Usually, it is the impact of politics that is gauged on economic outcomes. Elections 2008 in Pakistan demonstrate the impact of economics on politics and electoral outcomes. Since the bulk of the population is poor, the poor and the illiterate have spoken. The previous government did nothing to ameliorate their lot. The low and the middle income classes also spoke. They were also getting poor with a growing sense of deprivation than was the case in the past.

The two segments voted in favour of the opposition parties, regional and ethnic vote notwithstanding. So, other than ethnic/regional considerations, the illiterate and the low-income educated voted pretty much similarly. They voted in favour of parties expected to heed the sighs of the commoners groaning under the pressure of ever-rising price spiral and other economic woes. What were the economic factors that topped the agenda and, amongst other factors, drove voting behaviour this time?

Top of the agenda was the steep rise in the market prices of sugar, wheat, edible oil, milk, and vegetables that, in turn, fed into a price spiral. Consumers had to substitute expenditure on other items with that on inelastic basic food items. Wheat/food price increase also has a ratchet effect on the overall price level. The income effect of rising prices left all those poorer whose wages are either not indexed to inflation or are indexed to the official rate of inflation when actually experienced inflation is higher. While the consumers were getting poorer, suppliers of basic food items with inelastic demand became richer. Increase in food prices cannot be explained away by rising international food prices. There was a dynamic process- very domestic in nature-- that led to the fiasco within the country. Hoarding was reported in both sugar and wheat but could not be nabbed for political reasons. Export of wheat was allowed by the then prime minister Mr Shaukat Aziz on the basis of wheat output claims that were later found to be inaccurate as also accepted by him in a recent interview in London.

Smuggling across the borders could not be controlled. This administrative weakness resulted in a further rise in domestic wheat price and government failure to arrest wheat flow across the borders. Political and administrative handicaps combined as well as corruption left the consumers hapless. As the consumers became poorer, there were tall claims made of poverty reduction that smacked of a rising intellectual poverty.

The above clearly indicates why corruption would not be a differentiating feature in elections 2008. For, many may succumb to it. The disadvantaged cannot, therefore, be held responsible for inducting the former accused or maligned back into the formal system when the system was not free from these tendencies even during the tenure of the previous PML(Q) government. A difference, however, is with regards to its scope and scale.

Under the last government, it was a very wide segment of the population that experienced the effect of corruption and maladministration and on a scale that wholesome food on the mat was virtually and actually snatched away significantly, if not fully. This is a situation very hard for the affluent to comprehend who can see corruption at only the macro level but not at the millions of micro household levels who stood virtually robbed.

So, the deprived used their good judgment to vote back the ones who never were food snatchers. They actually always took a humane view of the plight of the deprived. Also, the massive job losses that resulted from the previous government’s privatisation policy would swing the vote away from the incumbents to those who attempted to guard the jobs even in the event of privatisation.

The right to eat and the right to work needed to be restored ; something that was not expected of the incumbents as they would always turn a deaf ear to the complaints and the concerns of the ordinary. It is the ordinary whose turn it was to decide at the polling booth. And, they gave a verdict in favour of the ones who had not been so harsh with them in the past. This is voter rationality that needs to be understood in context.

Added to it was the usurpation of a whole bunch of basic human rights that even the dispassionate observers found totally unacceptable. And the voters together turned the tables on the incumbents to reclaim their basic economic and other human rights.

Voting is based on expectations. The party/group voted into office is expected to deliver on the issues faced by the people. They are expected to try hard to live up to the expectations of the people in the interest of their own re-election if not in the true interest of the people. That is why, democracy is considered to be the best bet. According to a Greek philosopher, democracy is not the best form of government but it is the government that works best. According to him, best form of government is intellectual aristocracy. But, the intellectual aristocrats are not inclined to rule.

So, those who are not intellectual aristocrats must put their heads together to decide and let people be the judge of who will decide for them. Worst-case scenario then is a bunch of decision-makers who are self-appointed or manipulated into offices. Such are not the true representatives. They may even put their heads together in virtual isolation of the society. This is the worst case scenario that a relatively fair popular vote saves the people from.

So, knowing the ground realities, it is not the perfect that is sought through the electoral process. But, what is sought is a move away from what is very imperfect to what would be less imperfect. An attempt is made to have the immediate woes, economic and otherwise, redressed. It is thus a shift from a situation in which the woes stood compounded to a situation in which the intensity of the hardships is expected to be reduced.

It is, therefore, also a shift from a government that would not lend its ears to the one that is sure to lend its ears to the most pressing issues as it would be democratically elected. The attempt of the electorate is to have representation, at least, on those serious issues that went entirely unrepresented thus far. Voting behaviour is thus driven by rational considerations. It would be highly irrational to again vote in the incumbents who failed the electorate on more counts than one.