The alchemy of politics

Democracy is loud, noisy and often inefficient, but it is also fun. The last day of the by-election in Rawalpindi had all the attributes of an exciting one-day cricket match. Interesting characters, well-matched teams and a degree of doubt as to who will win.

In the end, despite all the hype, Sheikh Rashid was thrashed well and proper. A margin of thirty thousand votes is beyond rigging but it did not stop the Sheikh from making such a charge.

No surprise here because that is the way we are. The other side is never better; there must have been some deep conspiracy afoot. In cricket, we allege match-fixing. In elections, vote-rigging. And for failures in life; the lack of a fair deal.

Sheikh Rashid is a colourful character much loved by TV channels. Part of his charm is that he started from humble beginnings. He has had grand political success and is now reportedly a very rich man. Says a lot for his political and 'business' skills.

But, another lesson of this by-election is that TV exposure does not translate into votes. Besides his glib talk and constant presence on the media, the Sheikh also had the backing of the PPP. Yet he was soundly beaten. An even more pathetic case is of Imran Khan. Despite his celebrity status and earnest demeanour on TV channels, he only got four thousand votes!

What a waste is Imran in politics. He is a great social worker and had he stuck to it and not entered politics, his status could have been greater than Edhi. But, he wanted more and that is an unfolding tragedy. A dwarf in politics, yet a potential giant in social work. Can someone tell him this?

It is also obvious from this election that political loyalties are deep-rooted and enduring. There are always a small percentage of floaters in between but most people stick to their preferred parties. That is the strength nationally of the PPP and the PML-N and of parties like the MQM, the ANP, the JUI-F and others in pockets. Their leaders may change, or do well or poorly in government, but the voter by and large remains committed.

This was obvious in Rawalpindi. The PML-N won by a margin of thirty thousand in the 2008 election. The PPP then got thirty-five thousand and the Sheikh ten. If you add up the PPP vote to the Sheikh's in this contest, it more or less presents a picture similar to the general election.

This also means that despite predictions of doom and gloom for the PPP or the PML-N, they will retain their status as the most popular parties in the country. To this political equation, Zardari's background and allegations against him or his future are irrelevant. Same is true of Nawaz Sharif.

While not cast in stone, it seems that vote banks of the parties remain largely intact. The erosion or addition averages to around five per cent in an election. This of course makes a huge difference when the principle of 'first past the post' is followed as opposed to proportional representation. It is thus entirely possible for a party to lose most of its seats by a reduction of just five per cent of its vote bank.

It happened to the PPP in 1990 and 1997. I will not make too much of the '90 election because many dubious things took place then but '97 was a great illustration. By a statistically significant number, the PPP voter did not come out to vote because of his anger at the leadership. The PML-N won by a landslide. The same PPP voter stood by the party in 2002 and 2008 and made it the single largest party in both elections.

This alchemy of politics means that space for new parties and new leaders is limited. Again, our favourite hobby horse Imran Khan is a good example. A national cricketing hero, a person who has built a truly magnificent hospital in the shape of Shaukat Khanum, a man of integrity with good abilities of articulation, a true celebrity not only in Pakistan but globally, and yet has only fringe support in politics.

The element of voter loyalty must be very comforting for leaders of established parties. They may lose an election or two but they know that their time will come. The core of their vote bank will remain intact unless something really terrible happens.

This political reality also presents a dilemma for the new generation of aspiring politicians. They may not particularly like Zardari, Nawaz Sharif or the MQM in Karachi and the ANP in NWFP. Yet they have no choice if they want to move forward in politics. They have to hitch a ride on a major party's bandwagon.

This can become a terribly frustrating experience because most parties are not only dynastic but run like medieval 'darbars'. A charismatic figure at the top controls everything because voter loyalty is articulated through this person. Policies, manifestos and agendas of the party are largely irrelevant.

In this scenario, party democracy is impossible because the leader cares very little about what the members think. Today, people like Rehman Malik, Babar Awan and Latif Khosa are hated more by PPP members than their opponents. Yet, does it make any difference? Same was the case with people like Saifur Rehman when Nawaz Sharif was in power.

It is this environment that makes life very difficult for people who want to move forward in politics. They either learn soon to suck up to leaders or remain perpetually marginalised. And if to this difficulty is added the huge amount of money required to do politics, it is not a surprise that very few young people of talent are attracted to this field.

This kind of 'darbari' environment also makes policy discussions very difficult. Let me state again that not all leaders or parties are the same, but in general it is very difficult to disagree with the views of the leader or criticise him or her. Even with the utmost of loyalty, great skill is required to put the correct perspective across without causing offence.

This ensures that only a certain kind of person rises to the top in politics. A person more skilled in the art of flattery than having any management or policy-making abilities. And that is a shame because if democracy has to move forward, as it must, it needs to put its best foot forward.

The political process also needs to attract the best and the brightest in the nation if democracy has to take root and stabilise. At the moment the urban middle class intellectually subscribes to it but has only contempt for the politicians that come riding on its charger.

It is this malaise that translates into impatience with system and allows an extra-constitutional intervention to find acceptability. Unless this changes democracy will remain fragile.