If the people don’t know where they want to go, no leader will take them there. Let’s not underestimate, or take lightly, our voice and power as voters
OUR politicians accuse the military of not letting them implement democracy in the country. The military, in turn, holds political incompetence and corruption as the reason behind lack of good governance. Guess who is the sole sufferer in this squabble? We, the people of Pakistan, of course.
Elections are in the air. Things are taking place backstage and occasionally revealed in the reshuffling of political loyalties as well as issuance of statements by various parties and individuals. We are lucky this time to have independent television channels for their frank discussion and interview-based programmes that feature prominent personalities. These will certainly help the voters make a better judgment. Before the election activities pick up momentum, it is time, however, to place things in their proper perspective.
The reality is that there is a leadership vacuum at the top in the country. Ideally, this vacuum should be filled by politicians through building up and strengthening of institutions like parliament, judiciary and a strong executive; not to mention efficient and democratically-run political parties. Since the politicians failed to perform this function and missed the opportunities that came their way, the vacuum has never been filled to any degree of satisfaction.
As an old social activist put it, “you may need extraordinary leaders occasionally and in extraordinary conditions, but for day-to-day good governance, only institutions can help a society function efficiently.”
Since the only efficiently organized institution left in the country is that of the armed forces, sections of people and politicians start rallying around them, urging them to take over, more out of desperation than any other reason. This happens also because there is no other practical mechanism to get rid of an unpopular government, or an unwanted prime minister.
Not that the military needs the encouragement offered by such supporters from the public, but it certainly provides the excuse and legitimacy for stepping in. Every such opportunity provided by the civilian governments to their military counterparts has further strengthened the latter’s role and made it more skilled at returning and staying in power. They simply have no competition, all thanks to the political leadership in the country.
Fortunately, Martial Law is not a natural form of government and even if it stays in power for years, its roots remain shallow. Political rule becomes inevitable eventually. Paradoxically, however, with every military interruption, the potential strength of politically-elected governments seems to get weaker. The responsibility to excavate the country from this vicious cycle rests with all, but the price is paid by the people of Pakistan. This situation requires statesmanship, which at present is nowhere in sight.
Some politicians claim that the military does not let them rule. This, in a way, is an admission of their own incompetence. When they had overwhelming votes, an assembly full of parliamentarians, absolute power at the Centre and in most of the provinces, their performance still remained far from being commendable or satisfactory.
They failed to follow proper democratic parliamentary procedures, in letter and in spirit; they failed to build consensus on national issues; to inculcate genuine respect for the Constitution and the rule of law; to act more responsibly and constructively as the Opposition for greater national interest; and to set personal examples of simplicity in living and conducting themselves according to the rules applicable to ordinary citizens.
If the army or the judiciary was perceived as a ‘threat’, this sensitive issue should have been handled delicately, and consensus achieved for greater national interest, instead of allowing conspiracies and confrontations to intrude. After all, balancing and containing various pressure groups and power blocks is one of the basic functions of any political leadership.
The absence of internal organization of political parties on democratic footings — with probably one exception — has also played its part in this regard.
These are the kind of indicators we, the voters, have to monitor objectively, rather than being carried away by slogans and rhetoric. We must also remember, and not justify or apologize for acts like storming high court buildings, expanding family businesses, shopping sprees for mansions, factories and ponies, and muffling the voice of the elected opposition (or even some of the elected members of their own party, for that matter) in assemblies. The tools of persuasion should always remain political debate and consensus, rather than hard cash, forced confinement and persecution, as seen in the past.
The sanctity of Constitution should always remain supreme. Even today, just because the military is in power, it does not absolve the politicians of their obligations towards the public. In fact, it enhances their responsibilities; to draw lessons from the past, set direction for the country’s future and guide the general public.
Fortunately, we have a Martial Law government with a balanced outlook, which has been favoured and supported by a turn of fate due to global events. However, we can have the best brains at the top in the government, guided by the noblest of intentions, but we still cannot have a decent, respectable nation with consistent progress if we don’t have genuine well-rooted institutions in the country; institutions that do not depend on the subjective perception of few individuals, or their own self-assessment alone.
The forthcoming elections latter in the year will offer an opportunity to the people to have a say in the affairs of the country and the future of our nation. It can become a turning point in the life of Pakistan, provided we used the battering we received and our collective experience of the last 25 years as guidance.
The foremost lesson for us is to get involved by shedding the passive helpless attitude many of us have demonstrated before, and cast our vote. We should not underestimate and ignore the personal character of the individual candidate, irrespective of his party affiliations. If he belongs to our favourite party, but is not considered a good individual, let us not vote for him. A decent upright individual elected from the rival group is better than a shady character elected from our respective constituencies.
A low turnout on election day, for whatever reasons, is to our disadvantage and we need to start taking responsibility for our role as the voter. It is observed that the educated segments of society and urban voters show lower turnout during polls, which is not a healthy sign.
In addition to turning out and exercising our right and will in our national affairs when we have the opportunity, some objective lessons need to be underlined in our minds. We need to determine our criterion and national goals on our own, as the people, and not let the politicians or other parties confuse or mislead us.
Although local influentials and narrow ethnic/tribal affiliations have a strong influence on the voter’s behaviour and ballot results, it is time to pay heed to past lessons. It is time to self-educate ourselves as politically conscious and serious voters. We need to earnestly review, and reign-in our tendency for an endless and futile search for an individual saviour.
Our own history, in addition to the world history, amply proves that continuity in political and economic stability cannot be ensured without active participation of the masses in the affairs of the country. In turn, effective involvement of the people and their aspirations cannot be ensured without institutions. A great leader — if found — may or may not be able to rescue our nation, but continued lack of sound institutions is guaranteed to bring disaster sooner than otherwise.
We must also know by now that it is more practical and convenient for the outside powers to control a developing country through an authoritarian government or a civil/military dictatorship, compared to a one with active democratic institutions and public involvement in national decisions.
Notwithstanding our internal strifes, in these critical times it has become even more vital for us to have at least the following respected, fully functional, and integrated set of institutions for making any worthwhile progress — if not for our basic survival:
HEAD OF STATE: As an institution, he should be functioning under, not above, and according to, the Constitution.
PARLIAMENT: It should reflecting the desires of the population. The Senate should be more empowered than in the past, to ensure equal rights and representation to the provinces
JUDICIARY: It should have the independent final verdict on all matters, from day-to-day affairs to constitutional interpretation.
CONSTITUTION: Last, but not the least, it shoudl be legally amendable, but not suspendible under any circumstances.
As long as kitchen cabinets of politicians, or group of generals and technocrats continue to believe they know what is best for the country, while the majority of the people do not, we are not going to get out of our troubles. If we keep repeating the mistakes of the last five decades, our next fifty years are not going to be any better. In fact, they will be worse. If we, the people, don’t know where we want to go, no leader will take us there. Let’s keep the above national goals in mind, and let’s not underestimate, or take lightly, our voice and power as voters.
If the people don’t know where they want to go, no leader will take them there. Let’s not underestimate, or take lightly, our voice and power as voters 
