Like any other electoral exercise, last Sunday’s local government election in parts of Punjab and Sindh raised quite a few issues that should be on the agenda of any promoter of democratic institutions.

The bloodbath in Khairpur diverted attention from the structural obstacles to democratic politics in Sindh, and the reality that the provincial government faces serious challenges to its authority from a wadera-bureaucracy (mainly police) axis in parts of the territory. This alliance decides law and order cases and matters related to elections. The mainstream parties’ success in elections depends on their ability to absorb these wadera-police combines.

This situation has two serious implications. First, attempts to deal with dissident waderas/tribal chiefs through extra-political means will be fraught with the risk of bloody conflict. And, secondly, the democratic-minded political parties will continue to face heavy odds while trying to promote peaceful and fair electoral procedures.

There will be intense tussles among the political parties to win over the independents.

In Punjab the position is somewhat different. Here the bureaucracy by and large does not operate independently of the government and those who challenge the incumbents have to do without bureaucratic support. Thus the main problem faced by political parties was their own incapacity to understand the dynamics of local elections.

Jamaat-i-Islami tried the old leftist tactic of infiltrating popular parties and failed. The view that it might have done better by concentrating on its pockets of influence cannot easily be dismissed. The PML-Q had to be contented with small and scattered victories because it was still struggling to establish its political relevance. The PPP, virtually leaderless in Punjab, could not do any better than holding a union council or two in the constituencies from where it had in the past won seats in the national and provincial assemblies, though it did find quite a few activists who were not afraid of disclosing their party affiliation. Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf surprised everybody by failing to turn its public support on the ground into electoral strength. The reason could be the party’s lack of interest in organised activity at the grass-roots level and its failure to persuade the affluent class to come out to vote in low-grade elections.

But the case that deserves serious study is that of the PML-N. With all the advantages of a favourable wind, the party conceded around 47pc of the seats of chairman panels up for election in the province to independents. It is said that a majority of these candidates are PML-N supporters and had opted to contest independently after they had been refused party tickets. The rift in party ranks in Faisalabad district, where a huge pile of the party’s dirty linen was washed in public, made headlines for days on end.

The reasons for the large-scale defection from the ruling party, even if it is temporary, need to be explored because they seem to have their roots in the country’s peculiar political culture.

First of all, a ruling party that is a favourite to win the electoral race will have difficulty in satisfying all the candidates for its patronage. It can guard against defections only if the rank and file are convinced that the selection of candidates has been made fairly and on merit.

It seems the political parties have not paid due attention to the fact that the small size of electoral units in local elections stirs ambitions in a much larger number of bosoms than is the case in provincial- and national-level elections. The common tendency in party leaderships to choose all candidates from above and satisfy the lust for power of their MNAs/MPAs often invites a strong backlash. But in their present state of organisation it is doubtful if the Pakistani political parties will adopt the easy way out by awarding tickets to candidates after ascertaining their popularity through an intra-party process.

Now there will be intense tussles among the political parties to win over the independents as they will drive bargains in proportion to the suitors’ need of their support. The people’s memories of this kind of horse-trading have recently been revived by reports of a party loyalist’s demand for a high office as a reward for defeating the party’s official nominee. Equally important is the question as to how the party will apply its disciplinary code, if it has any, to its loud-mouthed renegades.

A factor that also contributed to increase in the number of independents was the arrival of a new section of the prosperous class that has resources only to contest local body seats. This class, dominated by urban traders and rich peasants, has real stakes in local government because it is expected to decide matters related to land disposal, law and order, and numerous civic facilities.

Strangely enough, these candidates jumped into the fray without realising that they will have little possibility of enjoying real power as the provincial governments have robbed the local government institutions of their essential functions. More amazing still was the absence of any debate on the downsizing of local bodies during the election process. The newly elected councils may have to take up the issues of local bodies’ due empowerment beyond the stage some civil society organisations have taken it in defence of the rights of women and minorities.

All these aspects of electoral politics highlight the critical distortion of the meaning and purpose of rule by elected representatives. The commonly shared objective of seeking a place in elected councils is acquisition of power for personal/group benefit. The idea of considering election as a representative of the people as a reward in itself and an opportunity to do good by one’s fellow beings, if it was ever alive, has been laid to rest. And no turnaround looks possible without dedicated efforts to foster a culture of democratic politics.

Published in Dawn, November 5th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play