Political Agendas
None of the manifestos floated by the many political parties in Pakistan contain anything that is radically different from each other. At most priorities differ as does the language spelling them out. Certainly emphasis on many issues may be wide apart, yet ideologically they remain similar. Most agendas are nationalist in nature with “caring” capitalism posing as a soft form of socialism. The two prominent political parties in Pakistan are the PML(N) and the PPP, followed by the regional MQM and ANP, yet a number of other parties have come up to join Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s Tehreek-e-Istiqlal (TI), among them Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) of Imran Khan and former President Farooq Leghari’s Millat Party. A strong minority is formed of a group of religious parties with the Jamaat-e-Islami prominent among them nationally, yet it is the factions of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP), along with other religious parties, that are stronger in terms of voting power that translate into seats in certain regions. As we approach the new millennium, we must first define and implement the macro issues that are a must for good governance and structure them to the benefit of the country, setting in place positive micro-management.
Given that all of us love democracy, what is stopping us from following democratic practices? That the will of the majority must prevail over that of the minority but that the minority must have some voice to register their legitimate rights? None of the manifestoes define a practical solution of overcoming a situation where a minority exercises their will over the majority in the name of democracy and the majority rarely can protest. How has this paradox come about? The fault lies in our voting system which follows the “first past the post” system i.e. whoever gets the most votes gets a seat, even though, in many cases his percentage of votes may not be more than 20% of those voting. This system envisages an educated electorate and a maximum of that electorate turning out to vote and even then this system has been seen to be faulty in the US whenever more than 2 candidates vie for votes. Any organised minority of even less than 10% of the population in any constituency can get their candidate elected under this defective process. Since a major part of the population is not registered as voters, these are effectively disenfranchised. For good order’s sake, let’s say half the population is not registered, the 10% thus becomes 20% of the voting electorate. The last 3 elections have shown that since more than half the voting public do not go out to vote (it is becoming smaller every time), that 20% becomes 40% of the electorate. An analysis of the polls shows that in at least 80% of the electoral races for National (NA) and Provincial (PA) Assembly seats, the winning candidates were those who got between 25-35% of the votes cast (or 12-18% of the people eligible to vote), far less than what an organised 10% of the population requires. Besides being unjust it also breeds apathy and frustration among the electorate, the silent majority deciding that since they can never get to the seat of power they go in lesser numbers each election year to the polling stations, resigning themselves to perennial rule by the organised minority. This gradual sapping of the will of the public not only erodes the foundation that holds the Republic together but inspires a simmering resentment that lies still like a dormant volcano for many years but may erupt and spill over in raging frustration, maybe once in many decades. Such a revolution can act as a cleansing mechanism, it can also destroy the fabric that holds a nation together.
To unite our fractured society, there is no substitute to evolving a system where a real majority rules over the electorate but gives a voice to the minority. The electoral game must be changed from one differing on personalities to a fight between ideas and objectives. If we were to have elections on a “run-off” basis, the two candidates having the maximum votes, i.e. the first 2 candidates in any constituency will be pitted against each other in a “run-off election” i.e. if the first candidate does not get more than 50% of the vote. In a “run-off election”, one candidate has to get more than 50% of the vote to get elected. To get 50% or more any candidate who wants to get elected will have to reach out to heterogeneous elements in the electorate from outside his hard-core supporters, maybe of his Baradari, his religion, sect etc whatever. Moreover, if a majority of the electorate do not like a particular person they can vote for the other candidate to keep such a person out of office. The elected candidate will be the one representing the majority of the electorate in a constituency and thus the norms of democracy will be served in reality and not in an absurd abstract way as it is being done now.
A “run-off election” unites the people. The elected candidate has to care for the whole constituency during his/her term instead of looking after only a significant minority. People of different religion, ethnicity, sect etc are thus drawn into one united cauldron through necessity. Unity can be made real by making it a necessity. When the majority of the electorate realise that their individual vote matters, they will come back to the voting booth to register their ideas, overcoming voter apathy and getting the people involved in governance at the grass roots level. A lot of our citizens are public-minded and want to serve the nation in an elected capacity but why should they participate in a no-win situation? With the knowledge that “special interest” groups have not “locked” up a seat can be overcome, better candidates will be encouraged to come to the electoral fray and the public will get a far better quality of leaders.
The next part of achieving good governance is to give power to the people, to decentralise authority to the lowest electoral unit. The people must be involved in governance at the grass roots level. It is strange that we allow un-elected people to take major decisions concerning the nation and we cannot trust decision-making about their immediate surroundings to the public for their own benefit. Power is nothing without the authority to spend. The basic formula for taxation can be laid down at the federal level but the present system of centralised revenue collection and spending thereof is counter-productive to good governance and fosters inefficiency and corruption. The authority for collecting taxes as mandated by the Federation, Provinces and even the Local Bodies themselves, must be the prerogatives of the Local Bodies who must also have the power to spend part of what they collect on their own constituencies, proposed is 50% of what they collect, giving 25% each to the Federation and the Provinces as their share. Instead of disbanding the Central Board of Revenue (CBR), a reduced staff thereof can be used to audit revenues and spending thereof at all levels of collection and spending.
The last most vital issue is that of “proportional representation” (PR) in a democracy. The “run-off election” ensures a majority but it does not cater for smaller political parties, minorities and women representation. A perfect solution may not be possible, however one proposal goes along the following lines, viz (1) the number of seats filled by direct election will be increased by 50%, these will be allocated on the basis of PR based on the percentage totalled by the parties (2) 50% of the seats thus filled by each party will be filled by women nominees of the party (3) 40% of the seats must be taken by those losing candidates of the party who have the highest percentage of votes in priority, the choice with the party if there is a tie and (4) 10% of the seats must be filled by minority candidates, the larger parties distributing it carefully among Christians and Hindus etc, with the religious parties surrendering or transferring to smaller party their seats if they do not want to appoint any minority or women candidate. The surrendered seats must go to the larger parties as per their percentage of votes. PR in the electoral system will ensure participation by all sectors of the electorate.
The whole idea is to ensure all political parties have some say in elected bodies commensurate to their vote. But this is a complete subject by itself. If we can implement the logical ideas set forth in my submissions, we will go a long way in ensuring true democracy for the people of Pakistan. The only salvation for Pakistan lies in a true democracy being implemented in letter and spirit.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment