bit by bit. If they keep treading the same path, they just might become a victim of Heraclitus’ famous quote.