Lacking in major political parties
No society can grow and prosper unless and until it is able to experience a long duration of legitimate political power. A king legitimises his power by seeking oath of allegiance from aristocrats of the country as well as acceptance by the religious authority. A benevolent king that enjoys mass support further entrenches his political mandate while the one engaged in social injustice undermines the legitimacy of the regime. Death of a king usually ensues either a bloody struggle for succession or peaceful transfer of power to crown prince. But in both cases the new king has to gain legitimacy from most stakeholders. A key difference between a popular monarchy and democracy is peaceful transfer of power according to the wish of the people. Modern democracy rests on the legitimacy of an elected government whose authority is defined in a constitution. In the absence of legitimacy the decisions of a regime does not enjoy the necessary support from all stakeholders resulting in usually more damage than good to the society.
In Pakistan we have experienced three martial laws. These rulers did not have legitimacy which undermined their ability to make decisions that were binding on the nation. This forced them to seek acceptance from foreign powers which was available to them by pawning national interest at a terrible cost. For instance, Ayub Khan allowed use of Pakistani airbases to fly U-2, spy planes to conduct espionage in erstwhile USSR which damaged our credibility as a non-aligned country. General Zia made Pakistan a frontline state against Russian occupation of Afghanistan. And finally General Musharraf allowed Pakistan’s land route to be used for logistics support for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan against a government that was recognised by us. Not only that almost all historians agree that these long military regimes weakened the social fabric of the country; gave rise to nepotism, cronyism and corruption; and damaged Pakistan’s foreign policy positions in dealing with other countries.
The question of legitimacy is not only limited to running a government but also applies to controlling political parties. It took Benazir Bhutto over a decade to establish herself as an undisputed heir to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to become Chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) but Asif Ali Zardari (AAZ) elevated himself to the position of co-chairman based on a handwritten will whose authenticity is not established. This has resulted in lack of legitimacy of AAZ among the grass roots members. It is probably because of this reason AAZ chose to rely on non-PPP friends to ensure his control like Rehman Malik, Husain Haqqani, Babar Awan, Dr Asim Hussain, etc. Nawaz Sharif of PML-N has turned out to be politically savvy in this regard. A splinter group loses its legitimacy as soon as he denounces it. JUI-F has adopted the similar technique. Altaf Hussain has used similar technique but in a different form. He has demanded that everyone accepts that humain manzil nahi rehnuma chahiye (we don’t want destiny but the leader). That means that whoever is endorsed by Altaf Hussain becomes legitimate office holder of MQM. Another tool used by Altaf Hussain is to become the legitimate voice of Urdu speaking voters which resulted in failure of MQM Haqiqi and Pak Sarzameen to garner support. In PTI, Imran Khan emphasised that merit, ideology and rule of law should define the culture of the party. Now it is turning against him because any time he appoints people unconstitutionally they do not have legitimacy in the party. Majority of the members in PTI accept Imran Khan as the Chairman but demand from him to walk the talk. Jehangir Tareen, Shah Mehmood, Aleem Khan, Pervez Khattak and Ch Sarwar never enjoyed legitimacy in the party and hence political power because their titles were not earned constitutionally.
The political chaos in Pakistan will not subside until and unless the system is strengthened to ensure that all institutions are managed through legitimate powers. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has to play a significant role in this by demanding institutionalisation of political parties as well as by holding free and fair general elections. Unfortunately most of the electoral reforms are focused on Election Day management rather than the whole political process. ECP should better regulate political parties to ensure that party officers represent will of party members and tickets are awarded through a transparent process. One idea that may help in strengthening democracy is introduction of proportionate representation. Turkey and Germany practice proportionate system and should be studied to learn from their experience. Unfortunately there is no discussion on that in electoral reforms committee and if we continue with current system of first-past-the-post there will be hardly any improvement in governance especially since parliamentarians are driven by constituency level concerns.
People in Pakistan are aware of the failures of the political parties. They expect intellectuals, political scientists and politicians to reform the system so that it has more legitimacy and ability to solve our social, economic and security problems. Failure will give rise to a bloody retaliation that was experienced by other nations when they failed to reform.
